Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

LORD BOLINGBROKE'S THEORY OF PARTY AND OPPOSITION*

  • MAX SKJÖNSBERG (a1)
Abstract
ABSTRACT

Bolingbroke has been overlooked by intellectual historians in the last few decades, at least in comparison with ‘canonical’ thinkers. This article examines one of the most important but disputable aspects of his political thought: his views on political parties and his theory of opposition. It aims to demonstrate that Bolingbroke's views on party have been misunderstood and that it is possible to think of him as an advocate of political parties rather than the ‘anti-party’ writer he is commonly known as. It has been suggested that Bolingbroke prescribed a state without political parties. By contrast, this article seeks to show that Bolingbroke was in fact the promoter of a very specific party, a systematic parliamentary opposition party in resistance to what he perceived as the Court Whig faction in power. It will also be argued that Bolingbroke at no time envisaged a final end to political conflict and that his opposition party should not be interpreted as a party to end all parties.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Department of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton St, London, wc2a 2aem.skjonsberg@lse.ac.uk
Footnotes
Hide All

I have benefited from comments by Adrian Blau, Tim Hochstrasser, Paul Keenan, Robin Mills, and Paul Stock, as well as conversations with Richard Bourke, J. C. D. Clark, and Quentin Skinner at various stages of this project. I would also like to thank the Historical Journal's anonymous reviewers for their feedback. As usual, however, the buck stops with the writer. I presented an earlier and shorter version of this article at the inaugural Early Modern Intellectual History Postgraduate Conference at Newcastle University in June 2015. Eighteenth-century spelling has been kept in quotations throughout as have inconsistencies in spelling. All changes and additions are marked by square brackets. New style rather than old style has been employed with regards to dates, i.e. where necessary years have been adjusted to start on 1 January rather than on 25 March.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

DavidArmitage , ‘A patriot for whom? The afterlives of Bolingbroke's Patriot king ’, Journal of British Studies, 36 (1997), pp. 397418

CarolineRobbins , ‘“Discordant parties”: a study of the acceptance of party by Englishmen’, Political Science Quarterly, 37 (1958), p. 507

H. N.Fieldhouse , ‘Bolingbroke and the idea of non-party government’, History, 23 (1938), pp. 4156

SimonTargett , ‘Government and ideology during the Age of Whig Supremacy: the political argument of Sir Robert Walpole's newspaper propagandists’, Historical Journal, 37 (1994), pp. 289317

Paul A.Rahe , ‘Montesquieu's anti-Machiavellian Machiavellianism’, History of European Ideas, 37 (2011), pp. 129–30

StephenTaylor , ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Church of England, and the Quakers Tithe Bill of 1736’, Historical Journal, 28 (1985), pp. 5177

GilesBarber , ‘Bolingbroke, Pope, and the patriot king’, The Library, 19 (1964), pp. 6789

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Historical Journal
  • ISSN: 0018-246X
  • EISSN: 1469-5103
  • URL: /core/journals/historical-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×