Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:20:10.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POPERY, POLITICS, AND PRIVATE JUDGEMENT IN EARLY HANOVERIAN BRITAIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2002

ANDREW C. THOMPSON
ANDREW C. THOMPSON
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses two dissenting periodicals, the Occasional Paper and the Old Whig. It argues that these periodicals provide an opportunity to reconsider the current priorities in the historiography of eighteenth-century political thought and religious history. Having considered the contexts from which the periodicals emerged and the importance of a perceived growth in catholic proselytizing in the 1730s, it analyses the importance of ‘popery’ in religious and political discourse. Taken together, popery and private judgement provided the parameters to descibe what was termed ‘consistent protestantism’ and this was used to defend a particular version of dissent. The protestant aspect to oppositional whiggery has been largely ignored, particularly by those keen to assert the centrality of ‘classical republicanism’ to opposition language in the early Hanoverian period. This article suggests an alternative account of the transmission of the commonwealth tradition and indicates further lines of inquiry into the evolution of whig ideas.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 333 - 356
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Mark Goldie, who supervised the research on which this article is based, for all his help and encouragement. I am grateful for the comments offered on various drafts by Eileen Groth Lyon, Victoria O'Connor, Richard Rex, David and Margaret Thompson, and the two anonymous readers for the Historical Journal. The research was made possible by a studentship from the Arts and Humanities Research Board of the British Academy.