1 For a study of the 18th‐century ‘connexion’ see Walcott, R., Jr., English Party Politics in the Early Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Mass., 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 A survey purporting to be more or less exhaustive is Robbins, Caroline, ‘“Discordant Parties”, A Study of the Acceptance of Party by Englishmen’, Political Science Quarterly, LXXIII, 1958, pp. 505–29Google Scholar. For a more microscopic study, see David Thomson, The Conception of Political Party in England in the Period 1740 to 1783, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1938. The latter work covers no sources published prior to 1733.

3 The Defection Consider'd, and the Designs of Those who Divided the Friends of the Government, set in a True Light, 5th ed., London, 1717, p. 10.

4 A Miscellany of Sundry Essays, Paradoxes and Problematical Discourses, Letters and Characters, Amplified with Authorities, London, 1659, pp. 245–6. For similar sentiments see R. Dallington, Aphorisms Civil and Militarie, London, 1613, p. 241 and Sir Walter Raleigh, The Cabinet‐Council, p. 82.

5 This strand in the theory of toleration has been largely neglected in the numerous studies of the subject. It deserves attention both for its intrinsic interest and because of the later application of the idea to political parties.

6 Liberty of Conscience, the Magistrate's Interest, 1668, pp. 53–4Google Scholar, paged consecutively with Liberty of Conscience Upon its True and Proper Grounds Asserted and Vindicated. Sir Charles Wolseley has always been credited with writing this influential tract.

7 ‘Good Advice to the Church of England, Roman Catholic and Protestant Dissenter’ in A Collection of the Works of William Penn, London, 1726, II, p. 773 Google Scholar.

8 A conventional verdict on party is contained in ‘Some Fruits of Solitude in Reflections and Maxims Relating to the Conduct of Human Life’ in Works, I, p. 838. In crediting Penn with a doctrine of party, Caroline Robbins fails to distinguish between religious and political parties. See op. cit., p. 518.

9 Shute (1678–1734) assumed the name Barrington before receiving his title and was known to some acquaintances as ‘Barrington Shute’. See The Diary of Dudley Ryder 1711–16, ed. Matthews, William, London, 1938, p. 154.Google Scholar Since he is best known under the name Barrington, it has been employed throughout. Additional biographical material is contained in The Theological Works of the First Viscount Barrington … to which is Prefaced a Life of the Author, ed. Rev. G. Townsend, London, 1828, I, Nichols, J., Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, London, 1812, VI, pp. 444–52 and D.N.B.Google Scholar

10 Some modern descriptions of the event make no mention of Barrington. See Sykes, Norman, William Wake 1617–1737, Cambridge, 1957, pp. 115–28Google Scholar. Other scholars credit him with a prominent role in instigating the repeal. See Robbins, Caroline, The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, p. 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Barrington's acceptance of Occasional Conformity gained him the disapproval of many Dissenters and doubtless reduced his influence with them. See Coomer, Duncan, English Dissent under the Early Hanoverians, London, 1946, p. 20 Google Scholar, and Barlow, Richard B., Citizenship and Conscience: A Study in the Theory and Practice of Religious Toleration in England during the Eighteenth Century, Philadelphia, 1962, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar Barlow's bibliography has proved most useful.

12 The Correspondence of Jonathan Swift, I, 1690–1713, ed. Williams, Harold, Oxford, 1963, p. 115 Google Scholar.

13 The Interest of England Considered in Respect to Protestants Dissenting from the Established Church with Some Thoughts About Occasional Conformity, London, 1703, p. 26. This tract had rather a complicated printing history. The first edition of this version appeared in 1702. The edition used here, one of two published in 1703, is to be found in the British Museum (698 c. 29). The other edition of 1703 differs from this only in pagination and in a few stylistic improvements. A less elaborate version of the tract appeared in 1701 under the title An essay Upon the Interest of England in Respect to Protestants Dissenting from the Established Church. The British Museum catalogue calls the two versions different works and credits only the first to Barrington, but clearly he wrote both of them.

14 The Rights of Protestant Dissenters in Two Parts, 2nd ed., 1705, Part I, p. 76.

15 Ibid., Part II, pp. 41, 49.

16 The prevalence of this notion is discussed in King, James E., Science and Rationalism in the Government of Louis XIV, Baltimore, 1949, pp. 51–2Google Scholar and Kluxen, Kutt, Das Problem der Ploitischen Opposition, Munich, 1956, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

17 The Interest of England…, p. 21.

18 Ibid., p. 24. This connection between religious groups and the balance of the constitution seems to have been absent in earlier arguments for liberty of conscience. It figured prominently however in literature of the later 18th century. See Ursula Henriques, Religious Toleration in England 1787–1833, Toronto, 1961, p. 76.

19 The Interest of England…, pp. 24–5. Some 18th‐century peculiarities in the use of capital letters have been altered here to conform to modern usage.

20 The Rights of Protestant Dissenters…, Part I, p. 73.

21 Ibid.

22 The Revolution and Anti‐Revolution Principles Stated and Compared, the Constitution Explain'd and Vindicated…, London, 1714, p. 49.

23 A Letter from a Lay‐Man in Communion with the Church of England, Tho' Dissenting from her in some Points to the Right Rev'd, the Lord Bishop of–1714, p. 23.

24 For an excellent discussion of the variety of such ideas, see Pares, Richard, George III and the Politicians, Oxford, 1953, p. 33 Google Scholar.

25 Anon, , ‘Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution. Written by a Lay‐Hand in the Country for the Satisfaction of some Neighbours’ in A Collection of State Tracts, Published on Occasion of the Late Revolution in 1688, London, 1705, I, p. 254.Google Scholar

26 Ibid.

27 On the supposed Gothic influence on the balanced constitution, see Kliger, S., The Goths in England, Cambridge, Mass., 1951, pp. 203–5.Google Scholar

28 At the time of Barrington's earliest and most important works the Act of Settlement provided that with the accession of the Hanoverian no person holding an office of profit under the Crown might sit in the House of Commons. This did not, of course, prevent ministers from sitting in the Lords. The restrictive clause was repealed before it was due to go into effect. See Clark, G. N., The Later Stuarts 1660–1714, Oxford, 1934, pp. 183, 243.Google Scholar

29 See Morgan, W. T., English Political Parties and Leaders in the Reign of Queen Anne 1702–1710, New Haven, 1920, p. 294.Google Scholar

30 See Anon, , Short and Impartial Considerations Upon the Present State of Affairs in England, 1692, pp. 9–10,Google Scholar and Anon, , The Present Exigencies of the Government Considered, 1719, p. 43.Google Scholar On the failure of such experiments see Roberts, Clayton, The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England, Cambridge, 1966, p. 440 Google Scholar and passim.

31 It was not only Barrington who appreciated the connection between Whigs and Dissenters. The Tory attempt in 1702 to pass an occasional conformity bill was aimed at weakening the Whigs and was so understood by contemporaries. See Bishop Burner's History of his Own Time, London, 1734, II, pp. 336–8.

32 Anon, , The Landed Interest Considered: Being Serious Advice to Gentlemen, Yeomen, Farmers and Others Concerned in the Ensuing Election, by a Yeoman of Kent, London, 1733, p. 9.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., pp. 26–7.

34 Rohan's most influential book was translated as Treatise of the Interests of the Princes and States of Christendom. There were editions in 1640 and 1641. The muchquoted advice on English unity is to be found on p. 54 of the first English edition.

35 The Interest of England…, pp. 19, 26.

36 See Anon, , The Danger of Faction to a Free People, 1732 Google Scholar, passim and Anon, , Party Spirit in Time of Publick Danger Considered, London, 1756, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

37 Barrington's activities at this time are recorded in Barlow, op. cit., pp. 79–80.

38 Walpole's lack of support for the Dissenters has been explained as the result of a desire to hinder Stanhope, who favoured repeal. See Williams, Basil, The Whig Supremacy 1714–1760, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1962, p. 170.Google Scholar

39 At a time when people distinguished between men and measures, opposition did not necessarily mean opposition by a party. Some writers managed to praise opposition while condemning parties. See Anon, , Opposition More Necessary than Ever, London, 1742, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

40 Foord, A. S., His Majesty's Opposition 1774–1830, Oxford, 1964, p. 318.Google Scholar

41 Morgan, op. cit., pp. 93–4.

42 Anon, , Reasons Offer'd Against Pushing for the Repeal of the Corporation and Text Acts, 2nd ed., London, 1733, pp. 13–18.Google Scholar The author has been variously identified as Thomas Bradbury and as John Sladen.

43 An Answer to Some Queries in a Paper Intituled Reasons Offered Against Pushing for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, London, 1732, p. 22. Defoe had argued in the same vein as Barrington's later critics in insisting that Dissenters in their capacity as Dissenters should take no part in party affairs. See A Letter to a Dissenter, London, 1713. One of the answers provoked by this tract was almost certainly by Barrington. It anticipated his argument of twenty years later on the legitimacy of Dissenters trying to further their cause through party politics. More importantly, it contained unmistakable signs that the author accepted the institution of party. Defoe had looked to an abatement of party strife and especially the moderation of opposition. His anonymous adversary remarked on the tendency of both parties to attack opposition and faction when they were in power. He attacked the notion that a large responsible community such as the Dissenters should be called factious when participating in politics. Finally, and most characteristically, the writer noted with approval that the parties were equal: ‘the competition is so near a ballance that a feather may turn the scale’. Anon, ., Remarks on the Letter to the Dissenters by a Churchman, 2nd ed., London, 1714, pp. 4, 6 and 26.Google Scholar

44 See Mansfield, H. C., Jr., Statesmanship and Party Government: A Study of Burke and Bolingbroke, Chitago, 1965, p. 15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim, and Plamenatz, J. P., Man and Society, London, 1963, I, pp. 320–2.Google Scholar

45 Instances of writers who accepted party with some reservations are not uncommon. One such work not mentioned in the secondary literature is An Enquiry into the State of the Union of Great Britain, London, 1717, pp. 41–5. William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England, seems to have been the author. Some years later Halifax's Character of a Trimmer was even interpreted as favourable to party and was reprinted under a new and misleading title. See An Essay on Parties and a Free Government in the Character of an Ancient Trimmer Taken from a Manuscript wrote in the Reign of King Charles I, c. 1730.

46 The Second Part of the Dissuasive from Jacobitism, 1713, p. 4.

47 Layman's Letter to the Bishop of Bangor, London, 1716, pp. 15–16.

48 This is admitted even by a political scientist who feels that Burke must have thought that several political parties might simultaneously be legitimate. See Mansfield, op. cit., p. 181.

49 See especially the furious assault on divine right where Barrington described it as meaning ‘a few sitting on thrones with crowns on their heads; all others lying prostrate on the ground, with saddles on their backs, bridles in their mouths, chains on their hands and feet; and marked differently that it might be discerned to which of the crown'd heads these cattle belonged’. The Revolution and Anti‐Revolution Principles Stated…, p. 9. For Rumbold's remarks at his execution cf. Pitts, Thomas, The New Martyrology, 1963, p. 417 Google Scholar.

50 See Grove, Henry, System of Moral Philosophy, London, 1749, II, p. 534 Google Scholar, where Barrington was grouped with Matthew Tindal, Grotius and Locke.

51 Nichols, op. cit., p. 444.

52 A work by Edward Spelman is of this sort. See Campbell, Peter, ‘An Early Defence of Party’, Political Studies, III, 1955, pp. 166–7Google Scholar. Another edition of Spelman's work on Polybius has been discovered by Foord, who attributes it to a young divine, James Hampton. See Foord, , op. cit., pp. 268–9.Google Scholar The attribution to Spelman seems to be conclusive, however, and another book, presumably by Hampton, contains an adverse verdict on party. See Reflections on Ancient and Modern History, Oxford, 1746, p. 28.

53 This theme is explored by Thomson, op. cit., p. 179. It seems especially useful for explaining the position of a thinker such as Adam Ferguson.

54 Mansfield, , op. cit., pp. 8–9, 63–4.Google Scholar Burke was not, of course, saying that a religious settlement had to precede an understanding of party, for he was not concerned with that question.

55 The Rights of Protestant Dissenters, Part II, p. 42.