Structuring Politics in Early Eighteenth‐Century France: The Political Innovations of the French Council of Commerce

2002 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kammerling Smith
1958 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. N. Newman

An association between the prince of Wales and various opposition leaders is a recurrent feature of eighteenth-century politics. A politically active prince found little difficulty in securing a following among the politicians of the day; the glittering prospects of the ‘reversionary’ interest1 were an obvious lure, and an obvious basis for such a connexion. But this is not a complete explanation. The prince had also a considerable degree of patronage at his disposal, and could add a more immediate and concrete reality to promises for the future. A study of this patronage, its extent and its disposal, and more particularly the way in which it was exercised by Frederick, ‘Poor Fred’, throws much light on the connexion between the prince and his political friends, and contributes to an understanding of the place of Leicester House in the politics of the early eighteenth century.


1963 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. A. Cranfield

One of the most significant of the anti-ministerial newspapers of the early eighteenth century was the London Evening Post. Its importance has been overshadowed by such great newspapers as the Craftsman, which has come to be regarded as the main propaganda weapon of the Opposition to Walpole. But it seems probable that the London Evening Post reached a wider public, and that its influence was more sustained and more immediately effective. The Craftsman was published only once a week, and devoted the greater part of its space to its political essay. These essays were undoubtedly immensely influential, and in times of unusual excitement the paper' circulation could reach quite remarkable figures. But the regular circulation of such a paper was bound to be limited. Outside the capital, London newspapers were not cheap: and few readers would be so politically minded as to be prepared to subscribe regularly to a purely political paper. Most country readers wanted news as well as views: and perhaps no eighteenth-century paper set out to satisfy both demands more effectively than did the London Evening Post. Its reputation was increasingly to be based upon its political content: but its various printers never lost sight of the fundamental fact that their product was first and foremost a newspaper, and even in the most hectic political campaigns the news always received priority. On the political side, instead of relying, as did most political papers of this period, upon lengthy and often tedious essays, the Post preferred to make its point by brief but exceedingly pungent comment upon the news and by the savagely humorous verses for which it was to become notorious. In this way, it made politics both interesting and amusing. The result was that the Post very rapidly became established as one of the main sources of London and foreign news throughout the countryside. By the 1740', there were few country papers indeed which did not draw heavily upon the Post: and these papers reproduced not only the Post's news items but also its politics. In fact, its political influence became so pronounced that on two occasions, in 1733 and 1754, the Whig ministry paid it the supreme compliment of endeavouring to prevent its transmission through the Post Office.


Author(s):  
Mr. Nadeem Hasan

The word Eham means to use words in poetry bearing dual meanings. The first meaning is more common and apprehensible, while the second specific and inapprehensible. The poet uses the word with its inapprehensible meaning. In the history of Urdu literature, Eham Goi became a literary movement in the early eighteenth century due to the political circumstances of that era. In this research paper, the scholar has shed light on the art of Eham and the poets who used Eham in their poetry.


1986 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Lieberman

Rarely has a national historiographic tradition depended so heavily on a single author as the Burmese tradition has on U Kala. A native of Ava in Upper Burma, U Kala completed the so-called “Great Chronicle”, the Maha-ya-zawin-gyi, in the early eighteenth century. Beginning, logically enough, with the start of the current world cycle and the Buddhist version of ancient Indian history, this chronicle proceeded with ever increasing detail to narrate the political story of the Irrawaddy basin from quasi-legendary dynasties to events witnessed by the author himself in 1711. Before U Kala, the only Burmese histories of which we have record were biographies and comparatively brief local chronicles. Some twenty years after U Kala finished his work, many of the original sources on which he relied were destroyed by a fire at Ava. This loss combined with U Kala's admirable prose style to establish his encyclopaedic work as a model in the eyes of all subsequent historians. The pre-1712 portions of later national Burmese chronicles — including the Ya-zawin-thit (New Chronicle), the Maha-ya-zawin-gyaw (Great Celebrated Chronicle), and the famous Hman-nan maha-ya-zawin-daw-gyi (Glass Palace Chronicle) — are more or less verbatim reproductions of U Kala's history, with some interpolations of quasi-legendary material and with limited digressions on points of scholarly dispute. In essence, therefore, we have but one chronicle prior to 1712. Not surprisingly, U Kala's Maha-ya-zawin-gyi has provided the basis for virtually every survey of pre-colonial Burmese political history.


1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. D. Clark

England has not known a simple two-party system, oraparty system of any sort. The lineage of English parties is fragmented and discontinuous. Most of the apparent continuities, like the myth of a long-standing two-party system, have been invented in retrospect by politicians and publicists seeking the justification of a pedigree. Party itself has not been a constant phenomenon, which could be defined by the political scientist and then searched for by the historian. The English experience, rather, is of a succession of discontinuous two-, three-, even four-party systems whose components both develop and relate to each other through changing conventions. Often the fiction of the ‘two-party system’ has disguised the reality of three or more parties; parties which, themselves, can be the vehicles for a wide range of issues. It is a commonplace, which was evident to Hume and Bolingbroke, that whigs and tories exchanged many of their policy commitments in the early eighteenth century; but the same suggestion has been made of the Conservative and Labour parties today. The content of a party's programme has always been almost infinitely flexible;exceptin respect of the questions raised by a small number of threats, challenges or problems. The existence and endurance of party systems has usually articulated the ideological polarity which such challenges induce.


2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (153) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Watt

Even though violent popular protest was a common feature of life in early eighteenth-century Dublin, the riots that broke out in 1729 were exceptionally severe and long-lasting and resulted in the worst disorder to occur in the capital in decades. Over a ten-month period rival gangs rioted against each other or against government forces, causing a considerable degree of destruction, injury and death. At the height of the disorder, in late spring and summer, ‘vast numbers’ of people were reportedly beaten and abused by rioters, and residents of the city became fearful for their personal safety. According to the Dublin Intelligence citizens moved ‘mostly in a kind of hurry’ on account of the riots; parts of the city became no-go areas, and gangs of ‘reprobates’ gathered on the outskirts of the city to rob travellers and rape women. The political elite voiced their concerns too, in particular at the length of time the disorder was lasting. The archbishop of Armagh, Hugh Boulter, wrote to the secretary of state, the duke of Newcastle, from Dublin in March 1730 complaining that they had ‘suffered very much from riots and tumults in this town last summer and even during the present sitting of the parliament’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document