Editing Kingdom of Great Britain (section)

===Hanoverian succession: 1714–1760===
{{Further| History of the United Kingdom|Georgian era|House of Hanover}}
In the 18th century England, and after 1707 Great Britain, rose to become the world's dominant [[colonialism|colonial power]], with France as its main rival.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Pagden |first=Anthony |title=Peoples and Empires: A Short History of European Migration, Exploration, and Conquest, from Greece to the Present |date=2003 |publisher=Modern Library |isbn=0-812-96761-5 |page=90 |ol=3702796M |author-link=Anthony Pagden}}</ref> The pre-1707 [[English overseas possessions]] became the nucleus of the [[British Empire|First British Empire]].

"In 1714 the ruling class was so bitterly divided that many feared a civil war might break out on Queen Anne's death", wrote historian [[W. A. Speck]].{{Sfn|Speck|1977|pp=146–149}} A few hundred of the richest [[ruling class]] and [[landed gentry]] families controlled parliament, but were deeply split, with Tories committed to the legitimacy of the [[James Francis Edward Stuart|Stuart "Old Pretender"]], then in exile. The Whigs strongly supported the Hanoverians, in order to ensure a Protestant succession. The new king, George I was a foreign prince and had a small English [[standing army]] to support him, with military support from his native Hanover and from his allies in the Netherlands. In the [[Jacobite rising of 1715]], based in Scotland, the [[John Erskine, Earl of Mar (1675–1732)|Earl of Mar]] led eighteen Jacobite peers and 10,000 men, with the aim of overthrowing the new king and restoring the Stuarts. Poorly organised, it was decisively defeated. Several of the leaders were executed, many others dispossessed of their lands, and some 700 prominent followers deported to forced labour on sugar plantations in the West Indies. A key decision was the refusal of the Pretender to change his religion from Roman Catholic to Anglican, which would have mobilised much more of the Tory element. The Whigs came to power, under the leadership of [[James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope|James Stanhope]], [[Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend|Charles Townshend]], the [[Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland|Earl of Sunderland]], and [[Robert Walpole]]. Many Tories were driven out of national and local government, and new laws were passed to impose greater national control. The right of [[habeas corpus]] was restricted; to reduce electoral instability, the [[Septennial Act 1715]] increased the maximum life of a parliament from three years to seven.<ref>{{Harvnb|Marshall|1974|pp=72–89}}; {{Harvnb|Williams|1962|pages=150–165}}; {{Harvnb|Hoppit|2000|pages=392–398}}; {{Harvnb|Speck|1977|pages=170–187}}.</ref>

====George I: 1714–1727====
During his reign, George I spent only about half as much of his time overseas as had William III, who also reigned for thirteen years.<ref name="ODNBGeorgeI">{{Cite ODNB|title=George I|last=Gibbs|first=G. C.|date=21 May 2009|volume=1|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/10538}}</ref> [[Jeremy Black (historian)|Jeremy Black]] has argued that George wanted to spend even more time in Hanover: "His visits, in 1716, 1719, 1720, 1723 and 1725, were lengthy, and, in total, he spent a considerable part of his reign abroad. These visits were also occasions both for significant negotiations and for the exchange of information and opinion....The visits to Hanover also provided critics with the opportunity...to argue that British interests were being neglected....George could not speak English, and all relevant documents from his British ministers were translated into French for him....Few British ministers or diplomats...knew German, or could handle it in precise discussion."{{Sfn|Black|2016|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XdQGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT44 44–45]}}

George I supported the expulsion of the Tories from power; they remained in the political wilderness until his great-grandson George III came to power in 1760 and began to replace Whigs with Tories.{{Sfn|Williams|1962|pages=11–44}} George I has often been caricatured in the history books, but according to his biographer [[Ragnhild Hatton]]:
{{Blockquote|...on the whole he did well by Great Britain, guiding the country calmly and responsibly through the difficult postwar years and repeated invasions or threatened invasions... He liked efficiency and expertise, and had long experience of running an orderly state... He cared for the quality of his ministers and his officers, army and naval, and the strength of the navy in fast ships grew during his reign... He showed political vision and ability in the way in which he used British power in Europe.<ref>{{Citation |last=Hatton |first=Ragnhild |title=England's Rise to Greatness |date=1983 |pages=213–255, quoting p. 241 |editor-last=Baxter |editor-first=Stephen B. |chapter=New Light on George I |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-04572-9 |ol=3505103M |author-link=Ragnhild Hatton |editor-link=Stephen Baxter (author)}}</ref>}}

====Age of Walpole: 1721–1742====
{{Further|Robert Walpole|History of the United Kingdom}}
[[File:Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford by Arthur Pond.jpg|thumb|180px|Walpole, by [[Arthur Pond]]]]
Robert Walpole (1676–1745) was a son of the [[landed gentry]] who rose to power in the House of Commons from 1721 to 1742. He became the first "prime minister", a term in use by 1727. In 1742, he was created [[Earl of Orford]] and was succeeded as prime minister by two of his followers, [[Henry Pelham]] (1743–1754) and Pelham's brother the [[Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle|Duke of Newcastle]] (1754–1762).{{Sfn|Williams|1962|pages=180–212}} Clayton Roberts summarises Walpole's new functions:
{{Blockquote|He monopolised the counsels of the King, he closely superintended the administration, he ruthlessly controlled patronage, and he led the predominant party in Parliament.{{Sfn|Taylor|2008}}}}

=====South Sea Bubble=====
{{Main|South Sea Bubble}}
Corporate stock was a new phenomenon, not well understood, except for the strong gossip among financiers that fortunes could be made overnight. The South Sea Company, although originally set up to trade with the Spanish Empire, quickly turned most of its attention to very high risk financing, involving £30&nbsp;million, some 60 per cent of the entire British national debt. It set up a scheme that invited stock owners to turn in their certificates for stock in the Company at a par value of £100—the idea was that they would profit by the rising price of their stock. Everyone with connections wanted in on the bonanza, and many other outlandish schemes found gullible takers. South Sea stock peaked at £1,060 on 25 June 1720. Then the bubble burst, and by the end of September it had fallen to £150. Hundreds of prominent men had borrowed to buy stock high; their apparent profits had vanished, but they were liable to repay the full amount of the loans. Many went bankrupt, and many more lost fortunes.<ref name="bubble">{{Cite book |last=Cowles |first=Virginia |url=https://archive.org/details/greatswindlestor01edunse |title=The Great Swindle: The Story of the South Sea Bubble |date=1960 |publisher=Harper |location=New York |url-access=registration}}</ref>

Confidence in the entire national financial and political system collapsed. Parliament investigated and concluded that there had been widespread fraud by the company directors and corruption in the Cabinet. Among Cabinet members implicated were the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], the [[Postmaster General]], and a Secretary of State, as well as two other leading men, [[James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope|Lord Stanhope]] and [[Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland|Lord Sunderland]]. Walpole had dabbled in the speculation himself but was not a major player. He rose to the challenge, as the new [[First Lord of the Treasury]], of resolving the financial and political disaster. The economy was basically healthy, and the panic ended. Working with the financiers he successfully restored confidence in the system. However, public opinion, as shaped by the many prominent men who had lost so much money so quickly, demanded revenge. Walpole supervised the process, which removed all 33 company directors and stripped them of, on average, 82% of their wealth.<ref name="Kleer165">{{Cite web |last=Kleer |first=Richard |date=2014 |title=Riding a wave the Company's role in the South Sea Bubble |url=https://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/380e0bd9-47d1-4878-87a1-6bfb013ad21c.pdf |access-date=16 January 2020 |website=Economic History Society |publisher=University of Regina |page=2}}</ref> The money went to the victims. The government bought the stock of the South Sea Company for £33 and sold it to the Bank of England and the East India Company, the only other two corporations big enough to handle the challenge. Walpole made sure that King George and his mistresses were not embarrassed, and by the margin of three votes he saved several key government officials from impeachment.<ref name="bubble" />

[[File:Houghton Hall 01.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|Walpole's [[Houghton Hall]] ]]
Stanhope and Sunderland died of natural causes, leaving Walpole alone as the dominant figure in British politics. The public hailed him as the saviour of the financial system, and historians credit him with rescuing the Whig government, and indeed the Hanoverian dynasty, from total disgrace.<ref name="Kleer165" />{{Sfn|Marshall|1974|pages=127–130}}

====Patronage and corruption====
[[Robert Walpole|Walpole]] was a master of the effective use of patronage, as were Pelham and Lord Newcastle. They each paid close attention to the work of bestowing upon their political allies high places, lifetime pensions, honours, lucrative government contracts, and help at election time. In turn the friends enabled them to control Parliament.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Browning |first=Reed |url=https://archive.org/details/dukeofnewcastle0000brow |title=Duke of Newcastle |date=1975 |isbn=978-0-300-01746-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/dukeofnewcastle0000brow/page/254 254–260] |publisher=Yale University Press |ol=5069181M |url-access=registration}}</ref> Thus in 1742, over 140 members of parliament held powerful positions thanks in part to Walpole, including 24 men at the royal court, 50 in the government agencies, and the rest with [[sinecure]]s or other handsome emoluments, often in the range of £500 – £1000 per year. Usually there was little or no work involved. Walpole also distributed highly attractive ecclesiastical appointments. When the Court in 1725 instituted a new order of chivalry, the [[Order of the Bath]], Walpole immediately seized the opportunity. He made sure that most of the 36 men honoured were peers and members of parliament who would provide him with useful connections.<ref>{{Citation |last=Hanham |first=Andrew |title=The Politics of Chivalry: Sir Robert Walpole, the Duke of Montagu and the Order of the Bath |date=2016 |journal=Parliamentary History |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=262–297 |doi=10.1111/1750-0206.12236}}</ref> Walpole himself became enormously wealthy, investing heavily in his estate at [[Houghton Hall]] and its large collection of European master paintings.<ref>{{Citation |last=Roberts |first=Clayton |title=A History of England |date=1985 |volume=2, 1688 to the present |pages=449–450 |edition=3rd |isbn=978-0-13-389974-0 |ol=2863417M |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Walpole's methods won him victory after victory, but aroused furious opposition. Historian [[John H. Plumb]] wrote:
{{Blockquote|Walpole's policy had bred distrust, his methods hatred. Time and time again his policy was successful in Parliament only because of the government's absolute control of the Scottish members in the Commons and the Bishops in the Lords. He gave point to the opposition's cry that Walpole's policy was against the wishes of the nation, a policy imposed by a corrupt use of pension and place.{{Sfn|Plumb|1950|page=68}}}}

The opposition called for "patriotism" and looked at the Prince of Wales as the future "Patriot King". Walpole supporters ridiculed the very term "patriot".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Carretta |first=Vincent |title=George III and the Satirists from Hogarth to Byron |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-8203-3124-9 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=xQqs0qxcnJMC&pg=PA44 44]–51 |publisher=University of Georgia Press |ol=29578545M}}</ref>

The opposition [[Country Party (Britain)|Country Party]] attacked Walpole relentlessly, primarily targeting his patronage, which they denounced as corruption. In turn, Walpole imposed censorship on the London theatre and subsidised writers such as [[William Arnall]] and others who rejected the charge of political corruption by arguing that corruption is the universal human condition. Furthermore, they argued, political divisiveness was also universal and inevitable because of selfish passions that were integral to human nature. Arnall argued that government must be strong enough to control conflict, and in that regard Walpole was quite successful. This style of "court" political rhetoric continued through the 18th century.<ref>{{Citation |last=Horne |first=Thomas |title=Politics in a Corrupt Society: William Arnall's Defense of Robert Walpole |date=October–December 1980 |journal=Journal of the History of Ideas |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=601–614 |doi=10.2307/2709276 |jstor=2709276}}</ref> [[Richard Temple, 1st Viscount Cobham|Lord Cobham]], a leading soldier, used his own connections to build up an opposition after 1733. Young [[William Pitt the Elder|William Pitt]] and [[George Grenville]] joined [[Cobhamite|Cobham's faction]]—they were called "Cobham's Cubs". They became leading enemies of Walpole and both later became prime minister.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Leonard |first=Dick |title=Eighteenth-Century British Premiers: Walpole to the Younger Pitt |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-230-30463-5 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=JpiIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94 94] |publisher=Springer |ol=37125742M |author-link=Dick Leonard}}</ref>

By 1741, Walpole was facing mounting criticism on foreign policy—he was accused of entangling Britain in a useless war with Spain—and mounting allegations of corruption. On 13 February 1741, [[Samuel Sandys, 1st Baron Sandys|Samuel Sandys]], a former ally, called for his removal.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kellner |first=Peter |title=Democracy: 1,000 Years in Pursuit of British Liberty |date=2011 |isbn=978-1-907195-85-3 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bobcxij5UkIC&pg=PT264 264] |publisher=Random House |ol=36708739M}}</ref> He said:
{{Blockquote| Such has been the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, with regard to foreign affairs: he has deserted our allies, aggrandized our enemies, betrayed our commerce, and endangered our colonies; and yet this is the least criminal part of his ministry. For what is the loss of allies to the alienation of the people from the government, or the diminution of trade to the destruction of our liberties?<ref>{{Citation |title=Great Britain: the lion at home: a documentary history of domestic policy, 1689–1973 |date=1983 |volume=1 |issue=66–67 |editor-last=Wiener |editor-first=Joel H.}}</ref>}}

Walpole's allies defeated a censure motion by a vote of 209 to 106, but Walpole's coalition lost seats in the election of 1741, and by a narrow margin he was finally forced out of office in early 1742.<ref>{{Harvnb|Langford|1989|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9-b81opKYREC&pg=PA56 54–57]}}; {{Harvnb|Marshall|1974|pp=183–191}}.</ref>

=====Walpole's foreign policy=====
{{Further|International relations (1648–1814)|France–United Kingdom relations}}

Walpole secured widespread support with his policy of avoiding war.<ref>{{Citation |last=Black |first=Jeremy |title=Britain in the Age of Walpole |date=1984 |pages=144–169 |editor-last=Black |editor-first=Jeremy |chapter=Foreign Policy in the Age of Walpole |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0-333-36863-3 |ol=2348433M |author-link=Jeremy Black (historian) |editor-link=Jeremy Black (historian)}}</ref> He used his influence to prevent George II from entering the [[War of the Polish Succession]] in 1733, because it was a dispute between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. He boasted, "There are 50,000 men slain in Europe this year, and not one Englishman."{{Sfn|Robertson|1911|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OawxAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA66 66]}} Walpole himself let others, especially [[Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend|his brother-in-law Lord Townshend]], handle foreign policy until about 1726, then took charge. A major challenge for his administration was the royal role as simultaneous ruler of Hanover, a small German state that was opposed to Prussian supremacy. George I and George II saw a French alliance as the best way to neutralise Prussia. They forced a dramatic reversal of British foreign policy, which for centuries had seen France as England's greatest enemy.{{Sfn|Black|2016}} However, the bellicose King [[Louis XIV]] died in 1715, and the regents who ran France were preoccupied with internal affairs. King [[Louis XV]] came of age in 1726, and his elderly chief minister [[André-Hercule de Fleury|Cardinal Fleury]] collaborated informally with Walpole to prevent a major war and keep the peace. Both sides wanted peace, which allowed both countries enormous cost savings, and recovery from expensive wars.<ref>{{Citation |last=Wilson |first=Arthur McCandless |title=French Foreign Policy during the Administration of Cardinal Fleury, 1726–1743: A Study in Diplomacy and Commercial Development |date=1936 |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=0-837-15333-6 |ol=5703043M |author-link=Arthur McCandless Wilson}}</ref>

Henry Pelham became prime minister in 1744 and continued Walpole's policies. He worked for an end to the [[War of the Austrian Succession]].{{Sfn|Williams|1962|pages=259–270}} His financial policy was a major success once peace had been signed in 1748. He demobilised the armed forces, and reduced government spending from £12&nbsp;million to £7&nbsp;million. He refinanced the national debt, dropping the interest rate from 4% p.a. to 3% p.a. Taxes had risen to pay for the war, but in 1752 he reduced the land tax from four shillings to two shillings in the pound: that is, from 20% to 10%.<ref>{{Harvnb|Brumwell|Speck|2001|page=288}}; {{Harvnb |Marshall|1974|pages=221–227}}.</ref>

=====Lower debt and taxes=====
By avoiding wars, Walpole could lower taxes. He reduced the national debt with a sinking fund, and by negotiating lower interest rates. He reduced the land tax from four shillings in 1721, to 3s in 1728, 2s in 1731 and finally to only 1s (i.e. 5%) in 1732. His long-term goal was to replace the land tax, which was paid by the local gentry, with excise and customs taxes, which were paid by merchants and ultimately by consumers. Walpole joked that the landed gentry resembled hogs, which squealed loudly whenever anyone laid hands on them. By contrast, he said, merchants were like sheep, and yielded their wool without complaint.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Cambridge Modern History |date=1909 |isbn=978-0-521-07814-6 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=A. W. |editor-link=Adolphus Ward |volume=VI: the Eighteenth Century |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=fMgFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46 46] |ol=7716876M |display-editors=etal}}</ref> The joke backfired in 1733 when he was defeated in a major battle to [[Excise Bill|impose excise taxes on wine and tobacco]]. To reduce the threat of smuggling, the tax was to be collected not at ports but at warehouses. This new proposal, however, was extremely unpopular with the public, and aroused the opposition of the merchants because of the supervision it would involve. Walpole was defeated as his strength in Parliament dropped a notch.{{Sfn|Langford|1989|pages=28–33}}

=====Walpole's reputation=====
[[File:The Stature of a Great Man or the English Colossus cph.3b03411.jpg|thumb|1740 political cartoon depicting a towering Walpole as the [[Colossus of Rhodes]]]]

Historians hold Walpole's record in high regard, though there has been a recent tendency to share credit more widely among his allies. [[W. A. Speck]] wrote that Walpole's uninterrupted run of 20 years as Prime Minister

{{Blockquote|is rightly regarded as one of the major feats of British political history...&nbsp;Explanations are usually offered in terms of his expert handling of the political system after 1720, [and] his unique blending of the surviving powers of the crown with the increasing influence of the Commons.{{Sfn|Speck|1977|page=203}}
}}

He was a [[Whigs (British political party)|Whig]] from the gentry class, who first arrived in Parliament in 1701, and held many senior positions. He was a country squire and looked to country gentlemen for his political base. Historian Frank O'Gorman said his leadership in Parliament reflected his "reasonable and persuasive oratory, his ability to move both the emotions as well as the minds of men, and, above all, his extraordinary self-confidence."{{Sfn|O'Gorman|1997|page=71}} [[Julian Hoppit]] has said Walpole's policies sought moderation: he worked for peace, lower taxes, growing exports, and allowed a little more tolerance for Protestant Dissenters. He avoided controversy and high-intensity disputes, as his middle way attracted moderates from both the Whig and Tory camps.{{Sfn|Hoppit|2000|page=410}} H.T. Dickinson summed up his historical role:
{{Blockquote
| Walpole was one of the greatest politicians in British history. He played a significant role in sustaining the Whig party, safeguarding the Hanoverian succession, and defending the principles of the [[Glorious Revolution]] (1688)&nbsp;... He established a stable political supremacy for the Whig party and taught succeeding ministers how best to establish an effective working relationship between Crown and Parliament.<ref>{{Citation |last=Dickinson |first=H. P. |title=Walpole, Sir Robert |date=2003 |work=Readers Guide to British History |volume=2 |issue=1338 |editor-last=Loades |editor-first=David |editor-link=David Loades}}</ref>
}}