| Popis: |
The administration of George Grenville, 1763-1765, continues to divide historians. The passage of his American Stamp Act was widely debated by his contemporaries, damned by nineteenth-century Whig historians, and criticized by many historians well into the twentieth-century. The Stamp Act proved to be a political blunder which helped precipitate the outbreak of the American Revolution, and it is this, together with Grenville's own forbidding personality, which has coloured how he has been largely remembered. Indeed, as one of his more recent biographers has noted, Grenville's political career has been mainly judged on the comments made by his contemporary political enemies. Grenville, however, came to the premiership after spending twenty years in office and was perceived by many as an efficient and energetic minister; a capable and conscientious man who got things done.This present study adds to the recent reappraisal of Grenville's career by investigating how he and his followers interacted with, and attempted to influence, the activities of the increasing political press during the first decade of the reign of George III. The Grenvillite pamphleteers were both well-organized and effective in their defence of their political patron, and the press activities of Thomas Whately, William Knox, Augustus Hervey, and Charles Lloyd are fully investigated here within the larger context of the political debates from 1763 to 1770. The impact East Indian issues, Irish affairs, John Wilkes, and American colonial problems had on shaping British public opinion are also examined. The book concludes, with regard to the American colonies at least, that the Grenvillite vision of empire was essentially traditional and mainstream. Stubborn, peevish, and argumentative he may have been, but Grenville was hardly the scourge of the American colonies as previously portrayed; nor was he the lone author of all the trouble between Britain and her American colonies as some American historians have suggested. George Grenville will remain a controversial figure in eighteenth-century British political history, but this study offers an examination of his political activities from a different perspective, and thus helps broaden our estimation of a minister who has been considered for too long as one of the worst prime ministers during the long reign of George III. |
