What do you think?
Rate this book
HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES SECOND: 001
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
422 pages, Paperback
First published June 26, 1848
96 people are currently reading
281 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Babington Macaulay
2,719 books118 followersThomas 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
January 3, 2016
The 20th century wasn't very kind to The History of England's reputation as a work of history. I don't know the material well enough to speak to these criticisms, but I suppose there is a lot of substance behind them. Certainly Macaulay shows his biases and prejudices from time to time, probably enough to cause the modern reader to question the reliability of his narrative. But at the same time, who cares. Because whatever more modern and evenhanded historians may have over him, very few of them can come close to writing with the verve and style that drips off every page Macaulay wrote.
Whatever the title might suggest, the first volume of The History of England, from the Accession of James II doesn't actually reach the accession of James II until well past the halfway mark of the volume. The first three chapters serve as a long introduction. The first chapter provides a semi-brief overview of the history of England from the time of the Conqueror up to the Restoration, which is a thrilling feat of literary prose. The second chapter gives a semi-detailed account of the 25 year reign of Charles II. The third chapter gives an overview of the contemporary economic, social, and cultural climate in England. While these chapters are too long to be considered a brief overview, they could frustrate readers not overly familiar with the details of the period. For example, Macaulay generally refrains from referencing dates, so the reader is often unsure not only what the month or year is, but what decade the events took place in. Also, while Macaulay does an impressive job of introducing and familiarizing the reader with the important figures of Charles reign, they tend to get lost in the shuffle. The practice of referring to individuals soley by their last name, or their tiles (or their last names, then once granted their titles) once they are introduced doesn't help overwhelmed readers. I'm not sure what more Macaulay could have done to prevent this, except to spend even more time time on an era that is supposedly outside of his proposed purview, so it's hard to say that these shortcomings are a fault. Nonetheless it's something for the reader to be aware of.
It's not until the fourth chapter that Macaulay reaches the beginnings of his actual narrative. These two chapters cover the early months of James II's reign and the disastrous and futile rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth, the popular illegitimate son of Charles II, and James' vindictive and misguided policy that followed. Appropriately he slows things way down. The first chapter covers 600 years of history. The second chapter covers 25 years. By contrast the fourth chapter begins with the death of Charles II in February 1685 and the fifth chapter ends with the Bloody Assizes in August of the same year. Here, the reader begins to get a much better feel of the important figures of the time and how one event flowed to another.
Of course three years after the complete failure of Monmouth's cause, James II would be driven from his throne without hardly any bloodshed. The Whigs, or the Country Party, who were at an all-time low after the Exclusion Crisis and and James' succession, would very quickly repair their reputation, overthrow the king, and dominate English politics for the next several generations. The Tories and Churchmen, who had held unquestioned obedience to the sovereign as one of the central tenants of the state-church since Restoration, would very quickly condone, if outright collude in, the overthrow of the rightful monarch. We're introduced to several figures who would play prominent roles in this reversal, and the events that followed. Macaulay introduces us to figures like Churchill, Danby, William of Orange, and Jeffreys.
The History of England used to be one of those books that no self-respecting private library went without. It was one of those books that became a status statement, displayed not because you had read it but because you liked the impression it created that you had read it. It's reputation has taken a hit even among aficionados because the history isn't unimpeachable. That's a shame, because it appears that the storytelling is.
Whatever the title might suggest, the first volume of The History of England, from the Accession of James II doesn't actually reach the accession of James II until well past the halfway mark of the volume. The first three chapters serve as a long introduction. The first chapter provides a semi-brief overview of the history of England from the time of the Conqueror up to the Restoration, which is a thrilling feat of literary prose. The second chapter gives a semi-detailed account of the 25 year reign of Charles II. The third chapter gives an overview of the contemporary economic, social, and cultural climate in England. While these chapters are too long to be considered a brief overview, they could frustrate readers not overly familiar with the details of the period. For example, Macaulay generally refrains from referencing dates, so the reader is often unsure not only what the month or year is, but what decade the events took place in. Also, while Macaulay does an impressive job of introducing and familiarizing the reader with the important figures of Charles reign, they tend to get lost in the shuffle. The practice of referring to individuals soley by their last name, or their tiles (or their last names, then once granted their titles) once they are introduced doesn't help overwhelmed readers. I'm not sure what more Macaulay could have done to prevent this, except to spend even more time time on an era that is supposedly outside of his proposed purview, so it's hard to say that these shortcomings are a fault. Nonetheless it's something for the reader to be aware of.
It's not until the fourth chapter that Macaulay reaches the beginnings of his actual narrative. These two chapters cover the early months of James II's reign and the disastrous and futile rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth, the popular illegitimate son of Charles II, and James' vindictive and misguided policy that followed. Appropriately he slows things way down. The first chapter covers 600 years of history. The second chapter covers 25 years. By contrast the fourth chapter begins with the death of Charles II in February 1685 and the fifth chapter ends with the Bloody Assizes in August of the same year. Here, the reader begins to get a much better feel of the important figures of the time and how one event flowed to another.
Of course three years after the complete failure of Monmouth's cause, James II would be driven from his throne without hardly any bloodshed. The Whigs, or the Country Party, who were at an all-time low after the Exclusion Crisis and and James' succession, would very quickly repair their reputation, overthrow the king, and dominate English politics for the next several generations. The Tories and Churchmen, who had held unquestioned obedience to the sovereign as one of the central tenants of the state-church since Restoration, would very quickly condone, if outright collude in, the overthrow of the rightful monarch. We're introduced to several figures who would play prominent roles in this reversal, and the events that followed. Macaulay introduces us to figures like Churchill, Danby, William of Orange, and Jeffreys.
The History of England used to be one of those books that no self-respecting private library went without. It was one of those books that became a status statement, displayed not because you had read it but because you liked the impression it created that you had read it. It's reputation has taken a hit even among aficionados because the history isn't unimpeachable. That's a shame, because it appears that the storytelling is.
June 4, 2018
Winston Churchill refers to Macaulay as a main source, along with Gibbon, that influenced the young historian-politician when he was serving in the army in India. One can see right away what Churchill means in the opening of Macaulay's incredible, epic work, with its sweeping view of British history as the rise of a parliament-limited monarchy out of the commonwealth of conquering Normans and gentry Anglo-Saxons. This takes us quickly, in the first chapter, past the Plantagenets and up to the rule of the Stuarts, who initiate modernization through their own attempts to establish absolute rule.
After more than seventy years without major civil insurrection in England proper, King Charles I dreamed of absolute rule, and in particular the ability to finance his court and his armies without need of parliament. Parliament responded by raising armies of its own. Macaulay argues that, while Parliament was bound to win eventually, having access to tax revenues while the Royals could only sell off jewels and take out loans, the King's supporters included more battle-ready nobles who held their own in the first months of the civil war. It was only later that Oliver Cromwell emerged, with his regiment of extreme Puritans, and shaped parliament's army into a disciplined force that defeated Charles I. Cromwell didn't personally wish to execute Charles I, says Macaulay, but his army of extremist anti-Catholics wished to destroy a royal family they knew to be Catholic sympathizers. The beheading of the king was thus a gap in the control of the otherwise charismatic Cromwell, who held the new military dictatorship together for a few years on the strength of his personality, and this despite the strain Puritan rule put on society:
Public amusements, from the masques which were exhibited at the mansions of the great down to the wrestling matches and grinning matches on village greens, were vigorously attacked. One ordinance directed that all the Maypoles in England should forthwith be hewn down. Another proscribed all theatrical diversions. The playhouses were to be dismantled, the spectators fined, the actors whipped at the cart's tail. Rope-dancing, puppet-shows, bowls, horse-racing, were regarded with no friendly eye. But bearbaiting, then a favourite diversion of high and low, was the abomination which most strongly stirred the wrath of the austere sectaries. It is to be remarked that their antipathy to this sport had nothing in common with the feeling which has, in our own time, induced the legislature to interfere for the purpose of protecting beasts against the wanton cruelty of men. The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Indeed, he generally contrived to enjoy the double pleasure of tormenting both spectators and bear. (Chapter 2)
Christmas celebrations were also banned, with people told to fast instead, to much grumbling and flouting of the laws. Macaulay argues that England's single brief flirtation with military dictatorship served to bring together all the feuding factions of gentry and aristocracy, and the larger public opinion, towards the old English constitution, namely the free election of a Parliament empowered to hold taxes, and the grand tradition of the royal family holding military authority, within reason. After the Restoration, both Charles II and James II would dream as their father had done, of absolute rule, and even seek support from Louis XIV of France, despite the wiser notion of early "diplomatists" that it would be better make alliances with rising Holland and Sweden to contain the expansionary French. The drama of France, the Stuarts and imperfect statesman like Lord Danby (Thomas Osborne, 1632-1712) and the Marquess of Halifax (George Savile, 1633-1695) form the political context for the Anglo-Dutch War and the Glorious Revolution to come. An attempt to overthrow Charles II, the Rye House plot, was botched in its early stages, but involves one Titus Oates, a "perjurer" who traded in conspiracy theories against Catholics.
Chapter Three is by far the most interesting of the book, as the whirlwind of politics is left aside for a minute overview of Britain in the the 17th century, and how different it was from the 19th century Macaulay knew. There were wild woods, then, and moors, that supported a floating population of commoners. The north, around York, was very primitive before the days of coal. The country’s tradition of responsible economic management was just beginning, and only a few, like Danby and North, understood the nuances of world trade, and debt and taxes. The land was unfair, and taxes on the poor more punishing than we can imagine tolerating today.
The militia was the only army of England, in those wary years after Cromwell, but Charles II quietly saved and built a new standing army, which would be the foundation of the modern British army. A professional navy grew, in fits and starts, with gentleman and seamen, but at first lacking training centers. Total expenditures on the military were much lower then than today. Diplomacy similarly received only the barest little investment in those days, which was a symptom of the general situation in which public funds supported lavish wealth where they ought to have been spent on the public good. Agricultural economy was primitive in those days, with poor breeds of wheat and cattle and horse, and unhealthy salt. Finer products came from abroad, or were exported. Country gentlemen at this time combined crude ignorance and low speech with true aristocratic feeling; it was they who fought for Charles when cosmopolitan minds had left him. Country priests were impoverished, much in decline since the days of Wolsey, leaving them little time to study, and so they remained ignorant and intolerant to latitudinarian tendencies of urban prelates. Beyond London, the largest port and county towns, Norwich and Bristol, were puny and provincial compared to today, with populations scarcely 30,000. Many new towns like Manchester would be significant soon after. County towns were the centers of culture and pleasure for the county squires who rarely went to London.
London was the capital, where men formed opinions with each other in coffeehouses, and aristocrats like the Duke of Monmouth kept great mansions and gardens. It was also dark, dirty, and filled with many piles of trash, with poor roads that flooded and trapped carts and pedestrians. And thieves and rapists plied at night along unlit roads. Conveyance was inconvenient, with bad politics leaving bad roads. Highwaymen lurked on all routes wealth was known to travel; they had a romantic public image, particularly among the poor and women, who found them sexy.
Gradually, the country was pulling itself out of a dark age. The postal service made its appearance, improving communication. Pubs were popular resting stops and nodes for news and public opinion throughout the country, with good food and warm congeniality. The London Gazette began as a simple newsletter delivered to a few places, like Cambridge. Press censorship was general at this time, and few books or media turned a profit. One exception was drama, which exhibited the general state of moral turpitude, a direct reaction against the extremism and hypocrisy of Puritanism. It was not a great age for literature, nor for art and architecture, Christopher Wren's example notwithstanding. Physics rose up and began to develop in Britain as in other parts of Europe, a remarkable fact given the social obstructions to intellectual life; the life and achievements of Isaac Newton are the most remarkable of all, as he combines abstract and practical genius as no one else has since. (In a liberal society, we must strive to create a world where the Newtons can survive plague and poverty and gain the resources they need to develop their talents.) The vast masses of Britain earned very little, and suffered the abuses of high taxation, and child labor, as well as the other low conditions, like difficult transport. Prisons were hell. There are always some, Macaulay muses, who imagine the past to be one of greater humanity, and the modern age is degraded. But a more accurate proposition might be to say that our impression of progress made is great enough to alert us to our own imperfect conditions, but unhistorical enough to lead us to look to the past for solutions to our problems. Our discontent should drive us forward.
Chapter Four marks a return to the political story of the ascension of James II and its repercussions. Macaulay offers a detailed account of Charles II's unexpected death in 1685, and especially how he converted to Catholicism in a last minute victory of personal conviction over political expedience. Rumors abounded soon after that Charles had been poisoned.
James II was very different from his brother in personality, though not so much in fundamental values. Halifax and others were demoted as James established his own favorites into positions of power. We learn about Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, famous for his cruelty in enforcing the King's wrath on his enemies:
Many would die after facing Jeffreys' bench. Meanwhile, James II is scrupulous in calling parliamentary elections to take in taxes, despite his own sense that he need to toady to Louis XIV. Fortunes were made and lost as power and resources were given up and re-consolidated. Take John Churchill as a case in point, the older brother of James' mistress:
Macaulay makes the point that the striving against one another advanced the transformation of British political form, which was just then at an unhappy midpoint between absolute rule of the king and government by parliament. But civil procedures and social and political institutions were on developing in those years. Tolerance for Catholics was on the rise, as well, for though ecclesiastical disputes simmered, contrary parties came to truce in the face of John's Catholicism, and Pope Innocent IX, feeling his way towards conflict with Louis XIV, looked for ways to re-approach Britain.
The Tory party was at the height of its power, to the disadvantage of the Whigs, who were suspected of killing Charles as part of their effort to remove the Stuarts. Whigs not only lost the general election of 1685, but faced massive discrimination from their peers at all levels of British society. James II, who had been for religious freedom during his years of exile, tended to oppress Calvinists and Presbyterian groups, especially in Scotland, which had fewer legal and political controls against torture, and many martyrs are still remembered. The Quakers largely escaped political notice, being that they mostly avoided political discourse, with the notable exception of WIlliam Penn, one of James' most important courtiers, and a man whose thoughts on political form would come to fruition in the colonies.
King and Parliament agreed on policies for religious exclusion, like the Test Act, but disagreed on the details. This and the right to Habeus Corpus were the subject of the main debates on the rights of citizens. Tory supporters of the king rose to majorities after the election, handing the king new taxes, designed partly by the early economist Dudley North.
Rebellion is the theme of the final chapter of volume one, Chapter Five. The Duke of Monmouth, Charles II's estranged son in Holland, partied like a dandy while his father was alive, but despaired when his cruel and jealous uncle came to power, making him vulnerable, Macaulay says, to the demands for rebellion put out by other British exiles active in Holland, especially one Robert Ferguson:
At length he turned his attention almost entirely from theology to the worst part of politics. He belonged to the class whose office it is to render in troubled times to exasperated parties those services from which honest men shrink in disgust and prudent men in fear, the class of fanatical knaves. Violent, malignant, regardless of truth, insensible to shame, insatiable of notoriety, delighting in intrigue, in tumult, in mischief for its own sake, he toiled during many years in the darkest mines of faction. He lived among libellers and false witnesses. He was the keeper of a secret purse from which agents too vile to be acknowledged received hire, and the director of a secret press whence pamphlets, bearing no name, were daily issued. He boasted that he had contrived to scatter lampoons about the terrace of Windsor, and even to lay them under the royal pillow. In this way of life he was put to many shifts, was forced to assume many names, and at one time had four different lodgings in different corners of London. He was deeply engaged in the Rye House plot.
Ferguson convinced Monmouth to head a resistance party, including an army that would be commanded, though only in commonwealth by committee, by Lord Argyle, a Presbyterian aristocrat of Scotland who was no fan of James II. Argyle should have demanded unity of command under him. Monmouth was brave, but had a "soft mind," no good for the details of such an undertaking. In painstaking detail, we witness how the rebellion failed. Forces were mounted to leave from Amsterdam, a republican city that flouted its supposed oversight from the States General or Prince William, the Stadtholder, who were supposed to help James by stopping Monmouth. Once in Britain, though, clumsy and ineffective troop movements ensured failure for Argyle in Scotland, and Monmouth, later, from the south. Interestingly, both Argyle and Monmouth had been supported by rich women in Holland. Scottish rebellion was hurt by disunity among Scottish Presbyterians, Argyle being a Campbell, hated by other Scottish families. Monmouth found great support in the town of Taunton, but only among the virulent anti-Catholic townspeople, and not the nobility and gentry, who weren't persuaded Monmouth wouldn't change the political situation too much for them to hold power and wealth. Ferguson and Monmouth were unable to score wins that they needed, and anti-Puritan sentiment in and out of London was too strong still to move the larger population. Monmouth made a final stand at a place called Sedgemore, in a battle that Macaulay narrates with pleasing levels of excitement. Unlike his father or grandfather, Monmouth did not die with dignity, but begged for his life from James II. In the wake of the failed rebellion, James and Jeffreys put many to death, in what was a low moment of British legal history. The reputation of the Puritans and the Whigs was as low as ever. But surprising change was just around the corner. I was surprised to find that Macaulay does not sum up the volume as he did the first chapter, but I suppose he meant to leave us primed for the volume to follow, in which the Glorious Revolution must take center stage.
After more than seventy years without major civil insurrection in England proper, King Charles I dreamed of absolute rule, and in particular the ability to finance his court and his armies without need of parliament. Parliament responded by raising armies of its own. Macaulay argues that, while Parliament was bound to win eventually, having access to tax revenues while the Royals could only sell off jewels and take out loans, the King's supporters included more battle-ready nobles who held their own in the first months of the civil war. It was only later that Oliver Cromwell emerged, with his regiment of extreme Puritans, and shaped parliament's army into a disciplined force that defeated Charles I. Cromwell didn't personally wish to execute Charles I, says Macaulay, but his army of extremist anti-Catholics wished to destroy a royal family they knew to be Catholic sympathizers. The beheading of the king was thus a gap in the control of the otherwise charismatic Cromwell, who held the new military dictatorship together for a few years on the strength of his personality, and this despite the strain Puritan rule put on society:
Public amusements, from the masques which were exhibited at the mansions of the great down to the wrestling matches and grinning matches on village greens, were vigorously attacked. One ordinance directed that all the Maypoles in England should forthwith be hewn down. Another proscribed all theatrical diversions. The playhouses were to be dismantled, the spectators fined, the actors whipped at the cart's tail. Rope-dancing, puppet-shows, bowls, horse-racing, were regarded with no friendly eye. But bearbaiting, then a favourite diversion of high and low, was the abomination which most strongly stirred the wrath of the austere sectaries. It is to be remarked that their antipathy to this sport had nothing in common with the feeling which has, in our own time, induced the legislature to interfere for the purpose of protecting beasts against the wanton cruelty of men. The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Indeed, he generally contrived to enjoy the double pleasure of tormenting both spectators and bear. (Chapter 2)
Christmas celebrations were also banned, with people told to fast instead, to much grumbling and flouting of the laws. Macaulay argues that England's single brief flirtation with military dictatorship served to bring together all the feuding factions of gentry and aristocracy, and the larger public opinion, towards the old English constitution, namely the free election of a Parliament empowered to hold taxes, and the grand tradition of the royal family holding military authority, within reason. After the Restoration, both Charles II and James II would dream as their father had done, of absolute rule, and even seek support from Louis XIV of France, despite the wiser notion of early "diplomatists" that it would be better make alliances with rising Holland and Sweden to contain the expansionary French. The drama of France, the Stuarts and imperfect statesman like Lord Danby (Thomas Osborne, 1632-1712) and the Marquess of Halifax (George Savile, 1633-1695) form the political context for the Anglo-Dutch War and the Glorious Revolution to come. An attempt to overthrow Charles II, the Rye House plot, was botched in its early stages, but involves one Titus Oates, a "perjurer" who traded in conspiracy theories against Catholics.
Chapter Three is by far the most interesting of the book, as the whirlwind of politics is left aside for a minute overview of Britain in the the 17th century, and how different it was from the 19th century Macaulay knew. There were wild woods, then, and moors, that supported a floating population of commoners. The north, around York, was very primitive before the days of coal. The country’s tradition of responsible economic management was just beginning, and only a few, like Danby and North, understood the nuances of world trade, and debt and taxes. The land was unfair, and taxes on the poor more punishing than we can imagine tolerating today.
The militia was the only army of England, in those wary years after Cromwell, but Charles II quietly saved and built a new standing army, which would be the foundation of the modern British army. A professional navy grew, in fits and starts, with gentleman and seamen, but at first lacking training centers. Total expenditures on the military were much lower then than today. Diplomacy similarly received only the barest little investment in those days, which was a symptom of the general situation in which public funds supported lavish wealth where they ought to have been spent on the public good. Agricultural economy was primitive in those days, with poor breeds of wheat and cattle and horse, and unhealthy salt. Finer products came from abroad, or were exported. Country gentlemen at this time combined crude ignorance and low speech with true aristocratic feeling; it was they who fought for Charles when cosmopolitan minds had left him. Country priests were impoverished, much in decline since the days of Wolsey, leaving them little time to study, and so they remained ignorant and intolerant to latitudinarian tendencies of urban prelates. Beyond London, the largest port and county towns, Norwich and Bristol, were puny and provincial compared to today, with populations scarcely 30,000. Many new towns like Manchester would be significant soon after. County towns were the centers of culture and pleasure for the county squires who rarely went to London.
London was the capital, where men formed opinions with each other in coffeehouses, and aristocrats like the Duke of Monmouth kept great mansions and gardens. It was also dark, dirty, and filled with many piles of trash, with poor roads that flooded and trapped carts and pedestrians. And thieves and rapists plied at night along unlit roads. Conveyance was inconvenient, with bad politics leaving bad roads. Highwaymen lurked on all routes wealth was known to travel; they had a romantic public image, particularly among the poor and women, who found them sexy.
Gradually, the country was pulling itself out of a dark age. The postal service made its appearance, improving communication. Pubs were popular resting stops and nodes for news and public opinion throughout the country, with good food and warm congeniality. The London Gazette began as a simple newsletter delivered to a few places, like Cambridge. Press censorship was general at this time, and few books or media turned a profit. One exception was drama, which exhibited the general state of moral turpitude, a direct reaction against the extremism and hypocrisy of Puritanism. It was not a great age for literature, nor for art and architecture, Christopher Wren's example notwithstanding. Physics rose up and began to develop in Britain as in other parts of Europe, a remarkable fact given the social obstructions to intellectual life; the life and achievements of Isaac Newton are the most remarkable of all, as he combines abstract and practical genius as no one else has since. (In a liberal society, we must strive to create a world where the Newtons can survive plague and poverty and gain the resources they need to develop their talents.) The vast masses of Britain earned very little, and suffered the abuses of high taxation, and child labor, as well as the other low conditions, like difficult transport. Prisons were hell. There are always some, Macaulay muses, who imagine the past to be one of greater humanity, and the modern age is degraded. But a more accurate proposition might be to say that our impression of progress made is great enough to alert us to our own imperfect conditions, but unhistorical enough to lead us to look to the past for solutions to our problems. Our discontent should drive us forward.
Chapter Four marks a return to the political story of the ascension of James II and its repercussions. Macaulay offers a detailed account of Charles II's unexpected death in 1685, and especially how he converted to Catholicism in a last minute victory of personal conviction over political expedience. Rumors abounded soon after that Charles had been poisoned.
James II was very different from his brother in personality, though not so much in fundamental values. Halifax and others were demoted as James established his own favorites into positions of power. We learn about Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, famous for his cruelty in enforcing the King's wrath on his enemies:
He was a man of quick and vigorous parts, but constitutionally prone to insolence and to the angry passions. When just emerging from boyhood he had risen into practice at the Old Bailey bar, a bar where advocates have always used a license of tongue unknown in Westminster Hall. Here, during many years his chief business was to examine and crossexamine the most hardened miscreants of a great capital. Daily conflicts with prostitutes and thieves called out and exercised his powers so effectually that he became the most consummate bully ever known in his profession. Tenderness for others and respect for himself were feelings alike unknown to him. He acquired a boundless command of the rhetoric in which the vulgar express hatred and contempt. The profusion of maledictions and vituperative epithets which composed his vocabulary could hardly have been rivalled in the fishmarket or the beargarden. His countenance and his voice must always have been unamiable. But these natural advantages,—for such he seems to have thought them,—he had improved to such a degree that there were few who, in his paroxysms of rage, could see or hear him without emotion. Impudence and ferocity sate upon his brow. The glare of his eyes had a fascination for the unhappy victim on whom they were fixed. Yet his brow and his eye were less terrible than the savage lines of his mouth. His yell of fury, as was said by one who had often heard it, sounded like the thunder of the judgment day.
Many would die after facing Jeffreys' bench. Meanwhile, James II is scrupulous in calling parliamentary elections to take in taxes, despite his own sense that he need to toady to Louis XIV. Fortunes were made and lost as power and resources were given up and re-consolidated. Take John Churchill as a case in point, the older brother of James' mistress:
...a fine youth, who carried a pair of colours in the foot guards. He rose fast in the court and in the army, and was early distinguished as a man of fashion and of pleasure. His stature was commanding, his face handsome, his address singularly winning, yet of such dignity that the most impertinent fops never ventured to take any liberty with him; his temper, even in the most vexatious and irritating circumstances, always under perfect command. His education had been so much neglected that he could not spell the most common words of his own language: but his acute and vigorous understanding amply supplied the place of book learning. He was not talkative: but when he was forced to speak in public, his natural eloquence moved the envy of practiced rhetoricians. 239 His courage was singularly cool and imperturbable. During many years of anxiety and peril, he never, in any emergency, lost even for a moment, the perfect use of his admirable judgment.
In his twenty-third year he was sent with his regiment to join the French forces, then engaged in operations against Holland. His serene intrepidity distinguished him among thousands of brave soldiers. His professional skill commanded the respect of veteran officers. He was publicly thanked at the head of the army, and received many marks of esteem and confidence from Turenne, who was then at the height of military glory.
Unhappily the splendid qualities of John Churchill were mingled with alloy of the most sordid kind. Some propensities, which in youth are singularly ungraceful, began very early to show themselves in him. He was thrifty in his very vices, and levied ample contributions on ladies enriched by the spoils of more liberal lovers. He was, during a short time, the object of the violent but fickle fondness of the Duchess of Cleveland. On one occasion he was caught with her by the King, and was forced to leap out of the window. She rewarded this hazardous feat of gallantry with a present of five thousand pounds. With this sum the prudent young hero instantly bought an annuity of five hundred a year, well secured on landed property. 240 Already his private drawer contained a hoard of broad pieces which, fifty years later, when he was a Duke, a Prince of the Empire, and the richest subject in Europe, remained untouched.
Macaulay makes the point that the striving against one another advanced the transformation of British political form, which was just then at an unhappy midpoint between absolute rule of the king and government by parliament. But civil procedures and social and political institutions were on developing in those years. Tolerance for Catholics was on the rise, as well, for though ecclesiastical disputes simmered, contrary parties came to truce in the face of John's Catholicism, and Pope Innocent IX, feeling his way towards conflict with Louis XIV, looked for ways to re-approach Britain.
The Tory party was at the height of its power, to the disadvantage of the Whigs, who were suspected of killing Charles as part of their effort to remove the Stuarts. Whigs not only lost the general election of 1685, but faced massive discrimination from their peers at all levels of British society. James II, who had been for religious freedom during his years of exile, tended to oppress Calvinists and Presbyterian groups, especially in Scotland, which had fewer legal and political controls against torture, and many martyrs are still remembered. The Quakers largely escaped political notice, being that they mostly avoided political discourse, with the notable exception of WIlliam Penn, one of James' most important courtiers, and a man whose thoughts on political form would come to fruition in the colonies.
King and Parliament agreed on policies for religious exclusion, like the Test Act, but disagreed on the details. This and the right to Habeus Corpus were the subject of the main debates on the rights of citizens. Tory supporters of the king rose to majorities after the election, handing the king new taxes, designed partly by the early economist Dudley North.
Rebellion is the theme of the final chapter of volume one, Chapter Five. The Duke of Monmouth, Charles II's estranged son in Holland, partied like a dandy while his father was alive, but despaired when his cruel and jealous uncle came to power, making him vulnerable, Macaulay says, to the demands for rebellion put out by other British exiles active in Holland, especially one Robert Ferguson:
Ferguson was by birth a Scot; but England had long been his residence. At the time of the Restoration, indeed, he had held a living in Kent. He had been bred a Presbyterian; but the Presbyterians had cast him out, and he had become an Independent. He had been master of an academy which the Dissenters had set up at Islington as a rival to Westminster School and the Charter House; and he had preached to large congregations at a meeting house in Moorfields. He had also published some theological treatises which may still be found in the dusty recesses of a few old libraries; but, though texts of Scripture were always on his lips, those who had pecuniary transactions with him soon found him to be a mere swindler.
At length he turned his attention almost entirely from theology to the worst part of politics. He belonged to the class whose office it is to render in troubled times to exasperated parties those services from which honest men shrink in disgust and prudent men in fear, the class of fanatical knaves. Violent, malignant, regardless of truth, insensible to shame, insatiable of notoriety, delighting in intrigue, in tumult, in mischief for its own sake, he toiled during many years in the darkest mines of faction. He lived among libellers and false witnesses. He was the keeper of a secret purse from which agents too vile to be acknowledged received hire, and the director of a secret press whence pamphlets, bearing no name, were daily issued. He boasted that he had contrived to scatter lampoons about the terrace of Windsor, and even to lay them under the royal pillow. In this way of life he was put to many shifts, was forced to assume many names, and at one time had four different lodgings in different corners of London. He was deeply engaged in the Rye House plot.
Ferguson convinced Monmouth to head a resistance party, including an army that would be commanded, though only in commonwealth by committee, by Lord Argyle, a Presbyterian aristocrat of Scotland who was no fan of James II. Argyle should have demanded unity of command under him. Monmouth was brave, but had a "soft mind," no good for the details of such an undertaking. In painstaking detail, we witness how the rebellion failed. Forces were mounted to leave from Amsterdam, a republican city that flouted its supposed oversight from the States General or Prince William, the Stadtholder, who were supposed to help James by stopping Monmouth. Once in Britain, though, clumsy and ineffective troop movements ensured failure for Argyle in Scotland, and Monmouth, later, from the south. Interestingly, both Argyle and Monmouth had been supported by rich women in Holland. Scottish rebellion was hurt by disunity among Scottish Presbyterians, Argyle being a Campbell, hated by other Scottish families. Monmouth found great support in the town of Taunton, but only among the virulent anti-Catholic townspeople, and not the nobility and gentry, who weren't persuaded Monmouth wouldn't change the political situation too much for them to hold power and wealth. Ferguson and Monmouth were unable to score wins that they needed, and anti-Puritan sentiment in and out of London was too strong still to move the larger population. Monmouth made a final stand at a place called Sedgemore, in a battle that Macaulay narrates with pleasing levels of excitement. Unlike his father or grandfather, Monmouth did not die with dignity, but begged for his life from James II. In the wake of the failed rebellion, James and Jeffreys put many to death, in what was a low moment of British legal history. The reputation of the Puritans and the Whigs was as low as ever. But surprising change was just around the corner. I was surprised to find that Macaulay does not sum up the volume as he did the first chapter, but I suppose he meant to leave us primed for the volume to follow, in which the Glorious Revolution must take center stage.
April 17, 2022
This is a tremendous work of history and literature. I'm not competent to judge the historical accuracy and have to rely on the judgement of posterity. This is one of the most famous histories of all time so I think it's fair to say that it is a seriously respected work of history. I can comment on the writing, which is fantastic. Of course the language is a little antiquated and I had to think a little bit about the meaning of words here and there, but the overall sense comes through beautifully and it's not a hard read. A slight frustration for me is that many of the footnotes contain quotations from letters in French or Dutch. The edition I read does not provide translations of these so I felt that I was missing some details.
I particularly liked the passages in which the author details an argument for one side of a point that was in contention at the time in question, and then provides an equivalent argument for the other side. It's like being in a court room listening to two excellent advocates pleading cases in opposition - you're convinced in one direction by the first speaker and then in the other by the second, or else left weighing the merits of both. The author acknowledges his Whig leanings but seems to do his best to present both the positives and the negatives of the behaviours of all parties.
Slightly spoiling the reading experience are some sweeping generalisations and prejudices - the Irish, in particular, are described uncharitably. Anyone reading a work of this vintage understands that they will encounter old-fashioned views that don't meet modern anti-prejudicial standards or stand up to modern enlightened thinking. The author seems to have been remarkably unprejudiced and enlightened for his time, but don't expect a fully "woke" treatment.
Overall, I think this is brilliant. Well worth the 2 months it took me to finish it. I'm now working my way through volume 2.
December 3, 2014
The rare combination between a literary masterpiece and a history book, and absolutely essential to understanding the development of civil rights in America. Insightful, powerful, gripping -- one of my favorite history books I've ever read. Going to read the rest of the series.
October 5, 2017
One of my greatest literary regrets is that Macaulay didn't live long enough to complete this masterpiece. It is a work of compelling prose style, quite a match for Gibbon's "Decline and Fall"; amd in addition to conveying the vast sweep of the period with which it deals, it is constantly arresting in terms of Macaulay's ability to present the colourful details that bring English life and society into a preternaturally sharp focus.
Is there a downside to this classic? Frankly, no. Some modern readers with hip-hop attention spans will be defeated by the beautifully cadenced flow of Macaulay's superb prose style, but that's their loss. Some modern academic historians, infuriated like Shakespeare's Caliban at their encounter with a greater mind, will nit-pick over Macaulay's conclusions - forgetting that all history is to some extent subjective, and that Macaulay made no secret of placing himself firmly in the Whig historical tradition.
More than just an historical study, this is a sublime work of art. Anyone who enjoys "reality TV" game-shows would probably be best advised to leave these five volumes on the shelf.
Is there a downside to this classic? Frankly, no. Some modern readers with hip-hop attention spans will be defeated by the beautifully cadenced flow of Macaulay's superb prose style, but that's their loss. Some modern academic historians, infuriated like Shakespeare's Caliban at their encounter with a greater mind, will nit-pick over Macaulay's conclusions - forgetting that all history is to some extent subjective, and that Macaulay made no secret of placing himself firmly in the Whig historical tradition.
More than just an historical study, this is a sublime work of art. Anyone who enjoys "reality TV" game-shows would probably be best advised to leave these five volumes on the shelf.
November 27, 2017
While a arduous reading at times, the whole tale is mesmerizing by the quality of the details and the events of a often forgotten era.
January 8, 2024
Interesting and informative. A few extremely boring areas. Ends with horrific atrocities.
to-read-filler-postponed
March 31, 2019Page 408 / 645
63%
63%
January 13, 2015
Halfway through this book I wondered how I would explain to anyone why I was reading it. The first answer is, this interests me for some weird reason. The second reason is what attracts me to history. Looking into history gives you the long view for how we got here. It explains the influences that, for better or worse, have converged to create exactly now. Lastly, You can also see that's what's new is actually old, or merely a variation of something that went on before.
For instance, a lot of patriots like to think our founding fathers invented the notion of limited government. This book proves that isn't true. The era discussed in book, 17th century England, was the stage for push and pull between monarchy and parliament. At first the parliament wins, kills the king and devolves into a military dictatorship. Later, the king comes back, the republicans are routed, and the king starts to draw more power to himself.
The point is that several passages in the book describe how Englishmen, while they thought kings were cool, were always always guarded their liberty. This can be encapsulated in the quote, which I paraphrase, "Rain can enter a poor man's home, but the king cannot." This is the arc of British government, culminating in the figurehead monarchy they have now. Spoiler alert, the parliament won.
For instance, a lot of patriots like to think our founding fathers invented the notion of limited government. This book proves that isn't true. The era discussed in book, 17th century England, was the stage for push and pull between monarchy and parliament. At first the parliament wins, kills the king and devolves into a military dictatorship. Later, the king comes back, the republicans are routed, and the king starts to draw more power to himself.
The point is that several passages in the book describe how Englishmen, while they thought kings were cool, were always always guarded their liberty. This can be encapsulated in the quote, which I paraphrase, "Rain can enter a poor man's home, but the king cannot." This is the arc of British government, culminating in the figurehead monarchy they have now. Spoiler alert, the parliament won.
March 10, 2011
Best History Book Ever Written!
If you are interested in historical romance at all, especially set in the years 1685 to 1700, you should buy this book. Macauley turns all of England's most important era into one big epic adventure.
First he shows the cruel, decadent, fanatical James II, scheming to destroy England forever by bringing back absolute monarchy, Catholicism, and torture.
Then he shows the heroic Prince William of Orange (and his beautiful English wife Mary) arriving just in time to save the English people.
Then he describes all the freedoms that make England different from other nations.
It's a great book, and he describes everything with imagination and style, showing the human side as well as the historical. For example, he shows scenes of James II watching Protestant prisoners being horribly tortured and becoming "greatly aroused," while at the same time William and Mary are shown as both unselfishly patriotic and deeply devoted to one another. (Mary sold off most of her jewels to pay for an army to save England -- later William sold off most of his personal estate to buy them back.)
This book is a must for anyone who likes English history or historical romance or any combination.
If you are interested in historical romance at all, especially set in the years 1685 to 1700, you should buy this book. Macauley turns all of England's most important era into one big epic adventure.
First he shows the cruel, decadent, fanatical James II, scheming to destroy England forever by bringing back absolute monarchy, Catholicism, and torture.
Then he shows the heroic Prince William of Orange (and his beautiful English wife Mary) arriving just in time to save the English people.
Then he describes all the freedoms that make England different from other nations.
It's a great book, and he describes everything with imagination and style, showing the human side as well as the historical. For example, he shows scenes of James II watching Protestant prisoners being horribly tortured and becoming "greatly aroused," while at the same time William and Mary are shown as both unselfishly patriotic and deeply devoted to one another. (Mary sold off most of her jewels to pay for an army to save England -- later William sold off most of his personal estate to buy them back.)
This book is a must for anyone who likes English history or historical romance or any combination.
January 16, 2015
The writing is fantastic. It may be of doubtful utility as a work of history; but I'm fairly ignorant about the time period, and this seems as good a place as any to start. I just hope I have the fortitude to stick with this title until the end.
September 21, 2012
Very comforting book. Puts me to sleep in no time.
April 3, 2015
Very detailed accounts taught me a great deal I didn't know.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews