Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2014
The late Sir Lewis Namier seems to have the highest, or nearly the highest authority of historians, chiefly for his work on English politics in the 1760's. This article attempts to make a judgment of his authority by examining the truth of his findings about English politics in the 1760's. Namier's authority is in great part based upon his seeming care in his researches, since people suppose that those who are occupied with details are careful with details. The results of his researches must therefore be considered in their presentation. But these researches need not be redone, at least for the purpose of understanding Namier's findings; for his findings rest upon an argument — an argument constructed not only from the results of researches but from general statements that are not results of his researches. Indeed, it happens that Namier's general statements fall within political science, as that subject has been understood since Aristotle. The present writer is a political scientist, and proposes to concentrate on Namier's argument.
Namier's principal conclusion is that there was no danger of tyranny in Britain in the 1760's. His argument has two parts, or he has two arguments: the apparent danger of tyranny is explained and deflated, first by the heir-apparent cycle, and second by the superiority of modern party government. He reaches his conclusion by denying effect to the source of danger usually identified by historians and thoughtful contemporaries, the influence of Bolingbroke — so that he seems, to one critic, to ignore the importance of “ideas.”
1. Butterfield, Herbert, George III and the Historians (London, 1957), Bk. III, pp. 193–299Google Scholar.
2. Namier, L. B., England in the Age of the American Revolution (London, 1930), pp. 51–75Google Scholar; and Sedgwick, Romney (ed.), Letters from George III to Lord Bute, 1756-1766 (London, 1939)Google Scholar, Introduction. Namier left the elaboration of his heir-apparent argument to Romney Sedgwick. Sedgwick's introduction is more detailed than Namier's treatment but does not differ from it; Namier regards it as “a masterpiece: a gem of research and writing,” and offers no criticism of it. See Namier, L. B., Avenues of History (London, 1952), p. 120Google Scholar; cf. Namier, L. B.Personalities and Powers (London, 1955), p. 47nGoogle Scholar.
3. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 149Google Scholar; cf. Namier, , Avenues of History, p. 6Google Scholar.
4. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xiiGoogle Scholar; Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 61–62Google Scholar.
5. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 63–64Google Scholar; Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, pp. xii–xiiiGoogle Scholar.
6. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, pp. xv–xixGoogle Scholar.
7. Ibid., p. xviii.
8. The Duke of Cumberland was an ineffective substitute. See Namier, L. B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2nd ed.; London, 1957), p. 286Google Scholar; cf. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 63-64, 70Google Scholar.
9. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xviGoogle Scholar.
10. Ibid., pp. xix-xxxvii, and xxxvii-xliii.
11. Ibid., pp. xix, lvi.
12. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 66, 68-69, 72–73Google Scholar; but cf. Feiling, Keith, The Second Tory Party, 1714–1832 (London, 1938), p. 71Google Scholar.
13. Burke, Edmund, “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents,” Works of Burke (London, 1854), I, 317Google Scholar; cf. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 64Google Scholar, and Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, pp. xiv, xviGoogle Scholar.
14. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 61Google Scholar.
15. Ibid., pp. 64-65.
16. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.
17. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 71Google Scholar.
18. Aristotle, , Politics, 1283a 36–37Google Scholar, 1288a 8-9, 15; cf. Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, I, 61, 161.Google Scholar
19. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xviiiGoogle Scholar.
20. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 63–64Google Scholar; cf. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xiiGoogle Scholar.
21. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 66Google Scholar and Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. lviGoogle Scholar.
22. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar.
23. Sedgwick misses the difference between England and Britain; George III's insertion of Britain (including Scotland) was taken as a hint of Jacobitism, because of Scotland's intimate connection with the Stuarts.
24. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xGoogle Scholar. Namier makes frequent reference to unconscious acts or even thoughts. Namier, L. B., Monarchy and the Party System [Romanes Lecture] (Oxford, 1952), pp. 3, 29Google Scholar. He even goes so far as to invest Horace Walpole with the ability to formulate a theory unconsciously. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 20Google Scholar; cf. Namier, , Personalities and Powers, p. 1Google Scholar.
25. Burke, , “Present Discontents,” Works of Burke, I, 315Google Scholar.
26. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. lviGoogle Scholar; cf. Namier, , Personalities and Powers, pp. 48–58Google Scholar, where Namier admits George III had a “mission,” but does not discuss its alleged source in Bolingbroke.
27. Sedgwick, ***i***Letters from George III***/i***, letters 231, 232. For Bolingbroke's influence, see also letters 4, 5, 17, 18, 81, 106, 114, 205, 233, 328, 336; George III's early essay on King Alfred, partly quoted in Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 105Google Scholar; and Fortescue, John (ed.), The Correspondence of King George the Third (London, 1927), I, letters 372, 425, 430Google Scholar.
28. By this time George III was more independent of Bute than Sedgwick, alleges (Letters from George III, p. lxi)Google Scholar; he regards Bute's assistance in his intention as desirable, not necessary.
29. Thus it was not necessarily inconsistent with their purpose for Bute later to recommend Fox as minister, “a man void of principles” (Sedgwick, Letters from George III, letter 278) — though George III opposed the recommendation (Ibid., pp. lxiii-lxiv). Sedgwick says that it was only because of Fox's poor health that “Bute's vague dreams of ‘purging out corruption’ did not end in his deliberately handing over the government of the country to the foremost exponent of the ‘loaves and fishes’ school of politics.” Sedgwick's mentor Namier also agrees that Fox was the “most rapacious of eighteenth-century statesmen”; yet this does not prevent Namier from deliberately handing over the solution of a moral question— what is honesty?—to that foremost exponent of civilized rapacity, Fox, Henry. Namier, , Structure of Politics, pp. 213, 228Google Scholar.
30. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 95–96Google Scholar.
31. Ibid., pp. 94-105.
32. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xxivGoogle Scholar.
33. As the Archbishop of Canterbury perceived. Ibid., p. xxv.
34. The second source for the legend of Bolingbroke's influence, according to Sedgwick, is a lie told by Horace Walpole to vent his spite against a minister who denied him a sinecure. See Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xlii, note 1Google Scholar.
35. Ibid., letters 63, 87, 88.
36. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 179Google Scholar.
37. Ibid., p. 152.
38. Ibid., pp. 65, 95.
39. Cf. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 9Google Scholar and Namier, Structure of Politics, where Namier admits party differences existed in Parliament and were important in the counties, with Namier, L. B., Conflicts (London, 1942), p. 202Google Scholar: “To talk of parties in 1760 is just nonsense.”
40. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 9Google Scholar; Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 310Google Scholar; Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 61, 95, 206–33Google Scholar; Namier, , Personalities and Powers, pp. 40, 44, 56Google Scholar; cf. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. xxixGoogle Scholar.
41. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 353, 392, 399, 424, 426, 433, 438Google Scholar.
42. Sedgwick, , Letters from George III, p. viiiGoogle Scholar; Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 9Google Scholar.
43. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, pp. 4–10Google Scholar.
44. Ibid., pp. 9-10; cf. Namier, , Personalities and Powers, p. 40Google Scholar. Namiet elsewhere remarks that “it is impossible rationally to explain or to defend every aspect of party politics …” (Conflicts, p. 201), although this does not diminish his acceptance of party government at all times except “during supreme danger.” (Ibid., p. 206).
45. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 158nGoogle Scholar. Ch. i of Namier, L. B., Diplomatic Prelude, 1938-9 (London, 1948)Google Scholar is only an apparent exception.
46. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. xivGoogle Scholar; cf. Namier, L. B., In the Margin of History (London, 1939), p. 148Google Scholar. But it should be noted that Namier shares his premise, that party government is obviously superior to eighteenth-century limited monarchy, with the “Whig historians”; he only denies that party government was present in an important degree in the eighteenth century, or that it was illustrated in the behavior of the Rockingham group. The reason for the difference is in Namier's disregard of contemporary opinions, to be explained. See Macaulay, T. B., Critical and Historical Essays (Boston, 1900), III, essay on Pitt, 245, 273Google Scholar; VI, essay on Chatham, 262-63, 278, 294, 324.
47. Namier, Structure of Politics, p. xivGoogle Scholar. Yet he is not careful in reporting what he gets. Namier's summaries of Burke's views, in particular, ought to be a scandal. He says that Burke, in defending party, “by implication … eliminated the rights of the Crown” (Monarchy and the Party System, p. 11); that Burke came near claiming “divine right” to the King's influence for his party (England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 179); that Burke “constructed the theory that it was George III's deliberate policy and established practice to with-hold … support from ministers” (Ibid., p. 182).
48. He says that “the terms in which men try to account for their actions are of supreme importance; every country and every age has dominant terms, which seem to obsess men's thoughts.” Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 36Google Scholar. But he does not inquire whether those terms are correct. Yet elsewhere he seems to imply that he ought to make this inquiry. See Namier, , Personalities and Powers, p. 3Google Scholar.
49. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 19Google Scholar.
50. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 33, 45Google Scholar.
51. Namier also mentions the possibility of British union, in which the colonies would have representation in the British Parliament. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 45Google Scholar. The view that this is impracticable because of the remoteness of the colonies is merely a “slogan” (Ibid., p. 267; but cf. Burke, Edmund, “Speech on Conciliation with America,” Works of Burke, I, 488-89, 492)Google Scholar; but it is nevertheless not a “true settlement” (Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 42Google Scholar), which would presumably include a recognition of separate nationality.
52. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 32, 33, 42Google Scholar.
53. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 4Google Scholar; Namier, , Conflicts, p. 197Google Scholar.
54. This argument of Namier's omits two possibilities. Some other agency than organized parties could select the candidate for inyestment, while the King was just as innocuous and respectable. Moreover, the King could retain both active power and allegiance, as in the eighteenth century, since disappointed men, even when they are grown-up children, do not have to become traitors—although he could not do so if America were to have self-government under his sovereignty.
55. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 32Google Scholar. But all the subjects know the difference between gerents and symbols, and may cower before both. Do the English sense themselves as equal to their ministers as Americans do to their President, who has some symbols of authority.
56. Ibid., pp. 317-18, 325.
57. Ibid., p. 326.
58. Ibid., pp. 346, 433. Namier agrees with Bute to this extent, that if the great families had been a menace, they would have been so as “a self-perpetuating junto of Ministers.” Namier, Conflicts, p. 198.
59. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 147-48, 353, 446Google Scholar; Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 281Google Scholar.
60. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 401Google Scholar.
61. Ibid., pp. 445-46.
62. Namier, , Conflicts, p. 207Google Scholar.
63. Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, p. 3Google Scholar.
64. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 418, 453, 471Google Scholar.
65. Namier, , Conflicts, p. 209Google Scholar; cf. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 45Google Scholar. This suggests that party government is rather a means of avoiding aristocracy, than aristocracy a hindrance to party government. It might be added that Namier is no kinder to the country gentleman than to the great families; he dismisses their political virtues as too independent. If they had desired more material benefit from politics, they would have been more at the mercy of parties—hence more truly virtuous. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 5Google Scholar; Namier, , Monarchy and the Party System, pp. 16-19, 22–23Google Scholar; cf. Namier, Personalities and Powers, ch. v.
66. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 149Google Scholar.
67. Ibid., pp. 37-38, 375, 403; Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 481Google Scholar; Namier, , Conflicts, p. 197Google Scholar.
68. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 66, 469Google Scholar. Namier notes this new method and another apparent peculiarity of George III's reign, that he tried to rule without Secret Service funds for five months. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 175Google Scholar. The first is an attempt to destroy aristocratic domination, the second, to rule without corruption; both are prime features of Bolingbroke's policy for the Patriot King.
69. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 479Google Scholar.
70. Ibid., p. 424. If Newcastle was not “proscribed” from power, such a hardy worthy would not entirely lose his “attractive influence“; if he was proscribed, then it was on the basis of some principle, which was not precisely the founding of a non-partisan civil service. It is unclear from the evidence here adduced (p. 424) that Newcastle, who had his lucid moments (p. 426), believed that all his friends would stay with him, just because they would all receive a letter from him.
71. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 24, 36, 40, 147, 148Google Scholar; Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 134Google Scholar.
72. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 134Google Scholar.
73. Ibid., pp. 37-38. That the standards of his age are the superiority of its beliefs and institutions, not of the beliefs, and institutions of previous ages, is probably a leftover from the idea of progress, for which Namier is not chiefly responsible.
74. But cf. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 46Google Scholar, where Namier repeats Danton's “on ne fait pas le proces aux revolutions” as if Danton were referring to the rough justice he encountered, rather than to the legal procedure he ignored.
75. On one occasion Namier seems to suppose that self-interest is the key to all political conduct (Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. 213Google Scholar); thus, for example, Parliament, as it focuses the exertions of self-interest, would represent a “true equation of forces.” Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 4; cf. p. 11. This could be true only on the assumption that statesmen, who usually deny the primacy of self-interest, are powerless to state their true motives. But it has been shown that Namier relies heavily on the resentment of the King as heir-apparent, contrary to his interest, to explain the motives of George III on his accession; and at this time, because there was no “reversionary resource,” there was an abnormal imbalance of forces in the constitution, however faithfully reflected in Parliament.
76. Namier, , England in the Age of the American Revolution, p. 24Google Scholar.
77. Namier, , Avenues of History, pp. 1–10Google Scholar; Namier, , Personalities and Powers, pp. 1-7, and 8–12Google Scholar.
78. Namier, , Avenues of History, p. 1Google Scholar.
79. Namier, , Personalities and Powers, pp. 1–3Google Scholar.
80. Namier, , Avenues of History, pp. 5–9Google Scholar. Namier's concern that his discoveries will not be embodied in history texts or art gallery catalogues is very prominent. See Namier, , Personalities and Powers, p. 40Google Scholar; Namier, , Avenues of History, p. 121Google Scholar.
81. Namier, , Structure of Politics, p. ixGoogle Scholar. Note Namier's reference to the authority of “so many.”
