Ideology and Partiality in David Hume's History of England

8/20/2019 Ideology and Partiality in David Hume's History of England

1/33

Ideology and Partiality in David Hume's History of England

Laird OkieHume Studies Volume 11, Issue 1 (April, 1985), 1-32.

Your use of the HUME STUDIES archive indicates your acceptance of HUMESTUDIES’ Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.humesociety.org/hs/about/terms.html.HUME STUDIES’ Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issueof a journal or multiple copies of articles, andyou may use content in the HUME STUDIES archive only for your personal,non-commercial use.Each copy of any part of a HUME STUDIES transmission must contain thesame copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of suchtransmission.

For more information on HUME STUDIES contact [email protected]

http://www.humesociety.org/hs/


2/33

--

IDEOLOGY AND PARTIALITY IN DAVID HUME'S

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

Since its publication in

1754-62,

critical

aSSeSSmentS of David HuWe'S History of England can be

broadly divided into three phases. Dur ing Hume

's

lifetime the history was, on the whole, favorably

received. It is true the first volume, treating the

early Stuarts, met initially with a cold reception.

The London booksellers, resentful of the History's

Scottish publishers, waged a successful campaign to

stifle its commercial success. And the sympathetic

portrait which Hume drew of the Stuarts, especially

Charles I, precipitated a round of rebuttals against

this Tory historian. Nevertheless, Hume's succeeding

volumes met with a far kinder fate, and the complete

history, ten years after the Stuart volume appeared,

had already established itself as by far the most

popular history of England ever written. Even from

Hume's detractors there was widespread praise for his

literary grace and narrative clarity. And the response

from the Continent was enthusiastic. Voltaire's

rapturous assessment echoed the views of many:

Nothing can be added to the fame of

this history, perhaps the best ever

written in any language... . Mr. Hume,

in his History, is neither

Parliamentarian nor Royalist, nor

Anglican nor Presbyterian he is

simply judicial

.1

The learned Whig histories of Henry Hallam and

George Brodie slightly dimmed the splendor of Hume's

reputation in the early nineteenth century until

MaCaUlay finally eclipsed it in popularity. MaCaUlay

accused Hume of being more an advocate than an

historian, and in the nineteenth century Whig epoch of

Macaulay, Froude, Green and Gardiner, Hume's History of

England was generally denigrated as an old fashioned


3/33

Tor y hi st or y, based upon a super f i ci al and t endent i ous

r eadi ng of t he sour ces.

As

t he Whi g i nt er pr et at i on of hi st or y came

under f i r e i n t he t hi r d and f our t h decades of t he

t went i et h cent ur y, Hume' s r eput at i on was gr adual l y and

par t i al l y r ehabi l i t at ed. Thomas Pr est on Pear don, i n

hi s 1933 hi s t or i ogr aphi cal s t udy of t he l at e

ei ght eent h- ear l y ni net eent h cent ur y, cr i t i ci zed Hume

f or hi s nar r owl y pol i t i cal f ocus and Tor y s l ant . But

he concl uded t hat ' f undament al l y hi s posi t i on r est ed

upon

a

phi l osophi cal r eadi ng of a gi ven hi s t or i cal

s i t uat i on, not upon a sel ect i on of f act s t o ser ve t he

ends of a par t y.

A s

ear l y

as

1941 Er nest Mossner

ar gued t hat Hume was not , i n f act , a Tor y hi st or i an:

and

i n

hi s

1954 bi ogr aphy he pr ai sed t he Hi st or y f or

i t s br oad sweepi ng nar r at i ve

of

t he nat i onal

devel opment s , phi l osophi cal l y coher ent , ar t i s t i cal l y

or der ed, and pr eem nent l y r eadabl e.

r 3

But t he bi g r eeval uat i on of Hume has onl y t aken

pl ace i n t he 1960s and

~ O S . ~

I n 1965 t he i nt el l ect ual

hi st or i an Ri char d Popki n cl assi f i ed Hume as a

phi l osophi cal hi s t or i an par excel l ence, a skept i cal

m nd who st ood above t he cl er i cal and par t i san pass i ons

of t he age. Const ant Nobel St ockt on i n t he 1970s

pr ai sed Hume f or expl odi ng Whi g myt hs of t he anci ent

const i t ut i on and f or i nt egr at i ng a sci ence of man i nt o

t he t r adi t i onal pol i t i cal chr oni c l e; among ot her t hi ngs

t he Hi st or y of Enql and was

a

pi oneer i ng wor k of

econom c hi st or y. Vi ct or Wexl er publ i shed an ar t i c l e

i n 1976 wi t h t he r evel at or y t i t l e of Davi d Hume' s

Di scover y of a New Sci ence of Hi st or i cal Thought .

Wexl er pi ct ur ed Hume as an embat t l ed phi l osophe,

br andi shi ng hi s pen agai nst t he accumul at ed f al sehood

of par t y hi s t or i ogr aphy, par t i cul ar l y Whi g hi s t or

i ogr aphy. Hume, he subm t t ed, had ut i l i zed hi s sour ces

i n

a cr i t i cal f ashi on whi ch moder n s chol ar shi p woul d


4/33

--

3

find acceptable. Similarly, John J. Burke, Jr.

interpreted Hume's History as a brilliant refutation of

dogmatic Whiggery.

The most thoroughgoing and influential

rehabilitation of Hume's historical writing has come

from Duncan Forbes, first in a long introduction to the

Penguin edition of Hume's early Stuart volume (19701,

then in a book on Hume's political philosophy (1975).

5

Forbes rates the History of England nothing short of a

masterpiece: it is essential and vintage Hume.4 He

sees Hume's historical writing, especially his

narrative English history, as the key to Hume's

philosophical politics. According to Forbes, Hume

wanted not simply to discredit the conventional party

histories but to provide a historical work of political

moderation that would help harmonize the pointless

political and ideological

bedevil the state. Above

Whigs away from their

subversive adherence to

contract and resistance.

volume, encompassing the

centerpiece of the work:

divisions that continue to

all, this meant weaning the

archaic and potentially

the shibboleths of social

Hume's notorious first

English Civil War, was the

From the practical point of view the

first volume was the vital sector on

the historiographical front in Hume's

campaign to educate the Whigs in

political realities, to provide

moderation in politics, and provide

the Establishment (that is the

Revolution Settlement, the Union

of

1707, the Hanoverian Succession) with a

respectable, modern, post-revolutionary

intellectual basis all government,

as Hume pointed out in a well-known

saying, being founded on opinion.

'

Forbes labels Hume's political philosophy as

'skeptical or scientific Whiggism, as opposed to the

prevailing vulgar Whiggism -- the Whiggism of ancient

constitutionalism, contract and resistance pieties,


5/33

--

4

crude and superannuated Tory baiting. Forbes also uses

vulgar Whiggism to denote the rancorous partisanship

and stale dogmas that afflicted the Tories as well as

the Whigs.

8

In his endeavor to fashion a unifying,

philosophical history, Hume centered his discussion on

two interrelated themes: liberty and civilization:

For HUme, civilization is essentially a

political concept, meaning law and

order or liberty: and the history of

civilization

is

the history of

liberty and the conditions which make

liberty' possible, especially economic

progress and the rise of the middling

rank of men. 9

The new plan of liberty involved a

change in the climate of opinion due to

the progress of society and

civilization and the emergence of the

middling rank, which refused any

longer, because it was no longer in

their interest, to tolerate anomalies

and irregularities and evasions of law

in favour

of

liberty and parliamentary

privilege. 10

It was the parliamentary opponents of James I and

Charles I who were the innovators, not the Stuart

kings . When the House of Commons went on the

offensive, it represented the forces of modernization

all those who wanted

a

more uniform, regular and

rational government, one which would better uphold

liberty.

But according to Forbes, Hume was no apologist

for the Stuarts. One did not have to be an ancient

constitutionalist to recognize, as Hume did, that

England possessed

a

limited, mixed monarchy in the

Tudor-Stuart era and that James and Charles

occasionally encroached upon the privileges

of

parliament. The irregularities, however, were not of a

character to justify the violent and visionary schemes

of John Pym and the hardliners in the Commons. These


6/33

--

5

men were champions of liberty, but, as Forbes relates

Hume's position, the new plan of liberty was wholly

new and untried, even now unique, and therefore an

exceedingly hazardous venture when it first emerged. l1

An exponent of moderation, Rume believed it was the

wise and moderate' men who best served the

constitution, though Forbes does not make it clear who

these were exactly. But the central point about Hume's

interpretation of the English Revolution was that it

was the growth of civilization that, fundamentally,

made the Commons go on the offensive; and it was

parliament's aggression in turn, not the personalities

of Charles and James, that provoked the sometimes

heavyhanded actions of the crown. Hume's moderate,

philosophical narrative provides a built-in impartial

ity which the critics, hunting for 'Tory' hares, are

liable to overlook altogether. 12 For the most part

Hume steered clear of the now-famous pitfalls of the

Whig interpretation the patriotic and Protestant

affirmation of England's special destiny as the

birthplace of freedom, the crude heroes and villains

conception of historical development.

Hume explicitly rejected all providential and

preternatural explanations of historical events. As

for his famous strictures against Puritanism, Hume has

been accused so often of failing to understand

manifestations of 'religious' feeling and experience

that i t is perhaps time to say, in a sense that we

ought to be able to appreciate, he understood these

things only too well..

.

l3

The revisionists, especially Forbes, must be

credited with illuminating the philosophical themes

of Hume's History that set it apart from traditional

British historiography. Hume did in fact write a

history of civilization, describing the transition from

feudalism and barbarism to modernity, occasionally


7/33

6

linking political change to alterations in the manners

of the age,' cultural and artistic, as well as

economic. The tone of the work is refreshingly

cosmopolitan and free of chauvinism, which is probably

one reason why it was so popular in France.

What remains open to question, however, is the

assertion that Hume overcame party distortions to

produce a scholarly and impartial meditation on English

history. Did Hume in his History of Great BKitain in

the Reigns of James I and Charles I (1754) transcend

the vulgar partisan prejudices, Whig and Tory, that

pervaded Augustan historical writing? In order to

answer this question we must first define the salient

features of Whig and Tory historiography. The most

popular early eighteenth century history of England was

the distinctly Whiggish history of the Huguenot exile

Paul de Rapin-Thoyras. It was this work above all

others that Hume set out to replace. Rapin echoed the

traditional Whig view that English freedom could be

traced back to the Saxon constitution and that England

had possessed a mixed government ever since the

Anglo-Saxon conquest. l4 Power was shared between king

and parliament. This system reached its apogee in the

reign of Queen Elizabeth before being challenged by

James

I,

who tried to roll back the power of

parliament. The early Stuarts threatened the consti

tution by asserting that royal power was absolute and

the hereditary succession inviolable. Determined to

dispense with parliament, Charles resorted to noxious

financial expedients like Ship Money. Rapin described

the Puritans as all those opposed to the crown's

innovations.

Both sides, according to Rapin, were to be

blamed for the nation's slide into civil war after the

Long Parliament convened in

1640,

though the Royalists

were most at fault. Rapin wrote favrorably of the


8/33

legislation passed by parliament in 1640-41 to check

the excesses of Stuart rule, but he criticized the

aggressive strategies of Pym and his adherents. They

strove to mobilize the London populace against the

king. Rapin's sympathies rested unmistakably with the

political Presbyterians, the Puritan moderates who

wanted constitutional safeguards against arbitrary

government, but rejected such hardline measures as the

destruction of episcopacy and the installation of a

Presbyterian theocracy.

No

Tory history of the early eighteenth century

approached Rapin's work in prestige and influence.

Lord Clarendon's History of the Rebellion was still by

far the preeminent pro-Tory history of the English

Civil War. Published posthumously in the Tory

stronghold of Oxford during the reign of Queen Anne,

its release was designed to provide historical and

ideological ammunition for a Tory political offensive.

Clarendon's History set forth the essentials of the

Royalist-Tory creed in magisterial fashion. It

extolled the sacred character of church and king; it

painted a rosy picture of peace and prosperity under

Charles I; it depicted religious dissidents as

regicides and revolutionaries. The History of the

Rebellion constituted the definitive apologia for what

the Tory Earl of Rochester, in his preface to the first

edition, called the old Royalist party.

l 5

Clarendon's Royalist interpretation reverber

ated in the Augustan Tory histories of Laurence Echard,

Thomas Salmon, and Thomas Carte.16 Politically, these

three works cover the Tory spectrum from left to right.

Echard was a moderate Hanoverian Tory who is sometimes

mistakenly labeled a Whig.17

The leading authority on

Echard, William Aiken, identified Echard definitively

as a Tory historian, aided and encouraged by Tory

politicians. He was attacked as such by Whig critics


9/33

--

and defended by Tories.l* There can be no question

about Thomas Salmon's allegiances. The extremity of

his views can be gauged by his denunciations of

Clarendon for daring to find fault with Charles

I.

Salmon's paean to the early Stuarts narrowly steered

clear of Jacobitism. Thomas Carte had no such

inhibitions. An avowed Jacobite, Carte's History of

England propagated a Filmerite, High Tory conception

of

monarchy, implicitly supporting the King over the

Water.

Whatever their differences, Echard, Salmon, and

Carte (and Clarendon before them) shared a common

Royalist-Tory interpretation of the English ReVOlUtiOn.

They all defended the theory and practice of Stuart

kingship and attacked the Puritan-led opposition as

hypocritical, power-hungry malcontents. They pictured

the early seventeenth century

as

a time of peace and

plenty. And they also perceived the same social basis

to the Civil War rabble and commonalty,

Parliamentarian; aristocracy and gentry, Royalist.

Scornful of previous historians, especially

Rapin Thoyras, Hume vowed to supersede the partisan

chroniclers with a truly objective history of England.

Forbes and Wexler

,

with qualifications and

reservations, accept Hume's protestations of

impartiality. To illustrate Hume's evenhandedness,

Forbes cites instances of Hume describing the

opposition to James and Charles as bearers of liberty

and criticizing the Stuarts for their unconstitutional

transgressions.

19

However, Hume did not mete out

praise and blame consistently during his narrative

of

early Stuart England. There is a striking contrast

between Hume's remarks about the crown during t h e

period from 1603

to

1629 and his treatment of Charles

1's personal rule in the 1630s. The great bulk of

Hume's obiter dicta against the Stuart rzgime is to be


10/33

9

f ound i n t he f i r s t per i od, not i n hi s nar r at i ve of t he

1630s

or

40s .

Al most f r om t he st ar t of hi s hi st or y Hume

pai nt s a f ai r l y negat i ve por t r ai t of J ames I . Ri char d

Ol l ar d has poi nt ed out how Hume' s i mage of J ames I and

t he succeedi ng St uar t s par al l el ed t hat of hi s i mmedi at e

hi st or i cal pr edecessor : t her e ar e

st r ange congr ui t i es i n t he per spect i ve

of f er ed by Thomas Car t e t he J acobi t e

ar chi vi st and Davi d Hume t he

phi l osopher of t he Enl i ght enment . Bot h

have

a

l ow opi ni on of J ames

I ,

bot h

i nsi st ( agai nst pl ent y of evi dence t o

t he cont r ar y) t hat Char l es I was

i ncapabl e of bad f ai t h, and bot h,

ei t her l ar gel y or whol l y, abandon any

syst emat i c def ense of Char l es 11' s

ki ngshi p

.20

Pr of l i gat e and t act l ess, J ames I , accor di ng t o Hume,

was

a

man of absol ut i st pr i nci pl es who l acked t he

per sonal i t y and r evenues t o r ul e wi t h an i r on f i st . 21

J ames i nher i t ed a monar chy t hat had gr own i ncr easi ngl y

aut hor i t ar i an under t he Tudor s: he was no mor e

ar bi t r ar y t han hi s i mmedi at e pr edecessor . Hume

descr i bes t he Pur i t ans as t he cut t i ng edge of a

pol i t i cal movement desi gned t o est abl i sh l i ber t y and

l i m t ed gover nment . He cr i t i c i zes J ames f or t he f or ced

l oans and ot her f i nanci al expedi ent s.

Hume' s obj ect i ons t o r oyal pol i c i es ext end i nt o

t he f i r s t f our year s of Char l es 1's r ei gn. The f or ced

l oans of 1626, f or exampl e, wer e a vi ol at i on of

l i ber t y and must , by necess ar y consequence, r ender al l

par l i ament s super f l uous. . . . ( HE 5: 21) He cr i t i c i zes

t hose Car ol i ne bi shops who advocat ed pass i ve obedi ence

t o f or ced l oans. ( HE 5: 22) He at t acks t he i nsi di ous

i nf l uence of t he Duke of Bucki ngham i n t he counsel s of

t he Ki ng, and r ef er r i ng t o t he l at e 162Os, he not ed

Char l es' open encour agement and avowal of such

pr i nci pl es as wer e al t oget her i ncompat i bl e wi t h a


11/33

10

l i m t ed gover nment , ( HE 5: 43) By cont r ast , Hume

wr i t es t hat t he vi ews of t he common peopl e wer e much

mor e j udi ci ous and pr of ound. ( HE 5: 33)

But by 1634 Hume aver s t hat Char l es 1' s

adm ni st r at i on seems t o have been mor e gent l e and

equi t abl e t han t hat of most of hi s pr edecessor s. ( HE

5: 81) Hume vi ews t he per sonal gover nment of Char l es

f r om 1629 t o 1640 as moder at e and j ust . Gone ar e hi s

s t r i ct ur es agai ns t

a

ser vi l e chur ch. Peace t oo,

i ndust r y, commer ce, opul ence; nay, even j ust i ce and

l eni t y of adm ni st r at i on, not wi t hst andi ng some ver y f ew

except i ons; al l t hese wer e enj oyed by t he peopl e. ( HE

5: 93)

Hunk s uppor t s t he pol i t i cal r ef or ms i n t he

f i r st year of t he Long Par l i ament , such

as

t he

dest r uct i on of pr er ogat i ve cour t s and t he Tr i enni al

Act . But r ef or m was under m ned by t he unj ust i f i abl e

pr osecut i on of St r af f or d and ot her cr own ser vant s and

ar l i ament ' s eccl es i ast i cal i nnovat i ons. ( HE 5: 126-

40) Hume' s nar r at i ve f r om 1640 onwar d i s pr o- Royal i st

and ant i - Par l i ament ar i an. The House of Commons i n 1640

was made up of j eal ous i nnovat or s who del i ber at el y

set out t o abol i sh bi shops. ( HE 5: 127) Even bef or e

St r af f or d' s execut i on i n May 1641 a r evol ut i on had

occur r ed

:

The whol e sover ei gn power bei ng i n a

manner t r ansf er r ed t o t he commons, and

t he gover nment wi t hout vi ol ence or

di sor der , bei ng changed i n a moment

f r om a monar chy al most absol ut e t o a

pur e democr acy, t he popul ar l eader s

seemed wi l l i ng f or some t i me t o spend

t hei r act i ve vi gor , and t o consol i dat e

t hei r aut hor i t y, er e t hey pr oceeded t o

any vi ol ent exer ci se

of

i t . ( HE 5: 135-

36

Par l i ament ' s c l ai m t hat i t guar ded t he anc i ent

const i t ut i on was a hypocr i t i cal ar t i f i ce. ( HE 5: 139)

I t was Char l es who st ood by t he anci ent const i t ut i on;


12/33

--

--

11

the Puritans were the greatest innovators.

Confronted with an intractable Commons, Charles

promptly abandoned his domineering prerogative. His

subsequent pliability and docility were no less

dangerous to the constitution and to the public peace

than his earlier rigidity had been. (HE 5:148)

Vivid testimony of Hume's Royalist bias is to

be found in his character sketches of various Royalist

and Parliamentarian leaders. Hume's heroes are all

Royalists. The able but autocratic Strafford is

transfigured into .one of the most eminent personages

that

has

appeared in England.

...

(HE 5:168) Lord

Falkland 'displayed that masculine eloquence and

undaunted love of liberty which, from his intimate

acquaintance with the sublime spirits of antiquity, he

had greedily imbibed.

(HE

5:256) While conceding

Archbishop Laud's tactlessness, Hume expresses

admiration for Laudian ceremonialism insofar as it

worked t o temper religious fanaticism through the

contemplation of ornaments and ritual. (HE 5:298)

Hume's characterizations of Parliamentarian

leaders are decidedly negative. John Hampden sought

the abolition

of

monarchy and the subversion of the

constitution; an end, which had it been attainable by

peaceful measures, ought carefully to have been avoided

by every lover of his country. (HE 5:247) Thomas

Fairfax was tainted by religious prejudices. (HE

5:289) Hume calls Henry Ireton a tyrant and while

granting Cromwell's genius even greatness

deprecates the Roundhead general as a self-seeking

opportunist and fanatical hypocrite. (HE 5:58,299)

Hume's generalizations about the kind of people

who supported the two sides in the Civil war are also

revealing. The prime nobility and gentry flocked to

Charles

1's

standard at Yorke in 1642. (HE 5:219)

Parliament held every advantage in the Civil War save


13/33

--

--

12

the quality of their adherents: More bravery and

action were hoped for from the generous spirit of the

nobles and gentry than from the base disposition of the

multitude. (HE 5:229) The Royalists clung to that

moderate freedom inherited from their ancestors and

secured by the initial reforms of the Long Parliament,

(HE 5:219)

Probably the most famous instance of Hume

staking out a Toryn position is in his panegyric of

Charles I after the king's execution. Like Clarendon

before him, Hume submitted that Charles lacked the

vigor and dexterity needed to overcome the

encroachments of a popular assembly. But Hume's

overall verdict was clear:

His virtues predominated extremely

above his vices, or, more properly

speaking, his imperfections: for scarce

any

of

his faults rose to that pitch as

to merit the apellation vices. To

consider him in the most favorable

light, it may be affirmed that his

dignity was free from pride, his

humanity from weakness, his bravery

from rashness, his temperance from

austerity, his frugality from avarice.

(HE 5:379)

Charles' strong prerogative government stemmed from

constitutional tradition at least since the Tudors

I

I

and from the onslaughts of the Puritans. At one

I

point Hume asserts that Charles was less arbitrary

than

i

all kings since the Conquest except perhaps James I.

(HE 5:553) Hume's Charles I is free of duplicity. All

his concessions to the opposition sprang from a genuine

willingness

to

limit hi8 prerogatives and curtail

the

I

powers of the Church.

Hume's blinkered perception of

nicely illustrated by his account of

notorious negotiations with the Earl of Glamorgan in

1646. (HE 5:319) Against all the evidence to the

I


14/33

13

cont r ar y, Hume accept s Thomas Car t e' s spur i ous cl ai m

t hat Char l es I never pr om sed t o r epeal t he penal l aws

i n I r el and: nor di d he negot i at e wi t h Gl amor gan behi nd

t he back of Or monde, t he Lor d Li eut enant of I r el and.

Hume' s denunci at i ons of Pur i t ani sm ar e wel l

known. The one f avor abl e j udgment he makes about t hem

i s t hat , embol dened by r el i gi ous passi on, t hey car r i ed

a spar k of l i ber t y. But Hume' s vi ew of Pur i t ani sm was

nei t her subt l e nor bal anced. The cl ear message,

br oadcast over and over , i s t hat t he Pur i t ans wer e

r avi ng f anat i cs , i nher ent l y sedi t i ous . They i ndul ged

i n ' r apt urous f l i ght s , ecs t aci es , vi s i ons ,

super st i t i ons. Al t hough Hume does not hesi t at e t o

censur e t he Pur i t ans i n hi s nar r at i ve of J ames 1's

r ei gn, most of hi s scor n i s r eser ved f or af t er 1630,

as

gr oundswel l of opposi t i on gr ew agai nst t he Laudi an

Chur ch. For al l hi s phi l osophi cal per cept i ons about

t he r i se of c i vi l i zat i on and l i ber t y, when i t comes t o

expl ai ni ng why men wer e wi l l i ng t o t ake up ar ms agai nst

t hei r sover ei gn, i t i s Pur i t an i r r at i onal i smt hat Hume

poi nt s t o:

The gr i evances whi ch t ended chi ef l y t o

i nf l ame t he par l i ament and nat i on,

espec i al l y t he l at t er , wer e t he

sur pl i ce, t he r ai l s pl aced about t he

al t er , t he bows exact ed on appr oachi ng

i t , t he l i t ur gy, t he br each of t he

Sabbat h. . . . On account of t hese wer e

t he popul ar l eader s cont ent t o t hr ow

t he gover nment i nt o such vi ol ent

convul s i ons; and t o t he di sgr ace of

t hat age and of t hi s i s l and, i t must be

acknowl edged t hat t he di sor der s i n

Scot l and ent i r el y, and t hose i n Engl and

most l y, pr oceed f r om s o mean and

cont empt i bl e an or i gi n. ( HE 5: 145)

Her e i s how Hume descr i bes t he t ypi cal Pur i t an

Roundhead: .

The sai nt , r es i gned over t o super i or

gui dance, was at f ul l l i ber t y t o

gr at i f y al l hi s appet i t es , di s gui sed

under t he appear ance

of

pi ous zeal .


15/33

14

And besides the strange corruptions,

engendered by this spirit, it eluded

all the ties

of

morality and gave

entire scope, and even Sanction, to the

selfishness and ambition which

naturally adhere to the human mind. (HE

5:331)

The Roundhead army, Hume writes, represented 'a base

populace exalted above their superiors, hypocrites

exercising iniquity under the vision of religion.' (HE

5:358) He erroneously lumps the Independents together

with the Levellers as fanatical egalitarians, bent on

the abolition of monarchy and the aristocracy. (HE

5:231,282)

No

doubt Hume's railings against the Puritans

were in part the scorn felt by the anti-clerical

skeptic toward the religious zealot.

No

doubt too this

was one reason why the History was admired by the

philosophes. But taken together with his other

strictures against the Parliamentarians, it is hard to

resist the argument that Hume's anti-Puritanism was the

reverse side of his pro-Royalism.

Given Hume's shift toward a distinctly anti-

Parliamentarian, and thus anti-Whig, perspective in his

narrative

of

the 1630s and

~ O S ,

the question becomes,

why did this change in emphasis occur. The answer is

to be found by considering the remarkable political

developments of 1628-29, including the assassination of

Buckingham, the truculence of the Commons, and, above

all, the Petition of Right. Hume viewed Charles 1's

acquiescence to the Petition as a momentous political

concession:

It may be affirmed, without

exaggeration, that the king's assent to

the Petition of Right produced such a

change in the government as was almost

equivalent to a revolution: and by

circumscribing, in

so

many articles,

the royal prerogative, gave additional


16/33

--

15

security to the liberties of the

subject. (HE 5:44)

And how did parliament respond to these sacrifices of

the prerogative the greatest by far ever made by an

English sovereign ? (HE 5:46) The Commons threatened

Buckingham with impeachment and challenged the King's

constitutional right to levy tunnage and poundage.

Without any public necessity and without any fault of

his own, Charles was being asked to countenance the

complete subversion of monarchy. (HE 5:54) Charles

addressed parliament in January

1629

in a moderate

temper, now freed from the influence of Buckingham's

violent counsels. (HE 5:53) Confronted, however, with

the venomous contumacy of Sir John Eliot and his allies

in the House of Commons, Charles reverted to the only

sensible alternative, personal rule.

Charles now pursued a statesmanlike course. In

the conciliar government of the

1630s,

Hume argues,

Charles anticipated the modern policy whereby the

encroachments of popular leaders were neutralized by

giving them office. This policy demonstrated that a

secret revolution had occurred in the constitution,

and had necessitated the prince to adapt new maxims of

government. (HE 5:65) Whatever blemishes Charles

displayed were overshadowed by the fanaticism and

extremism of his opponents, an extremism that drove

some members of the opposition like Thomas Wentworth

and William Noys to side with the court. These

recruits practiced the politics of moderation advocated

by Hume. In light of the ungovernable posture assumed

by the House of Commons in 1628-29, Charles had every

right to pursue the authoritarian but moderate personal

government of the 1630s. By approving the Petition of

Right and rallying the political moderates, Charles had

' shown himself to be a compromising, constitutional

monarch. As the balance of Hume's narrative makes


17/33

16

c l ear , i t was t he f anat i cal , i ncendi ar y opposi t i on t o

Char l es, bot h i n Engl and and Scot l and, t hat must bear

chi ef r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he br eakdown i n gover nment

and pl unge i nt o ci vi l war .

Hume pr eached t he vi r t ues of pol i t i cal

moder at i on, but i n t he Hi st or y of Gr eat Br i t ai n i n t he

Rei gns of J ames I and Char l es I , i t was moder at i on wi t h

an ant i - Whi g, pr o- Royal i st col or i ng. Hume wr ot e wi t h

i magi nat i on and i nsi ght , but hi s nar r at i ve does not

r ef l ect a phi l osophi cal r ai son d' Bt r e t o expl ode

par t i san f al sehoods. On t he cont r ar y, Hume r ehear sed

at l east some

of

t he m sconcept i ons and di st or t i ons

of

hi s Tor y f or bear s. I f Char l es

I

was not t he st upi d

t yr ant of Whi g l egend, hi s bot t om ess dupl i ci t y and

per ver se i nept i t ude' ar e wel l known t o moder n

hi st or i ans, as t hey wer e t o many comment at or s i n t he

sevent eent h and ei ght eent h cent ur i es.

22

Hume s i mpl y

i gnor ed t he mount ai n of evi dence agai nst hi m

Si m l ar l y, t her e i s no hi nt i n Hume' s account of t hat

br ut al aut hor i t ar i ani sm t hat made t he Ear l of

St r af f or d

a

bywor d f or t yr anny. 23 Car ol i ne and Laudi an

r epr essi on pal e next t o Hume' s gr ot esque car i cat ur e of

Pur i t an bi got r y and f anat i ci sm Hi s Pur i t an f anat i cs

wer e sel f - consci ous r evol ut i oni st s , hypocr i t i cal l y

payi ng l i p ser vi ce t o t he anci ent const i t ut i on; Hume

i gnor ed t he f i del i t y, however m st aken, whi ch t he

common l awyer s and t he par l i ament ar i an al l i es f el t

t owar d medi eval pr ecedent s.

2 4

Hume' s Royal i st / Tor y bi as can be f ur t her

document ed by exam ni ng hi s use of sour ces. Al t hough

he r el i ed heavi l y on t he document ar y col l ect i ons of

Bul st r ode Whi t el ocke and J ohn Rushwor t h, t wo pr o-

Par l i ament ar i an hi st or i ans, hi s account of t he

Revol ut i on and Ci vi l War owed mor e t o pr o- Royal i st

wr i t er s, especi al l y Cl ar endon. At sever al i mpor t ant

poi nt s i n hi s nar r at i ve Hume par r ot ed Cl ar endon' s


18/33

17

commentary in an unscholarly manner that does not

measure up to the critical, skeptical method attributed

to him by his recent champions.

Consider, for example, Hume's account of the

impeachment proceedings against the Earl of Strafford.

Nearly two pages of Hume's description paraphrase

Clarendon's account in The History of the Rebellion.

25

Hume began by describing the opening speech in

parliament against Strafford:

Pym, in a long studied discourse,

divided into many heads, after his

manner, ennumerated all the grievances

under which the nation labored.... (HE

5:130)

Clarendon started this way:

Mr.

Pimm, in a long, formed discourse,

lamented the miserable state and

condition of the kingdom, aggravated

all the particulars which had been done

amiss in the government as done and

contrived maliciously.. .. 6

After summarizing the speeches against Strafford, Hume

described the move to impeach:

After several hours spent in bitter

invective, when the doors were locked,

in order to prevent all discovery of

their purpose, it was moved, in

consequence of the resolution secretly

taken, that Strafford should be

immediately impeached of high treason.

This motion was received with universal

approbation; nor was there, in all the

debate, one person who offered to stop

the torrent by any testimony in favor

of the earl's conduct. Lord Falkland

alone, though known to be his enemy,

modestly desired the house to consider

whether it would not better suit the

gravity of their proceedings, first to

digest by a committee many of those

particulars' which had been mentioned,

before they sent up an accusation

against him. It was ingeniously

answered by Pym, that such a delay

might probably blast all their hopes,

and put it out

of

their power to


19/33

18

pr oceed any f ur t her i n t he pr osecut i on.

( HE 5:131)

Thi s was al l Cl ar endon:

I n concl usi on, af t er many hour s of

bi t t er i nvei ghi ng and r i ppi ng up t he

cour se of hi 6 l i f e bef or e hi s com ng t o

Cour t and hi s act i ons af t er , i t was

moved, accor di ng t o t he secr et

r evol ut i on t aken bef or e, t hat he m ght

be f or t hwi t h i mpeached of hi gh

t r eason, whi ch was no sooner ment i oned

t han i t f ound a uni ver sal appr obat i on

and consent f r om t he whol e; nor

was

t her e i n t he whol e debat e, one per son

who of f er ed t o st op t he t or r ent by any

f avour abl e t est i mony concer ni ng t he

ear l ' s car r i age, save onl y t hat t he

l or d Fal kl and, who was ver y wel l known

t o be f ar f r om havi ng any ki nd- ness f or

hi m when t he pr oposi t i on was made f or

t he pr esent accus i ng hi m of hi gh

t r eason, modest l y desi r ed t he House t o

consi der whet her i t woul d not sui t

bet t er wi t h t he gr avi t y of t hei r

pr oceedi ngs f i r st t o di gest many of

t hose par t i cul ar s whi ch had been

ment i oned by t he comm t t ee? decl ar i ng

hi msel f t o be abundant l y sat i sf i ed t hat

t her e was enough t o char ge hi m bef or e

t hey sent up t o accuse hi m whi ch

was

ver y i ngenuousl y and f r ankl y answer ed

by

Mr .

Pymm That such a del ay m ght

pr obabl y bl ast al l t hei r hopes, and put

i t out of t hei r power t o pro;$fi d

f ur t her t han t hey had done al r eady.

Al t hough Hume consi st ent l y ci t ed Cl ar endon

as

a sour ce,

hi s not at i ons do not i ndi cat e t he ext ent t o whi ch he

adher ed t o Cl ar endon' s t ext .

Hume al so r epeat ed Cl ar endon' s er r oneous vi ew

t hat Ol i ver Cr omwel l engi neer ed t he Agi t at or movement

i n t he ar my dur i ng t he wi nt er and spr i ng of 1647

Cr omwel l , wr ot e Cl ar endon,

hi t her t o car r i ed hi msel f wi t h t hat r ar e

di ss i mul at i on ( i n whi ch sur e he was

a

ver y gr eat mast er , ) t hat he seemed

exceedi ngl y i ncensed agai nst t hi s

i nsol ence of t he sol di er s . .

.

.

But as

many of t he wi ser sor t had l ong

di scover ed

hi s

wi cked i nt ent i ons, so


20/33

--

19

his hypocrisy could no longer be

concealed. The most active officers

and agitators were known to be his

creatures, and such who petition did

nor would do anything but by his

direction. So that it was resolved by

the principal persons of the House of

Commons, that when he came the next day

into the Housel which he seldom omitted

to do, they would send him to the

tower: presuming that if they had once

severed his person from the army they

should easily reduce it to its former

temper and obedience, 28

Cromwell, of course, ended this trap. Hume followed

Clarendon closely:

This artful and audacious conspirator

had conducted himself in the parliament

with such profound dissimulation, with

such refined hypocrisy, that he had

long deceived those who, being

themselves very dexterous practitioners

in the same arts, should naturally have

entertained the more suspicion against

others. At every intelligence of

disorders in the army, he was moved to

the highest pitch of grief and

anger..

.

. But information being

brought that

the

most active officers

and agitators were entirely his

creatures, the parliamentary leaders

secretly resolved that, next day, when

he should come to the house, an

accusation should be entered against

him, and he should be sent to the

tower. (HE 5:335)

The dubiousness of Hume's uncritical adherence to

Clarendon is compounded by the fact that Clarendon's

record of Cromwell's speeches in the Commons during the

row between the army and parliament is highly

unreliable.

29

Hume also repeated Clarendon's conten

tion that Cromwell used the Agitators' threats against

Charles I as a pretext for browbeating the King at

Hampton Court increasing the guard around h i m and

isolating him from other Royalists.

30


21/33

20

Another instance of Hume's reliance on

Clarendon is to be found in Hume's discussion of the

Self-Denying Ordinance. Starting with Cromwell's

attack on 'the Earl of Manchester, Hume's six-page

account is drawn entirely from The History of the

Rebel

1

ion

with much of Clarendon's phraseology

repeated almost verbatim.

31

And echoes of Clarendon

can be found in Hume's character of Lord Falkland.

Hume praised Falkland lavishly, as had Clarendon.

Among other things, Hume noted that from the

commencement of the war, his natural cheerfulness and

vivacity became clouded, and even his usual attention

to dress, required by his birth and station, gave way

to a negligence which was easily observable. (HE

5:257) In Clarendon's famous portrait of Falkland he

commented that

....

from the entrance into this

unnatural war, his natural cheerfulness

and vivacity grew clouded, and a kind

of sadness and dejection of spirit

stole upon him which he had never been

used to..., In his clothes and habit,

which he had intended before always

with more neatness and industry and

expense than is usual to

so

great a

mind, he was ny$ now only incurious but

too negligent.

Clement Walker's History of Independency was

another important source for the History of England.

Walker had sided with parliament during the Civil War,

but the &ggo_ry of Independency, written in the late

1640s,

was a bitter inditement of both the Independents

and the Presbyterians. Hume's highly critical assess

ment of parliament's excise tax during the Civil War

was drawn from Walker. Walker had written that

....the Exchequer way of accounts

is

the exactest, antientest, and best

known way of -account in England, and

most free from deceit, which is almost

confessed de facto, when, to make the

king's Revenue more obnoxious to their


22/33

21

desi r es, t hey t ook i t out of t he

Exchequer way, ( cont r ar y t o t he

f undament al Laws of t he Land: f or bot h

t he Hi gher and Lower - Exchequer ar e as

ant i ent and f undament al as any Cour t i n

Engl and) and put i t under a Comm t t ee,

whi ch as al l ot her Comm t t ees do, wi l l

r ender an account of t hei r St ewar dshi p

at t he l at t er day. 33

Hume abr i dged t hi s descr i pt i on:

The met hod of keepi ng account s

pr act i sed i n t he exchequer , was

conf essedl y t he exact est , t he most

anci ent , t he best known, and t he l east

l i abl e t o f r aud. The exchequer way was

f or t hat r eason abol i shed, and r evenue

put under t he management of a

comm t t ee, who wer e subj ect t o no

cont r ol . ( HE

5:338)

Hume' s account of Har r y I r et on' s

1648

speech i n

suppor t of t he Vot e of No Addr esses, bar r i ng f ur t her

negot i at i ons wi t h t he Ki ng, comes f r om Wal ker . Fi r st

Wal ker , f ol l owed by Hume:

Then comm ssi onar y I r et on ( seem ng t o

speak t he sense of t he ar my, under t he

not i on of many t housand Godl y men who

had vent ur ed t hei r l i ves t o subdue

t hei r enem es 1 sai d af t er t hi s manner ,

t hat t he Ki ng had deni ed saf et y and

pr ot ect i on t o hi s peopl e by denyi ng t he

f our Bi l l s : t hat subj ect i on t o hi m was

but i n l i eu of hi s pr ot ect i on t o hi s

peopl e: t hi s bei ng deni ed, t hey m ght

wel l deny any mor e subj ect i on t o hi m

and set t l e t he Ki ngdom wi t hout

hi m 34

I r et on, seem ng t o speak t he sense of

t he ar my, under t he appel l at i on of many

t housand godl y men, who had vent ur ed

t hei r l i ves i n def ence of t he

par l i ament , sai d, t hat t he ki ng, by

denyi ng t he f our bi l l s, had r ef used

saf et y and pr ot ect i on t o hi s peopl e;

t hat t hei r obedi ence t o hi m was but a

r ec i pr ocal dut y f or hi s pr ot ect i on of

t hem and t hat , as he had f ai l ed on hi s

par t , t hey wer e f r eed f r om al l

obl i gat i ons t o al l egi ance, and must

set t l e t he nat i on, wi t hout consul t i ng


23/33

22

any longer so misguided a prince. (HE

5:353)

In the cases enumerated above, Hume at least

cited Clarendon and Walker in his footnotes, though the

extent of his debt to them is not made clear. But Nume

did not always disclose his source. Sometimes he cited

Richard Perrinchief's apologia, The Royal Martyr, or

the Life and Death of King Charles I; other times he

did not. Here is Hume's account of how Cromwell, to

the very end, tried to persuade Lord Fairfax that the

King's execution was necessary:

The generous Fairfax, not content with

being absent from the trial, had used

all the interest which he yet retained

to prevent the execution of the fatal

sentence; and had even employed

persuasion with his own regiment,

though none else should follow him, to

rescue the king from his disloyal

murderers. Cromwell and Ireton,

informed of this intention, endeavored

to convince him that the Lord had

rejected the king: and they exhorted

him to seek by prayer some direction

from heaven on this important occasion;

but they concealed from him that they

had already signed the warrant for the

execution. (HE

5:378)

Although Hume did not cite him, Perrinchief was, in all

likelihood, the source for this passage:

While these things were acting, the

Lord Fairfax, who had always forborn

any public appearances in the practices

of this murder, had taken up (as

credibly reported) some resolutions

(either in abhorrency of the crime,

or

by the solicitations of others) with

his own regiment, though none else

should follow him, to hinder the

execution. This being suspected or

known, Cromwell, Ireton, and Harrison

coming to him, after their usual way of

deceiving, endeavored to persuade him

that the Lord bad rejected the King,

and with such like language as they

knew had formerly prevailed upon him,

concealing that they had that very


24/33

23

mor ni ng si gned t he war r ant f or t he

assass i r , zt i on; t h y al so des i r ed hi m

wi t h t hem t o seek t he Lor d by Pr ayer ,

t hat t hey m ght know hi s m nd i n t he

t hi ng.

35

Ther e i s a mor e s t i ki ng i nst ance of Hume

par aphr as i ng Per r i nchi ef . The execut i on of Char l es I ,

Hume ar gued, had a cat acl ysm c i mpact :

Never monar ch, i n t he f ul l t r i umph of

success and vi ct or y,

was

mor e dear t o

hi s peopl e, t han hi s m sf or t unes and

magnani m t y, hi s pat i ence and pi et y,

had r ender ed t hi s unhappy pr i nce. I n

pr opor t i on t o t hei r f or mer del us i ons,

whi ch had ani mat ed t hem agai nst hi m

was t he vi ol ence of t hei r r et ur n t o

dut y and af f ect i on; whi l e each

r epr oached hi msel f , ei t her wi t h act i ve

di s l oyal t y t owar ds hi m

or

wi t h t oo

i ndol ent def ense of hi s oppr essed

cause. On weaker m nds, t he ef f ect of

t hose compl i cat ed pass i ons was

pr odi gi ous. Women ar e sai d t o have

cas t f or t h t he unt i mel y f r ui t of t hei r

womb; ot her s f el l i nt o convul s i ons , or

sank i nt o such a mel anchol y as at t ended

t hem t o t hei r gr ave: nay, some

undm ndf ul of t hemsel ves, as t hough

t hey coul d not or woul d not sur vi ve

t hei r bel oved pr i nce, i t i s r epor t ed,

suddenl y f el l down dead. The ver y

pul pi t s wer e bedewed wi t h unsubor ned

t ear s: t hose pul pi t s whi ch had f or mer l y

t hunder ed out t he most vi ol ent

i mpr ecat i ons and anat hemas agai nst hi m

( HE 5 : 3 7 8 )

The i mage of women m scar r yi ng and men f al l i ng down

dead al l over Engl and because of a ki ng' s deat h i s not

what

we

expect t o see evoked by a skept i cal phi l osophe.

I f we t ur n t o page 2 2 8 of Per r i nchi ef , we f i nd t he

f ol l owi ng passage:

Never any ki ng, not onl y of t he

Engl i sh, but of what soever t hr one, had

hi s deat h l ament ed wi t h gr eat er

sor r ows, nor l ef t t he wor l d wi t h a

hi gher r egr et of t he peopl e. When t he

news

o

hi s deat h was di vul ged, women

wi t h chi l d f or gr i ef cas t f or t h t he

unt i mel y f r ui t of t hei r womb, l i ke her


25/33

--

--

2 4

t hat f el l on t r avai l when t he gl or y was

depar t ed f r om I sr ael . Ot her s, bot h men

and women, f el l i nt o convul si ons and

swoundi ng f i t s, and cont r act ed

so

deep

a mel anchol y, as at t ended t hem t o t he

gr ave. Some, undm ndf ul of t hemsel ves,

as t hough t hey coul d not or woul d

not l i ve when t hei r own bel oved pr i nce

was sl aught er ed (it i s r epor t ed)

suddenl y f el l down dead. The pul pi t s

wer e l i kewi se bedewed wi t h unsubor ned

t ear s; and some of t hose f or whom t he

l i vi ng ki ng was f or epi scopaci es' sake

l ess accept abl e, yet now bewai l ed t he

l oss

of hi m when dead. 36

Per r i nchi ef was an ar ch- Royal i s t of t he

most

ext r eme

sor t . Hume di d not c i t e Per r i nchi ef or anyone el se f or

t hi s passage.

The f or egoi ng has demonst r at ed t hat Hume wr ot e

wi t h a st r ong Royal i st bi as and t hat he dr ew

uncr i t i cal l y upon t he wor k of Royal i st and Tor y

hi st or i ans. Thi s i s not t o say, however , t hat Hume was

a Royal i st / Tor y hi st or i an i n t he cl assi cal mol d

of

Cl ar endon, Echar d, Sal mon, and Car t e. Hume

was

never a

par t y man and not a Tor y. He s t r ove i n hi s pol i t i cal

wr i t i ngs t o r epl ace t he anachr oni st i c Whi g/ Tor y

di chot omy wi t h an up- t o- dat e est abl i shment pol i t i cal

i deol ogy. Hume r ej ect ed what he i dent i f i ed

( m st akenl y) as t he di s t i ngui shi ng f eat ur e

of

ei ght eent h cent ur y Tor yi sm pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o

t he St uar t s. 3 7 Si m l ar l y he assai l ed t he Whi g canons

of soc i al cont r act and anc i ent const i t ut i onal i sm

When Hume began wor k

on

hi s Hi st or y, however ,

he had ot her concer ns i n m nd besi des pol i t i cal

phi l osophy. Hume, as Wexl er poi nt s out , had an axe t o

gr i nd: The Hi st or y was, i n par t , a vehi cl e f or

at t acki ng t he Whi gs because Hume r esent ed t he Whi g

monopol y of pl ace, posi t i on, and l i t er ar y t ast e. He

wr ot e wi t h an i nt ense desi r e t o di scr edi t t he Whi g

i nt er pr et at i on of hi st or y as popul ar i zed by Paul de


26/33

25

Rapi n- Thoyr as. The Whi g hegemony, Hume comment ed, has

pr oved dest r uct i ve t o t he t r ut h of hi st or y and has

est abl i shed many gr oss f al sehoods. ( HE 5:364) He

j udged Rapi n t o be t oo cr i t i cal of t he St uar t s and

t ot al l y despi cabl e. n 3 8

I nt ent on r epudi at i ng Whi g hi st or i ogr aphy, Hume

r est at ed c l ass i c Tor y pos i t i ons.

A s

Davi d M l l er

obser ves i n hi s r ecent st udy of Hume' s pol i t i cal

t hought , t he Hi s t or y on most key poi nt s

...

l eans

t owar d t r adi t i onal Tor y r at her t han t r adi t i onal Whi g

i nt er pr et at i ons. 3 9 Hume sai d as much i n an of t - quot ed

passage f r om My Own Li f e. Respondi ng t o Whi g

denunci at i ons of hi s f i r st vol ume, cover i ng t he ear l y

St uar t s, Hume r esol ved t o make subsequent r evi si ons

i nvar i abl y on t he Tor y si de. ( HE 1: x)

The Hi st or y of Gr eat Br i t ai n i n t he Rei gns of

J ames

I

and Char l es I of f er ed hi st or i cal j ust i f i cat i on

of some convent i onal Tor y vi ews. Hume di d not nom nat e

Char l es I

as

a candi dat e f or mar t yr dom but t he

vi ct i m zat i on of t hi s supposedl y vi r t uous pr i nce f or med

t he dr amat i c cor e

of

hi s nar r at i ve. A s Li nda Col l ey

poi nt s out , Tor y monar chi cal pi et y dr ew i t s emot i onal

sust enance mor e f r om Char l es t he Mar t yr t han f r om t he

subst ant i al per sons

of

Geor ge I and hi s successor . 40

The spect r e of t he Ci vi l War cont i nued t o haunt t he

Tor i es and sust ai n t hei r obei sance t o Chur ch and

t hr one. Hume concl uded t hat t he hi st or y of t he Ci vi l

War showed t he madness of t he peopl e, t he f ur i es of

f anat i ci sm and t he danger of mer cenar y ar m es,

sent i ment s whi ch echoed t he t r adi t i onal Tor y host i l i t y

t o r el i gi ous Di ssent and opposi t i on t o st andi ng ar m es.

( HE 5:382) Hume shar ed t he Tor y r ej ect i on of anci ent

const i t ut i onal i sm and t he Tor y bel i ef t hat t he St uar t s

wer e no mor e hi gh- handed t han t hei r Tudor pr edecessor s.

Never t hel ess Hume' s secul ar i sm hi s occasi onal

pr ai se f or t he par l i ament ar y opposi t i on t o J ames I and


27/33

26

Charles

I,

and his unfavorable portraits of the later

Stuarts in the succeeding volumes

o f

his History,

distinguish him from traditional Tory historians. But

as Hume's uncritical use of Royalist arguments and

sources indicates, the History of England contains a

strong dose of what might be called vulgar Toryism

intermixed with Hume's philosophical politics. Hume's

interpretation of English history was closer to

Clarendon and Carte than to Rapin and the Whigs.

C.H. Firth was one who believed that Hume

possessed a Tory view of history. By Tory, however,

Firth meant no more than a belief in monarchy and a

distrust of fanatics and reformers. 41 There was more

to Augustan Toryism than this, but Toryism did become

identified with conservative reaction' in the

1770s,

if not before.42 George

I11

reconciled most Tories to

the court. The American Revolution fanned Tory

authoritarianism. Toryism came increasingly t mean a

generalized opposition to political and religious

reform and belief in the divine right of a properly

constituted a~thority. ~3The attempts in the 1780s to

repeal the Test and Corporation Acts and, above all,

the French Revolution, fueled this conservative,

quasi-Tory ideological revival. The central

ideological division now became radicalism versus

conservatism. 44 Political debate spread 'beyond the

confines of the ruling class to the middling classes,

spilling outside the halls of Westminster to the public

meeting and the street.

HUme reacted angrily to the popular reform

movements that emerged in the

1760s

and 1770s. Miller

argues convincingly that Hume's hostility to the

Wilkite extraparliamentary agitation anticipated the

conservative condemnation of radicalism during the

French Revolution. The History, Miller submits, can be

seen as part of Hume's effort to make a conservative,


28/33

2 7

non- J acobi t e appeal t o t he T0ri es. l ' I f Hume' s Hi st or y

di d not become t he bi bl e of conser vat i sm i n t he manner

of Bur ke' s Ref l ect i ons on t he Revol ut i on i n Fr ance, i t

di d nonet hel ess , i n conj unct i on wi t h hi s pol i t i cal

wr i t i ngs, cont r i but e t o t he f or mat i on of a conser vat i ve

i deol ogy i n t he l at e ei ght eent h- ear l y ni net eent h

cent ur y. Hume' s pr o- St uar t sympat hi es no l onger

of f ended t he r ul i ng el i t e i n t he age of r evol ut i on. I n

hi s own r at her cool and col or l ess way, af t er al l ,

Hume' s l ament at i ons

fo r

Char l es I par al l el ed Bur ke' s

t ear s f or Loui s XVI . Davi d Bongi e has r eveal ed t hat i n

Fr ance t he Hi st or y became a weapon of t he Count er

Revol ut i on even mor e t han Bur ke' s Ref l ect i ons, at

l east bef or e t he t ur n of t he cent ur y. 46 I t was act ual l y

mor e pr ai sed and ci t ed by t he t r adi t i onal i st s t han by

t he phi l osophes and hel ped shape t he conser vat i ve

i deol ogy of J oseph de Mai st r e. Conver sel y, t he r adi cal

hi st or i an Cat her i ne Macaul ay, who wr ot e her Hi st or y of

Engl and as an at t ack on Hume, was t he dar l i ng of Fr ench

r ef or mer s and r epubl i cans.

Even t hough Hume wr ot e wi t h an ant i - Whi g

ani mus, i t

i s ,

par adoxi cal l y, cor r ect t o r egar d t he

Hi st or y as' an est abl i shment wor k, one whi ch i mpl i c i t l y

endor sed t he r ul i ng ol i gar chy. Hume' s r esent ment s wer e

di r ect ed nar r owl y at t he Ol d Cor ps Whi gs, not at t he

pr oper t i ed el i t e as a whol e. What cannot be accept ed

i s t he cur r ent i mage of Hume as i mpar t i al schol ar or

skept i cal phi l osophe, det er m ned t o seek t he t r ut h

about t he past am dst a m r e of par t i san comment ar i es.

Hume' s ant i - Whi g pr econcept i ons di st or t ed hi s anal ysi s

and skewed hi s i nt er pr et at i on.

Lai r d Oki e

Ot t awa Uni ver si t y

Ot t awa, Kansas


29/33

1

28

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6 .

7.

8.

Quoted in Ernest Campbell Mossner, The Life of

David Hume, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,

19801, p. 318.

Thomas Preston Peardon, The Transition in English

Historical WrikLng 1760-18LO (New York: Columbia

Univ. Press, 1933),

p.

72.

Mossner, Life of David Hume, p. 316.

For this reevaluation see Richard H. Popkin and

David Fate Norton, eds., David Hume: Philosophical

Historian (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Werrill, 1965);

Constant Noble Stockton, David Hume: Historian of

the English Revolution, Eighteenth Centur

Studies, vol.

4,

no. 3 (Spring 1971): 274-94:

Stockton, Economics and the Mechanism of

Historical Progress

in

Hume's History, in Hume: a

Reevaluation, ed. Donald W. Livingston and James T.

King (New York, 19761, p. 298; Victor

G.

Wexler,

'David Hume's Discovery

of

a New Science of

Historical Thought, Eighteenth Century Studies,

vol.

10,

no. 2 (Winter 1976-77): 185-203; Wexler,

David Hume and the History of England

(Philadelphia, 19791, pp.

8

22-3; John J. Burke,

Jr., Hume's History of England: Waking the English

from a Dogmatic Slumber, in Studies in Eighteenth-

Century Culture, ed. Roseann Runte (Madison, Wis.:

Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 19781, pp. 235-51.

Duncan Forbes

,

Introduction to David Hume,

History of Great-_=tain: The Reigns of James I and

Charles

I

(London, 1970); Forbes, Hume's

P h i l o ~ $ f ~ ~ lolitics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1975). Forbes' interpretation is ensconced

in J.W. Burrow's

A

Liberal Dissent: Victorian

Historians and the English Past (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 19811, pp. 26-27; John

Kenyon's T_he History Men: The Historical Profession

in England Since the Renaissance (London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 19831, pp. 41-57; H.T.

Dickinson, Liberty and Property: Political Ideology

in Eighteenth Century Britain (New York: Holmes and

Meier, 19771, pp. 132-39.

Forbes, Introduction, p. 8.

bid., pp. 10-11.

See Forbes, Hume's -Philosophical Poli-, pp.

125-92.


30/33

29

9.

For bes, I nt r oduct i on, p. 15.

10.

For bes, Hume' s Phi l osophi cal Pol i t i cs, p. 276.

11. . 283.

12.

m. pp. 285- 86.

13.

For bes, I nt r oduct i on, p. 47.

14.

For Rapi n' s i nt er pr et at i on see Paul de Rapi n-

Thoyr as, The Hi st or y of Engl and, as wel l

Eccl es i ast i cal as Ci vi l , done i nt o t he Engl i sh

f r om t he Fr enchp wi t h l ar ge and usef ul not es ( and

a summar y of t he whol e) . . . , by N. Ti ndal , 2d ed. , 2

vol s. ( London, 17331, 2: 212- 13, 65, 141, 159- 236,

371- 455.

15.

Lawr ence Hvde. ' Pref ace t o t he Ear l of Cl arendon.

~-

The Hi st oi y of t he Rebel l i on and Ci vi l War s ik

Engl and, 6 vol s. , or i g. publ . 1702- 4 ( Oxf or d:

Oxf or d Uni v. Pr ess , 18881, 1: l i .

16.

Laur ence Echar d, The Hi st or y of Engl and f r om

t he

f i r st ent r ance of J ul i us Caesar and t he Romans t o

t he concl usi on of t he r ei gn o Ki ng J ames I 1 and

t he est abl i shment of Ki ng W l l i am and Queen Mar y

upon t he t hr one i n t he year 1688, 3d ed. , 3 vol s.

( London, 1720) ; Thomas Sal mon, The Hi st or y of

Engl and, 11 vol s. ( London, 1732- 34) ; Thomas Car t e,

A Gener al Hi st or y

of

Engl and, 4 vol s. ( London,

1747- 54

1,

17. See, f or exampl e, D. C. Dougl as, Engl i sh Schol ar s,

1660- 1730, 2d ed. ( London: Eyr e and Spot t i swoode,

19511, p. 134;

and

Vi ct or Wexl er , ' Davi d Hume' s

Di scover y of a New Sci ence of Hi st or i cal Thought ,

Ei ght eent h Cent ur y St udi es, vol . 10, no. 2

( 1976/ 77) : 195.

18.

W l l i am A. Ai ken, The Conduct of t he Ear l of

Not t i ngham ( New Haven: Yal e Uni v. Pr ess , 19411, pp.

1- 38. For cont empor ar y comment ar i es see Edmund

Cal amy, A Letter to Mr . Ar chdeacon Echar d Upon

Occasi on of

hi s

Hi st or y of Engl and ( London, 1718) ;

J ohn Ol dm xon, The Cr i t i cal Hi st or y of Engl and

( London, 1724) ; Zachar y Gr ey, A Def ense of our

anci ent a nd a de r n hi s t or i ans agai nst t he f r i vol ous

cavi l s of a l a t e pr et ender t o cr i t i cal hi st or y

( London, 1724) .

19. See For bes, Hume' s Phi l osophi cal Pol i t i cs, pp.

i

272- 75.


31/33

30

20. Richard Ollard, The Image of the King (London:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1979), p. 186.

21. See David Bume The History of England, 6 vols.

,

orig. pub. 1754-62 (Philadelphia: Lippincott,

18711, 4:378-527, for Hume's discussion of James I.

The 1871 version of Hume's History employed here is

one of many later editions incorporating his

original volume on the early Stuarts. Although

Hume revised this first volume for subsequent

editions, the changes do not extend to the

particular passages cited

in

this paper nor to his

overall interpretation. All remaining citations

will be incorporated in the text as HE with volume

and page number/s following.

22. See Lawrence Stone, The causes of the English

Revolution (New York: Harper & ROW 19721, p. 138;

and J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England (London: A. Lane,

19781, p. 42.

23. See Kenyon, p. 121.

24. John Kenyon points out that 'the opponents of the

monarch were for the most part sturdy reactionaries

who wanted nothing more than to restore our

'ancient liberties' of a century, perhaps even two

centuries before. Lawrence Stone comments: 'The

use made by the opposition of medieval precedents

...

was not merely a matter

of

the cynical

manipulation of inapposite precedents for current

political purposes. The pedantic legal antiquaries

like Hakewill and Coke and Prynne believed deeply

in the principles they dredged out of the past,

however self-serving they may seem to historians of

a later age. See J.P. Kenyon, The Stuart

Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 19661, p. 7, and Lawrence Stone, The Causes

of the English Revolution (New York: Harper & ROW,

19721, p 105.

25. See Clarendon, 1:222-25; Hume, 5:130-31.

26. Clarendon, 1:222.

27. Clarendon, 1:225.

28.

u 8

4:223.

29. See C.H. Firth, Clarendon's History of the

Rehellio_n, Part I11 , E_ng_l_i_s_h_~j_sJ~~icale L i E , 75

(July 1904): 478.


32/33

31

30.

See Hume, History__qf_Ecgland,5:347-49; Clarendon,

4: 261-62.

31.

See Hume, History of England, 5:282-88; Clarendon,

3

:

451-60.

32.

Clarendon, 3:187-88.

33.

Clement Walker, The Compleat History of Indepen

dency (London, 16611, pp.

8-9.

34.

Walker, Compl_e_atHistory, p. 70.

35. Richard Perrinchief, The Royal Martyr,

or

the Life

and Death ~ f g . n g harles I,

3d

ed. (London, 16841,

p. 57.

36.

Perrinchief, W a J - M a r t y r , pp. 228-29. This

passage is among several instances of plagiarism

disclosed i n George Brodie, A History of the

British Empire, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Bell

&

Bradfute, 18221, 2:54; 3:183-84; 4:206-7, 212-15,

226-27.

37.

The latest historian of Toryism faults Hume for

maintaining that the Tories owed their distinct

quality to their attachment to the House of Stuart.

Hume was wrong. Linda Colley, In Defiance of

Oligarchy: The Tory Party, 1740-60 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 19821, p. 115.

38.

Quoted in Wexler, David Hume and the History of

-

-.

ngland ,

p.

14.

39.

David Miller, Philosophy and IdeoloqY in David

Hume'S Political Thouqht (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

19811, p. 173.

40.

Colley, p. 115.

41.

C.H. Firth, The Development of the Study of

Seventeenth-Century History in Transactions of the

Royal Historical So&eLy (London, 19131, 7:38-9.

42.

See Frank O'Gorman, The Emergence of the British

_

wo-Party__System 1760-1832 (London: Edward Arnold,

19821, p. 45.

43.

Paul Langford, Old Whigs, Old Tories and the

American Revolution,

i n

The British Atlantic

Empire before the Ame_r_Lcan Revolution, eds. P.

Marshall and G. Williams (London: Cass, 19801, p.

i

124.


33/33

32

44. See Renry T. Dickinson, Liberty and Property:

Political Ideology in Eighteenth Century Britain

(New York: Holmes and Meier, 19771, pp. 195-231.

45. Miller, 173-184, 194-205.

On

Hume's conservatism

see also Sheldon Wolin, Hume and conservatism, in

Hume: a Reevaluation, ed. Donald W. Livingston and

James T. King (New York: Fordham University Press,

15761, pp 239-256.

46. Laurence L. Bongie, David Hume: Prophet of the

counter-revolution (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 19651,

pp.

68-79.

Ideology and Partiality in David Hume's History of England

Documents

Transcript of Ideology and Partiality in David Hume's History of England