In the years between 1760 and 1770 the British nation and empire underwent a profound change in structure and function. Some of the change was made necessary by the survival of old institutions and of old forms of still vital institutions beyond the point of obsolescence, while some came as a result of contemporary disruption in the life of the nation. Obsolescence was particularily apparent in the administrative structure of the Empire, the so-called mercantilist system. The beliefs of mercantilism were largely inherited from the ecclesiastical society of the Middle Ages. Thus, while individualism and nationalism triumphed over Church in the sixteenth century, the idea of regulation, now adopted by the national state, continued to suppress economic individualism for two centuries longer. Imperial self-sufficiency was the ideal of the mercantilist theorists, and in an attempt to achieve this end, direct control by the mother country of the political and economic activities of all parts of the Empire was instituted. As the Empire expanded, however, it became increasingly more difficult to maintain this control. Special local complications, particularily in the cases of Ireland and India, aggravated the problem. Finally, the challenge of political and economic independence in America was successful in fringing to an end the old imperial system. In the mother country public life was dominated by the Revolution Settlement of 1688, and needed reforms were neglected. Parliament was unrepresentative of the majority of the nation and local government and local interests were far too powerful in relation to national government and national interests. In politics, party differences had been dissolved in 1688 as a result of the nation’s need for tranquility, political life became a struggle, not for principles, but for patronage and place, between factions of the now-predominant Whig Party. The corruption in politics at this juncture was without precedent in English history. In addition to these factors of obsolescence and decay, there were a number of disruptive influences which prevented the tranquil reform and change of institutions. A determined monarch was successful for a time in subverting the new institution of responsible government through cabinet. Out of the confusion thus caused, the political parties of the nineteenth century were simultaneously being developed. New classes were arising to seize political power, as a result of the economic revolution of the eighteenth century. In addition, the exhaustion of the nation, resulting from the Seven Years' War, aggravated the disruption. The economic organization of the nation was also in a state of dynamic change. In agriculture, the expansion of markets and the increase of population forced the adoption of new techniques and a new economic structure for farming on a large scale. This expansion, in turn, made necessary new marketing and price systems and an improved communication system. The chief economic phenomenon of the era, however, was the industrial revolution. The old domestic system of industry had been disintegrating since the beginning of the century, and, in any case, expanded markets demanded a larger scale of production than the old system could achieve. By 1770, the two principal phenomena of industrialism, capitalism and the factory system were widespread in the nation. Power machinery was applied to industry, and with this application the location of industry was shifted northwards. Moreover, a new individualist economic philosophy was developing, which rejected not only control by the state, but also the responsibility of the individual to the community as a whole. The new influence was reflected in such various aspects of the life of the times as taxation policy, parliamentary reform, the law, trade unionism, the factory system and the poor law. .Its most alarming result was the profound social schism created in the nation. In her empire, in her public life and in her economy, Britain was at a crossroads in the first decade of the reign of George III. If the transition was to be successful she needed peace, prosperity and order. The decade, however, was one of struggle, depression and disruption. The result was a retreat in British public life. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This thesis reevaluates the role that women played in the collection and patronage of natural history, fine arts and antiquities in the long eighteenth century. While most scholarship that addresses early modern collecting and patronage operates within an androcentric framework, this project fills a historiographical gap by focusing its analyses on the experiences, activities, contributions, and achievements of female figures. Primary documentation provides evidence of a highly sophisticated, invested and functional network of enthusiastic and experienced female collectors and patrons who participated in activities that were at once parallel to that of their male peers and yet retained a distinctly feminine character. Influenced by prevailing intellectual movements and aesthetic trends, women throughout the period studied, accumulated, and commissioned items of scientific, artistic, and antiquarian value. Their meaningful engagement with naturalists, explorers, artists, statesmen, and colleagues is at the center of this study which situates female collectors and patrons within a wider socio-cultural context and confirms the broader historical significance of their work. In this way, this thesis may be understood as a restoration of women to their central place in the history of collecting and patronage and as a more complete historicization of the corresponding culture between the years 1715 and 1825.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The Scots MPs of the eighteenth century have traditionally been portrayed in a negative light. In a century once noted for electoral corruption and the abuses of patronage, they were seen by contemporaries and later writers as among the worst examples of their kind: greedy, self-seeking, unprincipled ‘tools of administration’ whose votes could be bought with the offer of places and pensions. Lewis Namier’s seminal work exposing the cynical approach to politics of MPs generally, sparked a backlash which has produced a more balanced evaluation of English politics. Strangely, although Namier exonerated the Scots MPs from the worst of the charges against them, his less judgmental verdicts are found only sporadically in more recent writing, while the older viewpoint is still repeated by some historians. There is no modern study of the eighteenth-century Scots MPs, a situation which this research proposes to remedy, by examining the group of MPs who represented Scotland at Westminster between 1754 and 1784. It re-assesses the extent to which the original criticisms are merited, but also widens the scope by examining the contribution made by Scotland’s MPs, to British and Scottish political life in the later part of the eighteenth century. A study of the social make-up and the careers of this particular cohort provides the backdrop for the two main themes: the participation of Scots MPs in the legislative process, and their effectiveness as representatives of Scottish interests at Westminster. Existing biographical information has been supplemented by an examination of Parliamentary Papers, debates, and personal correspondence to enable further analysis of attitudes, in particular with regard to politics and political mores. The research explores issues of motivation, asking questions about allegiance, identity, perceptions of government, and how conflicts of interest were resolved, before presenting a conclusion which aims to offer a revised, broader, but more nuanced, assessment of this much-criticised group, based on more recent approaches to interpretation of the period.