Chapter VIII: The Triumph of Parliamentary Government in England (2)

Parliament, already somewhat distrustful of Charles's foreign policy, and fearful of his leanings toward Roman Catholicism, found in the Declaration of Indulgence a serious infraction of parliamentary authority. The royal right to "suspend" laws upon occasion had undoubtedly been exercised before, but Parliament was now strong enough to insist upon the binding force of its enactments and to oblige Charles to withdraw his Indulgence. The fear of Catholicism ever increased; gentlemen who at other times were quite rational gave unhesitating credence to wild tales of a "Popish Plot" (1678). In 1679 an Exclusion Bill was brought forward which would debar Prince James from the throne, because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

[Sidenote: The "Whigs"]

In the excitement over this latest assertion of parliamentary power, [Footnote: In the course of the debate over Exclusion, the parliamentary party won an important concession--the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was designed to prevent arbitrary imprisonment.] two great factions were formed. The supporters of Exclusion were led by certain great nobles who were jealous of the royal power, and were recruited from merchants and shop-keepers who looked to Parliament to protect their economic interests. Since many of the adherents of this political group were Dissenters, whose dislike of Anglicanism was exceeded only by their hatred of "popery," the whole party was called by a nickname--"Whig"--which had formerly been applied to rebellious Presbyterians in Scotland.

[Sidenote: The "Tories"]

Opposed to the Whigs were the "Tories" [Footnote: Tory, a name applied to "popish" outlaws in Ireland.]--squires and country clergymen and all others of an essentially conservative turn of mind. They were anxious to preserve the Church and state alike from Puritans and from "papists," but most of all to prevent a recurrence of civil war. In the opinion of the Tories, the best and most effective safeguard against quarreling earls and insolent tradesmen was the hereditary monarchy. Better submit to a Roman Catholic sovereign, they said, than invite civil war by disturbing the regular succession. In the contest over the Exclusion Bill, the Tories finally carried the day, for, although the bill was passed by the Commons (1680), it was rejected by the House of Lords.

[Sidenote: Temporary Success of the Tories]

In the last few years of Charles's reign the cause of the Whigs was discredited. Rumors got abroad that they were plotting to assassinate the king and it was said that the Whiggish nobles who brought armed retainers to Parliament were planning to use force to establish Charles's illegitimate son--the duke of Monmouth--on the throne. These and similar accusations hurt the Whigs tremendously, and help explain the violent Tory reaction which enabled Charles to rule without Parliament from 1681 to his death in 1685. As had been feared, upon the death of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth organized a revolt, but this, together with a simultaneous insurrection in Scotland, was easily crushed, and James II was securely seated on the throne.

THE "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION" AND THE FINAL ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

[Sidenote: James II (1685-1688): His Futile Combination of Absolutism and Roman Catholicism]

In his short reign of three years James II (1685-1688) succeeded in stirring up opposition on all sides. The Tories, the party most favorable to the royal prerogative, upon whom he might have relied, were shocked by his attempts to create a standing army commanded by Catholics, for such an army might prove as disastrous to their liberties as Cromwell's "New Model"; and the Whigs, too, were driven from sullenness to desperation by James's religious policy and despotic government. James, like his brother, claiming the right to "suspend" the laws and statutes which Parliament had enacted against Roman Catholics and Dissenters, issued a Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which exempted Catholics and Dissenters from punishment for infractions of these laws. Furthermore, he appointed Roman Catholics to office in the army and in the civil government. In spite of protests, he issued a second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688 and ordered it to be read in all Anglican churches, and, when seven bishops remonstrated, he accused them of seditious libel. No jury would convict the seven bishops, however, for James had alienated every class, and they were acquitted. The Tories were estranged by what seemed to be a deliberate attack on the Anglican Church and by fear of a standing army. The arbitrary disregard of parliamentary legislation, and the favor shown to Roman Catholics, goaded the Whigs into fury.

[Sidenote: The "Glorious Revolution" (1688): Dethronement of James II]

So long as Whigs and Tories alike could expect the accession on the death of James II of one of his Protestant daughters--Mary or Anne-- they continued to acquiesce in his arbitrary government. But the outlook became gloomier when on 10 June, 1688, a son was born to James II by his second wife, a Catholic. Most Protestants believed that the prince was not really James's son; politicians prophesied that he would be educated in his father's "popish" and absolutist doctrines, and that thus England would continue to be ruled by papist despots. Even those who professed to believe in the divine right of kings and had denied the right of Parliament to alter the succession were dejected at this prospect, and many of them were willing to join with the Whigs in inviting a Protestant to take the throne. The next in line of succession after the infant prince was Mary, the elder of James's two daughters, wife of William of Orange, [Footnote: See above, pp. 245, 248] and an Anglican. Upon the invitation of Whig and Tory leaders, William crossed over to England with an army and entered London without opposition (1688). Deserted even by his army James fled to France. [Footnote: Risings in favor of James were suppressed in Ireland and in Scotland. In Ireland the famous battle of the Boyne (1 July, 1690) was decisive.]

[Sidenote: Accession of William and Mary, 1689] [Sidenote: Constitutional Settlement: the Bill of Rights (1689) and Triumph of Parliament] [Sidenote: The Mutiny Act]

A bloodless revolution was now accomplished and the crown was formally presented to William and Mary by an irregular Parliament, which also declared that James II, having endeavored to subvert the constitution and having fled the kingdom, had vacated the throne. In offering the crown to William and Mary, Parliament was very careful to safeguard its own power and the Protestant religion by issuing a Declaration of Rights (13 February, 1689), which was enacted as the Bill of Rights, 16 December, 1689. This act decreed that the sovereign must henceforth belong to the Anglican Church, thereby debarring the Catholic son of James II. The act also denied the power of a king to "suspend" laws or to "dispense" subjects from obeying the laws, to levy money, or to maintain an army without consent of Parliament; asserted that neither the free election nor the free speech and proceedings of members of Parliament should be interfered with; affirmed the right of subjects to petition the sovereign; and demanded impartial juries and frequent Parliaments. The Bill of Rights, far more important in English history than the Petition of Right (1628), inasmuch as Parliament was now powerful enough to maintain as well as to define its rights, was supplemented by the practice, begun in the same year, 1689, of granting taxes and making appropriations for the army for one year only. Unless Parliament were called every year to pass a Mutiny Act (provision for the army), the soldiers would receive no pay and in case of mutiny would not be punishable by court martial.

[Sidenote: Measures Favorable to Landlords] [Sidenote: Religious Toleration for Protestant Dissenters: Continued Persecution of Roman Catholics]

Both Whigs and Tories had participated in the Revolution, and both reaped rewards. The Tories were especially pleased with the army laws and with an arrangement by which farmers were given a "bounty" or money premium for every bushel of grain exported. [Footnote: That is, when wheat was selling for less than 6s. a bushel.] The Whigs, having played a more prominent part in the deposition of James II, were able to secure the long-coveted political supremacy of Parliament, and religious toleration of Dissenters. The Toleration Act of 1689 did not go as far as the Dissenters might have desired, but it gave them the legal right to worship in public, while their enemies, the Roman Catholics, remained under the ban.

[Sidenote: Commercial Gains for England] [Sidenote: Union of England and Scotland: the Kingdom of Great Britain, 1707]

In the foreign policy of the reigns of William (1689-1702) and Mary, and of Anne (1702-1714), Whiggish policies generally predominated. The merchants and shippers who formed an important wing of the Whig party were highly gratified by the Wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession, [Footnote: See above, pp. 248 ff., and below, pp. 306 ff.] in which England fought at once against France, her commercial and colonial rival, and against Louis XIV, the friend of the Catholic Stuart pretenders to the English throne. [Footnote: Louis XIV openly supported the pretensions of James (III), the "Old Pretender."] The Methuen Treaty (1703) was also advantageous: it allowed English merchants to sell their manufactures in Portugal without hindrance; in return for this concession England lowered the duties on Portuguese wines, and "Port" supplanted "Burgundy" on the tables of English gentlemen. The Act of Union of 1707 was not unfavorable either, for it established common trade regulations, customs, and excise in England and in Scotland. To the merely personal union between the crowns of England and Scotland which had been inaugurated (1603) by the first of the Stuart monarchs of England now succeeded under the last of the Stuart sovereigns a corporate union of the two monarchies under the title of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707).

[Sidenote: Accession of the Hanoverians (1714); Continued Decline of Royal Power]

Upon the death of Anne (1714), the crown passed [Footnote: In accordance with the Act of Settlement (1701).] to her cousin, the son of Sophia of Hanover, George I (1714-1727). The new king, unable even to speak the English language, much less to understand the complicated traditions of parliamentary government, was neither able nor anxious to rule, but was content merely to reign. The business of administration, therefore, was handed over to a group of ministers who strove not only to please their royal master but to retain the good-will of the predominant party in Parliament.

[Sidenote: Rise of the Cabinet]

Since this practice, with the many customs which have grown up about it, has become a most essential part of the government of the United Kingdom today, and has been copied in recent times by many other countries, it is important to understand its early history. Even before the accession of the Tudors, the Great Council of nobles and prelates which had advised and assisted early kings in matters of administration had surrendered most of its actual functions to a score or so of "Privy Councilors." The Privy Council in turn became unwieldy, and allowed an inner circle or "cabal" of its most energetic members to direct the conduct of affairs. This inner circle was called a cabinet or cabinet council, because it conferred with the king in a small private room (cabinet), and under the restored Stuarts it was extremely unpopular.

William III, more interested in getting money and troops to defend his native Holland against Louis XIV than in governing England, allowed his ministers free rein in most matters. So long as the Whigs held a majority of the seats in the Commons, William found that the wheels of government turned smoothly if all his ministers were Whigs. On the other hand, when the Tories gained a preponderance in the Commons, the Whig ministers were so distasteful to the new majority of the Commons that it was necessary to replace them with Tories. Queen Anne, although her sincere devotion to Anglicanism inclined her to the Tories, was forced to appoint Whig ministers. Only toward the close of her reign (1710) did Anne venture to dismiss the Whigs.

[Sidenote: Era of Whig Domination, 1714-1761] [Sidenote: Robert Walpole and his Policies]

Under George I (1714-1727) it became customary for the king to absent himself from cabinet-meetings. (It will be remembered that George could not speak English.) This tended to make the cabinet even more independent of the sovereign, as shown by the fact that Anne was the last to use her prerogative to veto bills. From 1714 to 1761 was the great era of Whig domination. Both George I and George II naturally favored the Whigs, because the Tories were supposed to desire a second restoration of the Stuarts. Certainly many of the Tories had participated in the vain attempt of the "Old Pretender" in 1715 to seat himself on the British throne as James III, and again in 1745 extreme Tories took part in the insurrection in Scotland, gallantly led by the Young Pretender, "Prince Charlie" the grandson of James II. Under these circumstances practically all classes rallied to the support of the Whigs, who stood for the Protestant monarchy. Great Whig landowners controlled the rural districts, and the aristocracy of the towns was won by the Whiggish policy of devotion to public credit and the protection of commerce. The extensive and continued power of the Whigs made it possible for Sir Robert Walpole, [Footnote: Created earl of Orford in 1742.] a great Whig leader, to hold office for twenty-one years (1721-1742), jealously watching and maintaining his supremacy under two sovereigns--George I (1714-1727) and George II (1727-1760). Though disclaiming the title, he was recognized by every one as the "prime minister"--prime in importance, prime in power. The other ministers, nominally appointed by the sovereign, were in point of fact dependent upon him for office, and he, though nominally appointed by the crown, was really dependent only upon the support of a Whig majority in the Commons.

[Sidenote: William Pitt, Earl of Chatham]

Walpole's power was based on policy and political manipulation. His policy was twofold, the maintenance of peace and of prosperity. We shall see elsewhere how he kept England clear of costly Continental wars. [Footnote: See above, p. 256, and below, pp. 309 ff., 324 f.] His policy of prosperity was based on mercantilist ideas and consisted in strict attention to business methods in public finance, [Footnote: Walpole was called the "best master of figures of any man of his time."] the removal of duties on imported raw materials, and on exported manufactures. In spite of the great prosperity of the period, there was considerable criticism of Walpole's policy, and "politics" alone enabled him to persevere in it. By skillful partisan patronage, by bestowal of state offices and pensions upon members of Parliament, by open bribery, and by electioneering, he secured his ends and maintained his majority in the House of Commons.

Walpole's successors,--Henry Pelham and the duke of Newcastle,--like him represented the oligarchy of Whig nobles and millionaires, and even outdid him in corrupt methods. Another section of the Whig party under the leadership of William Pitt the elder (the earl of Chatham) won great popularity by its condemnation of political "graft." Pitt's fiery demands for war first against Spain (1739-1748) and then against France (1756-1763) were echoed by patriotic squires and by the merchants who wished to ruin French commerce and to throw off the restrictions laid by Spain on American commerce. Pitt had his way until George III, a monarch determined to destroy the power of the Whigs, appointed Tory ministers, such as Lord Bute and Lord North. The attempt of George III to regain the power his great-grandfather had lost, to rule as well as to reign, was in the end a failure, and later Hanoverians might well have joined George II in declaring that "ministers are kings in this country."

[Sidenote: Significance of English Constitutional Development in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries]

This indeed is the salient fact in the evolution of constitutional government in England. While in other countries late in the eighteenth century monarchs still ruled by divine right, in England Parliament and ministers were the real rulers, and, in theory at least, they ruled by the will of the people. That England was able to develop this form of government may have been due in part to her insular position, her constitutional traditions, and the ill-advised conduct of the Stuart kings, but most of all it was due to the great commercial and industrial development which made her merchant class rich and powerful enough to demand and secure a share in government.

[Sidenote: Great Britain Parliamentarian but not Democratic]

In their admiration for the English government, many popular writers have fallen into the error of confounding the struggle for parliamentary supremacy with the struggle for democracy. Nothing could be more misleading. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 was a _coup d'état_ engineered by the upper classes, and the liberty it preserved was the liberty of nobles, squires, and merchants--not the political liberty of the common people.

[Sidenote: The Unreformed Parliament]

The House of Commons was essentially undemocratic. Only one man in every ten had even the nominal right to vote. It is estimated that from 1760 to 1832 nearly one-half of the members owed their seats to patrons, and the reformed representatives of large towns were frequently chosen by a handful of rich merchants. In fact, the government was controlled by the upper class of society, and by only a part of that. No representatives sat for the numerous manufacturing towns which had sprung into importance during the last few decades, and rich manufacturers everywhere complained that the country was being ruined by the selfish administration of great landowners and commercial aristocrats.

Certain it is that the Parliament of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while wonderfully earnest and successful in enriching England's landlords and in demolishing every obstacle to British commerce, at the same time either willfully neglected or woefully failed to do away with intolerance in the Church and injustice in the courts, or to defend the great majority of the people from the greed of landlords and the avarice of employers.

Designed as it was for the protection of selfish class interests, the English government was nevertheless a step in the direction of democracy. The idea of representative government as expressed by Parliament and cabinet was as yet very narrow, but it was capable of being expanded without violent revolution, slowly but inevitably, so as to include the whole people.

ADDITIONAL READING

GENERAL. Brief surveys: A. L. Cross, _History of England and Greater Britain (1914)_, ch. xxvii-xli; T. F. Tout, _An Advanced History of Great Britain (1906)_, Book VI, Book VII, ch. i, ii; Benjamin Terry, _A History of England (1901)_, Part III, Book III and Book IV, ch. i-iii; E. P. Cheyney, _A Short History of England (1904)_, ch. xiv-xvi, and, by the same author, _An Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England (1901)_. More detailed narratives: J. F. Bright, _History of England_, 5 vols. (1884-1904), especially Vol. II, _Personal Monarchy_, 1485-1688, and Vol. III, _Constitutional Monarchy, 1689-1837_; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. IV (1906). ch. viii-xi, xv-xix, Vol. V (1908), ch. v, ix-xi, xv; H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors), _Social England_, illus. ed., 6 vols. in 12 (1909), Vol. IV; A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_, 4 vols. (1914), Vol. II, ch. x-xvi; G. M. Trevelyan, _England under the Stuarts_, 1603-1714 (1904), brilliant and suggestive; Leopold von Ranke, _History of England, Principally in the Seventeenth Century_, Eng. trans., 6 vols. (1875), particularly valuable for foreign relations; Edward Dowden, _Puritan and Anglican_ (1901), an interesting study of literary and intellectual England in the seventeenth century; John Lingard, _History of England to 1688_, new ed. (1910) of an old but valuable work by a scholarly Roman Catholic, Vols. VII-X; H. W. Clark, _History of English Nonconformity_, Vol. I (1911), Book II, ch. i-iii, and Vol. II (1913), Book III, ch. i, ii, the best and most recent study of the role of the Protestant Dissenters; W. R. W. Stephens and William Hunt (editors), _History of the Church of England_, the standard history of Anglicanism, of which Vol. V (1904), by W. H. Frere, treats of the years 1558-1625, and Vol. VI (1903), by W. H. Hutton, of the years 1625-1714. On Scotland during the period: P. H. Brown, _History of Scotland_, 3 vols. (1899-1909), Vols. II, III; Andrew Lang, _A History of Scotland_ from the Roman Occupation, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1901-1907), Vols. III, IV. On Ireland: Richard Bagwell, _Ireland under the Tudors_, 3 vols. (1885-1890), and _Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum_, 2 vols. (1909). Convenient source- material: G. W. Prothero, _Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I_, 4th ed. (1913); S. R. Gardiner, _The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution_, 1628-1660, 2d ed. (1899); C. G. Robertson, _Select Statutes, Cases, and Documents, 1660-1832_ (1904); E. P. Cheyney, _Readings in English History Drawn from the Original Sources_ (1908); Frederick York Powell, _English History by Contemporary Writers_, 8 vols. (1887); C. A. Beard, _An Introduction to the English Historians_ (1906), a collection of extracts from famous secondary works.

THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. F. W. Maitland, _The Constitutional History of England_ (1908), Periods III, IV, special studies of the English government in 1625 and in 1702 by an eminent authority; D. J. Medley, _A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History_, 5th ed. (1913), topical treatment, encyclopedic and dry; T. P. Taswell-Langmead, _English Constitutional History_, 7th ed. rev. by P. A. Ashworth (1911), ch. xiii-xvi, narrative style and brief; Henry Hallam, _Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II_, an old work, first pub. in 1827, still useful, new ed., 3 vols. (1897). The best summary of the evolution of English parliamentary government in the middle ages is A. B. White, _The Making of the English Constitution, 449-1485_ (1908), Part III. In support of the pretensions of the Stuart kings; see J. N. Figgis, _The Divine Right of Kings_, 2d ed. (1914); and in opposition to them, see G. P. Gooch, _English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_ (1898).

JAMES I AND CHARLES I. S. R. Gardiner, _The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution_, 7th ed. (1887), a brief survey in the "Epochs of Modern History" Series by the most prolific and most distinguished writer on the period, and, by the same author, the elaborate _History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War_, 10 vols. (1883-1884), _History of the Great Civil War, 1642- 1640_, 4 vols. (1893), and _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution_ (1899); F. C. Montague, _Political History of England, 1603-1660_ (1907), an accurate and strictly political narrative; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. III, ch. xvi, xvii, on Spain and England in the time of James I. Clarendon's _History of the Great Rebellion_, the classic work of a famous royalist of the seventeenth century, is strongly partisan and sometimes untrustworthy: the best edition is that of W. D. Macray, 6 vols. (1886). R. G. Usher, _The Rise and Fall of the High Commission_ (1913), is an account of one of the arbitrary royal courts. Valuable biographies: H. D. Traill, _Strafford_ (1889); W. H. Hutton, _Laud_ (1895); E. C. Wade, John Pym (1912); C. R. Markham, _Life of Lord Fairfax_ (1870).

THE CROMWELLIAN RÉGIME. The standard treatise is that of S. R. Gardiner, _The History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate_, 4 vols. (1903). Among numerous biographies of Oliver Cromwell, the following are noteworthy: C. H. Firth, _Cromwell_ (1900). in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; S. R. Gardiner, _Cromwell_ (1899), and, by the same author, _Cromwell's Place in History_ (1897); John (Viscount) Morley, _Oliver Cromwell_ (1899); A. F. Pollard, _Factors in Modern History_ (1907), ch. ix-x; Thomas Carlyle, _Cromwell's Letters and Speeches_, ed. by S. C. Lomas, 3 vols. (1904). The _Diary_ of John Evelyn, a royalist contemporary, affords naturally a somewhat different point of view: the best edition is that of H. B. Wheatley, 4 vols. (1906). Various special phases of the régime: C. H. Firth, _Cromwell's Army_, 2d ed. (1912); Edward Jenks, _The Constitutional Experiments of the Protectorate_ (1890); Sir J. R. Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_, Vol. II (1895), Part III; G. L. Beer, _Cromwell's Policy in its Economic Aspects_ (1902); Sir W. L. Clowes, _The Royal Navy: a History_, Vol. II (1898); G. B. Tatham, _The Puritans in Power, a Study of the English Church from 1640 to 1660_ (1913); W. A. Shaw, _History of the English Church, 1640-1660_, 2 vols. (1900); Robert Dunlop, _Ireland under the Commonwealth_, 2 vols. (1913), largely a collection of documents; C. H. Firth, _The Last Years of the Protectorate_, 2 vols. (1909).

THE RESTORATION. Richard Lodge, _The Political History of England, 1660-1702_, a survey of the chief political facts, conservative in tone; J. N. Figgis, _English History Illustrated from Original Sources, 1660-1715_ (1902), a convenient companion volume to Lodge's; Osmund Airy, _Charles II_ (1901), inimical to the first of the restored Stuart kings. Of contemporary accounts of the Restoration, the most entertaining is Samuel Pepys, _Diary_, covering the years 1659-1669 and written by a bibulous public official, while the most valuable, though tainted with strong Whig partisanship, is Gilbert (Bishop) Burnet, _History of My Own Times_, edited by Osmund Airy, 2 vols. (1897-1900). See also H. B. Wheatley, _Samuel Pepys and the World he Lived In_ (1880). Special topics in the reign of Charles II: W. E. Sydney, _Social Life in England, 1660-1660_ (1892); J. H. Overton, _Life in the English Church, 1663-1714_ (1885); John Pollock, _The Popish Plot_ (1903); G.B. Hertz, _English Public Opinion after the Restoration_ (1902); C. B. R. Kent, _The Early History of the Tories_ (1908).

JAMES II AND THE "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION." The best brief account is that of Arthur Hassall, _The Restoration and the Revolution_ (1912). The classic treatment is that of T. B. (Lord) Macaulay, _History of England, 1685-1702_, a literary masterpiece but marred by vigorous Whig sympathies, new ed. by C. H. Firth, 6 vols. (1913-1914). Sir James Mackintosh, _Review of the Causes of the Revolution of 1688_ (1834), an old work but still prized for the large collection of documents in the appendix; _Adventures of James II_ (1904), an anonymous and sympathetic account of the career of the deposed king; H. B. Irving, _Life of Lord Jeffreys_ (1898), an apology for a much-assailed agent of James II; Alice Shield and Andrew Lang, _The King over the Water_ (1907), and, by the same authors, _Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, and his Times_ (1908), popular treatments of subsequent Stuart pretenders to the British throne. A good account of the reign of William III is that of Sir J. R. Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_, Vol. II (1895), Part V.

GREAT BRITAIN IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. General histories: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VI (1909), ch. i-iii; I. S. Leadam, _Political History of England, 1702-1760_ (1909), conservative and matter-of-fact; W. E. H. Lecky, _A History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, new ed., 7 vols. (1892-1899), especially Vol. I, brilliantly written and very informing, and, by the same author, _A History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century_, 5 vols. (1893); C. G. Robertson, _England under the Hanoverians_ (1911), ch. i, ii, iv; Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), _History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-1783_, 5th ed., 7 vols. (1858), particularly Vols. I, II, tedious but still useful especially for foreign affairs. On the union of England and Scotland: P. H. Brown, _The Legislative Union of England and Scotland_ (1914); W. L. Matthieson, _Scotland and the Union_, 1695-1747 (1905); Daniel Defoe, _History of the Union between England and Scotland_ (1709). On the rise of the cabinet system: Mary T. Blauvelt, _The Development of Cabinet Government in England_ (1902), a clear brief outline; Edward Jenks, _Parliamentary England: the Evolution of the Cabinet System_ (1903); and the general constitutional histories mentioned above. The best account of _Sir Robert Walpole_ is the biography by John (Viscount) Morley (1889).