No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2014
The present paper is concerned with “political history” — with the problems of the statesman who looks at the situation from above and has to make decisions about it. Granted that conditions are of a given sort and that society has a certain form — granted that men are what they are and events have produced a predicament that calls for action — there are people who have a presiding position and an over-all responsibility; and their strategies and decisions are themselves an object of study. A crucial question of “political history” is the question of the kind of statesmanship that was necessary for operating the constitution as it existed in the early years of George III's reign. On this subject one who does not speak with the authoritarian voice of the expert may claim that the experts should be carefully scrutinized, especially in a world now terribly subject to intellectual fashion. But one who has always valued originality (and has been reproved even for measuring historians by this quality) is in a predicament — calling, now, for the reverse of this, and wanting, rather, to recover continuity with an earlier stage of historiography. Whereas at the present time new evidence, manuscript sources, and the thrill of the hitherto-undiscovered fact are always prized, this paper must take on the dull work of making sure that some old material is not neglected, material which, if it appeared in print long ago, did so only because its importance was so obvious from the first.
1. Yorke, Philip C., The Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke (Cambridge, 1913), III, 515Google Scholar.
2. Ibid., III, 496.
3. Ibid., I, 504-05.
4. Ibid., I, 382.
5. Duke of Bedford, The Correspondence of John, Fourth Duke of Bedford, ed. Russell, Lord John (London, 1846), III, 224Google Scholar.
6. Smith, W. J. (ed.), The Grenville Papers (London, 1852), II, 86Google Scholar.
7. Ibid., II, 106.
8. Ibid., II, 122-23.
9. Ibid., III, 181: “that if the continuing him [Grenville] in his service was in any degree a force upon his [the King's] inclination or done with any reluctance, he did conjure him not to do it on any consideration whatever.” Cf. ibid., III, 212.
10. Jucker, Ninetta S. (ed.), The Jenkinson Papers 1760-1766 (London, 1949), pp. 399–400Google Scholar.
11. Fortescue, John W. (ed.), The Correspondence of King George the Third from 1760 to December 1783 (London, 1927), I, 164Google Scholar.
12. Smith, , Grenville Papers, III, 212–13Google Scholar.
13. Fortescue, , Correspondence of King George the Third, I, 172.Google Scholar Cf. ibid., I, 166: “Tho not able to remove them I could not be so wanting to myself as to treat them [the ministers] otherwise than as Jailers.”
14. Smith, , Grenville Papers, II, 191.Google Scholar
15. Ibid., III, 182-83.
16. Ibid., III, 54; cf. 209.
17. Ibid., III, 156; cf. 169-70.
18. Ibid., III, 218; cf. 207-08.
19. Ibid., III, 166; cf. 205-06.
20. Ibid., III, 162, 196.
21. Walpole to George Montagu, 26 May, 1765, and Walpole to Sir Horace Mann, 25 May, 1765, Toynbee, Helena (ed.), The Letters of Horace Walpole (Oxford, 1903–1905), VI, 251, 248–49Google Scholar.
22. Smith, , Grenville Papers, III, 140.Google Scholar
23. Ibid., III, 178.
24. Butterfield, Herbert, “Sir Lewis Namier as Historian,” Listener, 18 May, 1961, pp. 873–74Google Scholar.
25. Butterfield, Herbert, “Acton: His Training, Methods and Intellectual System,” Sarkassian, A. O. (ed.), Studies in Diplomatic History and Historiography in Honour of G. P. Gooch (London, 1961), pp. 190–97Google Scholar.
26. Yorke, , Life and Correspondence of … Hardwicke, III, 354.Google Scholar
27. Butterfield, Herbert, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, 1931), p. 106Google Scholar: “It may happen that the last word of the historian, pondering upon the results of his study, may be some comment on a principle of progress that lies below everything else in the processes of time, or may be some estimate of the contribution which the whig party has made to our development, or may be an appreciation of the religious genius of Martin Luther. But this is not by any means to be confused with the whig method of selecting facts and organising the story upon a principle that begs all questions. And the conclusions will be very different from those which are arrived at when all problems are solved by the whig historian's rule of thumb. The conclusions will be richer by reason of the very distance that has had to be travelled in order to attain them.”
28. Namier, L. B., “Monarchy and the Party System,” Personalities and Powers (London, 1955), pp. 13–38Google Scholar; Namier, L. B., Crossroads of Power (London, 1962), pp. 213–34Google Scholar.
29. Sedgwick, Romney, Letters from George III to Lord Bute (London, 1939), p. 77Google Scholar.
30. Butterfield, Herbert, George III, Lord North and the People (London, 1949), p. 3Google Scholar.
31. Jucker, , Jenkinson Papers, p. 395Google Scholar.
32. Yorke, , Life and Correspondence of … Hardwicke, III, 496Google Scholar. Cf. ibid., III, 505, where Hardwicke says that the consequence of the destruction of the Newcastle system has been “the pulling down of that power [the royal power] which it was meant to build up.”
33. Ibid., III, 516.
34. Walpole, Horace, Memoirs of the Reign of George III, ed. Barker, G. F. Russell (London, 1894), II, 66–67Google Scholar.
