As mentioned before, the Tories were not an entirely accepting party when it came to matters of foreigners and foreign policy, to the extent that they may be called racist by contemporary standards. Again, the Tory party is a conflicted one with contradictory views – many Tories disliked the idea of the anti-French policy and wanted them as an ally, yet they distrusted the Dutch to great lengths. The Tories also had a more passive perspective on the outlook of Britain with many aiming to reduce the wars fought with France due to the cost, loss of life and the wasted resources it caused. With this inward looking ideology, the Tories were only confining themselves from reaching financial gain – the Whigs benefited more from the financial revolution out of their acceptance of the Dutch banking system, whilst the Tories did not due to their landed opinions and distrust of foreigners (Smith, 1998)², preferring to heavily tax land in order to compensate for a slow income to support foreign development and affairs – it could be said that the Whigs were more successful for their financial gain, despite creating national debt (which still exists today), when compared with the Tories whose ideas simply were simply not efficient enough in the revolutionary times. The Tories were thus slow in comparison with the Whigs in matters of ideas and innovations.
The Whigs supported the consistent invasions of France with the belief that it could weaken the strongest power in the world, a belief which held true as result of their constant aggravated assaults. The French’s power slowly weakened after the Wars of The Spanish in 1713 succession and the coming of George I. The Whigs aimed not to secure borders, but expand out the way, in search of new lands and developing trade to create what would eventually become the British Empire (Yadav, 2010)¹. The Tories were, predictably, opposing to these notions.
Another issue which divided both parties was upon religion. The Whigs, though anti-Catholic by nature, were a lot more tolerant when compared with their Tory counterparts, as is to be expected – The Whigs recognised and tolerated Dissenters to a much greater extent than the Tories, who instead were divided on the issues of religion, with some supportive of restoring the Catholic monarchy (James II) as part of the Jacobite ideology and others highly anti-Catholic (Burchill, 1998). This split on religion was a big factor in leading to Tory distrust from the Jacobite revival attempts.
One of the biggest issues, which can be easily seen when looking at the two parties in comparison throughout history, is their differing composition and organisation, as well as who supported them. The Whigs were generally all unified to the same cause – the removal of a Catholic monarch and the desire to develop Britain’s economy and territory in expanding. The Tories were (arguably still are), ‘old fashioned’ in their attempts to lead a nation to glory, believing in a divine monarch ruler of British heritage who would uphold a British constitution, did not always agree together on every issue and lacked a single over-arching motive to rely on to unify them together when compared with the Whigs who did in their aim to have no Catholic monarchist. The Whigs and Tories both had clearly defined leaders with clear objectives, such as the Whig Junto and Somers’s leadership, who led the parties to their individual goals, but the Tories tended to be split on what these goals were (Carr, 2011). Also, the support the two parties garnished, and their means of gaining political curb over the other, differs. Whilst the Tories relied heavily upon rich, upper class families, the Whigs gained support from some Anglicans, Dissenters, Anti-Catholics, new landed families and many economists who believed in banking as the only way forward (Smith, 1998)³.
The Whigs generally are respected for being ‘political revisionists’ in a time of great turmoil, whilst the Tories are seen as a party loyal to a British Monarch (Yadav, 2010)². The critical differences really stem from a new ideology versus an old one, the Whigs being the newer one and the Tories likewise being the old. The new ideology encompasses the belief of a bright new future in change, and through change the establishment of an empire and name for Britain, with the lack of a Catholic monarch yet having moderate tolerance to religion and race. The older ideas focus on a strict loyalty to a British monarch, looking inwardly and not relying upon foreign support or using new methods to developing Britain, not using force or engaging in wars unnecessarily and a respect for the middle to upper classes. When comparing the two, a contemporary view would strongly support the Whig policies for their lack of xenophobia in today’s modern world of open toleration, their use of modern methods in improving the economy and their aims against absolutism of the monarchy yet giving more power to the people.
This ‘Rage of Party’ had various outcomes upon the political, economic and cultural situation in the direction Britain was heading. The future results of a Whig dominated government had strengths and weaknesses. First of all, the main drawback was the creation of long-term, national debt that is still prominent to this day. A lot of the money gained from the new banking system was funded towards hiring armies to fight the French, another drawback which was widely opposed by the Tories for the cost. But it is by all means defendable to argue that the benefits outweighed the shortcomings produced – in 1698 the New East India Company was created, producing an explosion in wealth from trade; the outward looking expeditionaries embarked on successful voyages and in furthering the discovery of new and unexplored lands like the North West Territories; the banking system helped to revolutionise the way we handle money in the United Kingdom today, and the wars with France weakened it against a superior Britain. This Imperial attitude from the Whigs managed to establish Britain as one of the most powerful nations during the early to late-mid 18th century, culminating in what is known as the First British Empire focused on the Americas and eventually leading to the even bigger Second Empire that covered almost a third of the world at its peak (Jones, 1961).
Anne’s political opinions changed over the course of her reign, beginning as an adamant Tory to a devout Whig supporter towards the end – her death also led many Tory figures to reconsider the idea of accepting a Protestant-only monarchy out of a dislike of the Hanoverian George I, and began aiming to re-establish James, the Pretender, to the throne. Union with Scotland in 1707 under Anne meant an increase in supply of troops (of which many successfully helped in defeating France), more potential trade with less competition from a direct neighbour and helped a social, cultural and economic revolution to Scotland in the form of the Scottish Enlightenment, increased education, more agricultural development and heavy Tobacco production in Glasgow, as well as the important population boom. After union there began a heavy emphasis upon the ideas of superiority and ‘Britishness’ to help establish Britain as conceptual idea to be feared and respected amongst other nations. It may be said all of this, the Union with Scotland, the vast overseas Empire and the heavy production and rapid industrialisation may not have been possible under the Tories due to their xenophobic ideology and somewhat fear of new technology and methods in desiring to stick to tradition (Jones)². The Whigs, in this instance, truly owe it to themselves for their successive efforts in establishing the sense of a Britain and British Empire.
Both Whigs and Tories had their differences, particularly on the split they had upon religious matters, the acceptance of foreigners and most significantly using and living by new ideas such as banking. This essay has conveyed the most notable differences they had during the reign of King William III and Queen Anne during the 17th and 18th centuries in relation to the past and future historical context.
References
Burchill, S. (1998). Whigs & Tories. Available: http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/chap4011.html. Last accessed 31st Oct 2011.
Carr, N. (2011). John Somers, Baron Somers. Available: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/554032/John-Somers-Baron-Somers. Last accessed 1st Nov 2011.
Hill, S. (1999). Bonnie Prince Charlie & The Jacobites. Available: http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/charlieb.html. Last accessed 31st Oct 2011
Jones, J.R (1961)¹. The First Whigs: The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683. London: Oxford University Press. 63-78.
Jones, J.R (1961)². The First Whigs: The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683. London: Oxford University Press. 78-113.
Smith, D.L (1998)¹. A History of The Modern British Isles: 1603-1707. Oxford: Blackwell. 299-320.
Smith, D.L (1998)². A History of The Modern British Isles: 1603-1707. Oxford: Blackwell. 298-304.
Smith, D.L (1998)³. A History of The Modern British Isles: 1603-1707. Oxford: Blackwell. 298-304.
Speck, W.A (1970)1. Tory & Whig: The Struggle in the Constituencies 1701-1715. London: MacMillan. 12-27.
Trueman, C. (2000). William III. Available: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/william_iii.htm. Last accessed 28th Oct 2011.
Trueman, C. (2001). George I. Available: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/george_i.htm. Last accessed 28th Oct 2011.
Yadav, A. (2010)¹. Whig and Tory. Available: http://mason.gmu.edu/~ayadav/historical%20outline/whig%20and%20tory. Last accessed 31st Oct 2011.
Yadav, A. (2010)². Whig and Tory. Available: http://mason.gmu.edu/~ayadav/historical%20outline/whig%20and%20tory. Last accessed 31st Oct 2011.
Word Count: 2048
