Scribd
Upload
201 views

Macaulay Glorious Revolution Essay

1) The document discusses Macaulay's view of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and whether it can be considered a modern event. 2) Macaulay would likely agree that the revolution was modern if modernity is defined as executive power being limited by constitutional rules and government shaped by popular opinion. 3) Macaulay explains how nonconformist protestants played a key role in resisting King James II's unconstitutional power grab, showing popular involvement in the constitutional crisis.

Uploaded by

Robbie Bruens
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
201 views

Macaulay Glorious Revolution Essay

1) The document discusses Macaulay's view of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and whether it can be considered a modern event. 2) Macaulay would likely agree that the revolution was modern if modernity is defined as executive power being limited by constitutional rules and government shaped by popular opinion. 3) Macaulay explains how nonconformist protestants played a key role in resisting King James II's unconstitutional power grab, showing popular involvement in the constitutional crisis.

Uploaded by

Robbie Bruens
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Robbie Bruens September 7, 2010/ Age of Revolutions?

Macaulay and Modernity


In imagining the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as modern in a sense with which Macaulay would agree, it is crucial to define modernity. The word modern may reflect an unmanageably broad and vague set of understandings unless one is careful to limit its meaning in advance. If political modernity is characterized by executive power limited by constitutional rules and government markedly shaped if not entirely dominated by popular opinion rather than purely elite sentiment, then the Glorious Revolution shows fairly unmistakable signs of such modernity. Macaulay would be likely to agree with this claim if he accepted this description of political modernity. Macaulays sympathies clearly lie with constitutions and the rule of law, and his history of the revolution certainly include a considerable degree of detail about mass interest and involvement in the political fate of James II. Macaulay explains how the early events surrounding James II issuing his Declaration of Indulgence signaled the beginning of the end of his reign. During this explanation, Macaulays makes clear his understanding of the underlying issue as a constitutional question: Every person capable of reasoning on a political question must perceive that a monarch who is competent to issue such a Declaration is nothing less than an absolute monarch. Macaulay goes on to elucidate how James II had devised such an unconstitutional declaration in order to drive a wedge between the two categories of his religious opponents, in an attempt to force one group to temporarily ally with him during his power grab. However, the rank-and-file nonconformist protestants refused to be taken

in by such a gambit. Nonconformist leaders who wanted to take advantage of the kings indulgence found they could not count on their followers to allow such collusion. Macaulay writes, The zeal of the flocks outran that of the pastors. Those Presbyterian and Independent teachers who showed an inclination to take part with the King against the ecclesiastical establishment received distinct notice that, unless they changed their conduct, their congregations would neither hear them nor pay them. For Macaulay, nonconformists of all kinds believed constitutional limitation of the monarch, especially an untrustworthy and popish king, to be more important than a gesture of religious freedom. They held firm to this belief despite the political calculations of many of their leaders. Macaulay then illustrates the people of the country as involved and enraptured by the working out of this constitutional crisis. For Macaulay, this may serve as a true sign of some sort of enlightened modernity. Some may object to the claims of modernity of this event on the basis of evidence of earlier instances of modernity as defined here. After all, limiting the power of the English monarch by written regulation date back at least to the Magna Carta of 1215 and popular involvement in the government of the English nation-state can be traced back at least to the Peasants Revolt of 1381. To some extent, this criticism seems valid. Historical work can often trace any trend or theme back far enough ultimately rendering application of any epochal label, especially one as loaded as modern, to be absurd. However, what Macaulay may have found distinctively modern about the Glorious Revolution was not only the importance of limiting monarchial powers nor the commoners interest in state affairs alone, but the combination of the two. For Macaulay, the mass political consciousness about matters constitutional would distinguish this event as modern.

You might also like