The History of England, During the Reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and King George I is a two-volume survey of late-Stuart and early-Hanoverian politics by the journalist James Ralph. Issued by subscription in 1744 and 1746, it narrates events from the Glorious Revolution (1688) to the death of George I (1727), prefaced by a substantial review of the reigns of Charles II and James II. The book appeared amid a spate of rival, politically sponsored histories in the 1740s.
The work advances a constitutionalist opposition stance associated with the circle around Frederick, Prince of Wales, coupling arguments about liberty and the integrity of the British constitution with an unusual emphasis on public finance as a driver of political change. It criticises measures such as the Occasional Conformity legislation and peacetime standing armies, and affirms monarchy limited by law. Methodologically it makes systematic use of state papers, manuscript collections (notably the Somers and Halifax papers), and fiscal returnsâÂÂcustoms and excise ledgers, national-debt tables, and army/militia mustersâÂÂto test and correct partisan narratives. It also engages closely with earlier general histories, especially BurnetâÂÂs History of His Own Time.
Reception at the time was limited and mixed, and the project was commercially unsuccessful; later readers, however, praised its diligence and detail. Nineteenth-century figures such as Henry Hallam and Charles James Fox rated it highly, and modern scholars have highlighted its breadth, documentary method, and treatment of the Glorious Revolution. The book circulated in Britain and North America, where its constitutional arguments were echoed in revolutionary-era pamphleteering.
The work was issued by subscription at one guinea a set, in two folio volumesâÂÂvol. I in March 1744 and vol. II in May 1746âÂÂand it appeared serially across those years. Volume I is dedicated to Horatio Walpole.
The book appeared during a crowded decade for English histories, alongside Nicholas TindalâÂÂs continuation of Rapin and large general histories by Thomas Carte and William Guthrie, aided by newly printed collections of state papers such as the Ormonde Papers (1739), Thomas BirchâÂÂs seven-volume Thurloe State Papers (1742), the Strafford Letters (1739), and the Sidney Papers (1746).
It formed part of competing partisan enterprises of the 1740s: a Country-Whig project pairing GuthrieâÂÂs General History (to 1688), backed by Chesterfield, with RalphâÂÂs post-Revolution History, backed by George Bubb Dodington, set against the continuation of Rapin backed by Lord Hardwicke. The coordinated plan is documented by early-1744 correspondence describing RalphâÂÂs book as a âÂÂcounterpartâ to the Hardwicke undertaking.
Rooted in opposition journalism, the scheme drew on the Country-Whig papers Common Sense and Old England and extended their anti-ministerial programme in a more scholarly register. The History itself appeared serially between 1744 and 1746.
During this period, when Dodington entered the Broad Bottom ministry (1744), Ralph received a Treasury pension of ã200 per year. GuthrieâÂÂs companion General History began appearing in early 1744 and was completed in 1751; the Pelham ministry then pensioned him at ã200 a year to silence opposition writing.
The History covers 1688âÂÂ1727, from the Glorious Revolution to the death of George I. It opens with a roughly ninety-page âÂÂReview of the Reigns of the Royal Brothers Charles and James,â which frames 1688 as a constitutional watershed.
The narrative aligns with the constitutionalist (âÂÂBroad BottomâÂÂ) opposition associated with the Prince of Wales, advancing principles of liberty, the integrity of the British constitution, Parliament as its guardian, and ultimate popular sovereignty; these are framed as non-partisan and later echoed in American revolutionary rhetoric. In its preface the work names a second aimâÂÂâÂÂto detect ⦠the evil of partiesâÂÂâÂÂand depicts political corruption and electoral manipulation (including patronage) as threats to the constitution, with WalpoleâÂÂs administration presented as overstepping constitutional bounds. Alongside its constitutional argument, the work treats public finance as a driver of political change, using customs and excise ledgers, debt tables, and troop returns to ground its analysis.
A dual emphasis on liberty and fiscal health informs its criticism of both Whig and Tory ministries without strict alignment to either. Specific measures criticised as contrary to liberty include the Occasional Conformity Bill and restrictions on the press; the book also defends the liberty of the stage as akin to press freedom. It opposes a standing army in peacetime (favouring a militia), censures William III for giving statutory sanction to a peacetime standing army during the Standing Army Controversy, faults Parliament for normalising it, and rejects WalpoleâÂÂs 1733âÂÂ1734 troop arguments as unconstitutional. While warning against excessive royal prerogative, the work affirms loyalty to a monarchy limited by law.
In framing 1688, the History treats the Glorious Revolution as the culmination of developments since the Restoration and places it in a European context. William of Orange is presented chiefly as aligning England against France to secure Dutch independence rather than as a national âÂÂdeliverer,â and James II is said to have come close to reshaping the monarchy. His failure is attributed to late Church resistance, diplomatic circumstance, WilliamâÂÂs opportunism, and the efforts of a few principled politicians.
The research draws on both printed sources and extensive manuscriptsâÂÂespecially the papers and pamphlet collections of John Somers and the letters and journals of the Earl of HalifaxâÂÂalongside state papers and fiscal returns, used systematically to test and correct partisan narratives of the previous half-century. Its apparatus appends annual customs and excise ledgers (1689âÂÂ1726), a consolidated national-debt table, comparative army and militia returns, and division lists.
The History devotes 1,078 folio pages to evaluating earlier historiansâÂÂClarendon, Burnet, Echard, Kennet, Rapin, Ludlow, LâÂÂEstrange, North and OldmixonâÂÂand supplements them with letters, diaries, memoirs, biographies, journals, parliamentary reports, budget statements, state tracts, judicial reports, and the daily Gazettes of the period, including the printed Somers Tracts.
The book departs from traditional Augustan historical writing: it is anti-clerical, rejects providential explanation, brings a Harringtonian emphasis on social and economic forces associated with Bolingbroke, and undertakes a sustained critique of earlier Whig and Tory party histories. The work has also been classed, alongside GuthrieâÂÂs, as a specimen of the emerging Enlightenment school.
Drawing on these sources, the History engages critically with earlier general histories, especially BurnetâÂÂs History of His Own Time. It challenges BurnetâÂÂs anecdotalism and credulity, corrects specific errors (for example, the voting history of the 1690 Sacheverell Bill), and faults omissions such as the failure to discuss the bill to establish the Bank of England. It also highlights derivative practices among Burnet, Tindal, Kennett, Oldmixon and Boyer.
While retaining a Country perspectiveâÂÂtreating âÂÂtyrannyâ as having increased after 1688, offering a markedly negative reading of the financial revolution, and depicting WilliamâÂÂs war against France as wastefulâÂÂthe narrative rejects partisan commonplaces such as the Popish Plot and the Rye House Plot canards and ridicules rumours about the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart. It offers a detailed explanation of how the authoritarianism of Charles II, together with the servility of Parliament and people, nearly enabled James II to succeed.
Trade and press response appears to have been limited. Surviving indications point to few buyers and little contemporary notice in Britain or abroad. Overall the project proved commercially unsuccessful; one modern account characterises it, relative to GuthrieâÂÂs, as a âÂÂtotalâ commercial failure.
Eighteenth-century views were mixed. The Monthly Review (1749) praised the authorâÂÂs âÂÂlaborious diligenceâ and the utility of the fiscal appendices; the Tory The Craftsman dismissed it as âÂÂCountry-party spleenâÂÂ; and The Gentleman's Magazine called the prefatory essays âÂÂan excrescenceâ but admitted the statistical digests were âÂÂserviceable to the curious statesman.â Around 1761, Tobias Smollett dubbed him âÂÂthe circumstantial Ralph,â using the 18th-century sense of âÂÂcircumstantialâ to mean richly detailedâÂÂa nod to the workâÂÂs document-heavy style.
Too scholarly for popular perusal, it was, in KennyâÂÂs words, âÂÂa historianâÂÂs historyâ that has been praised for two centuries. In the nineteenth century, Henry Hallam called Ralph âÂÂthe most acute and diligent historian we possess for these times.â Charles James Fox found in it material âÂÂbut slightly touched by other historiansâ and expressed surprise that RalphâÂÂs reputation was not greater. In the twentieth century, Laird Okie described the book as the most subtle and detailed pre-Macaulay account of the Glorious Revolution, ahead of Burnet and Rapin.
Although the projected third volume covering the reign of George II was never completed, the History circulated on both sides of the Atlantic. Its constitutional principles later informed revolutionary American rhetoric, and the 1760 pamphlet A Letter to the People of Pennsylvania cites it on judicial tenure.
The workâÂÂs heavy use of fiscal and administrative dataâÂÂannual customs and excise ledgers, consolidated national-debt tables, and army/militia returnsâÂÂwas a rare early systematic use of quantitative state evidence in English political historiography.