This is an example of how I take reading notes, that is if I am typing them while reading. If you are not engaging in a dialogue with Gay&Webb, and recording 1) what you are reading, 2) the connections with other sources that pop into your head, and 3) the questions that come to mind, then you are not actively reading for knowledge. FYI: I spent about 45 min. actively reading about 15 pages. Below are my initial notes.

Chapter 9 (partial):

Major Wars: Polish Succession (1733), Austrian Succession, War of Jenkin’s Ear (1739),

Major people: John Law (French credit maestro), Robert Walpole (finance wizard/first Prime Minister?), Catherine the Great, George I of Hanover (England)

Generalizations:

• Dutch Republic in decline
• Frihetstiden in Sweden – age of peace and healing (new constitution)
• Russia: “only the size of the country, the extent of its resources, and the surprising competence of some of its ministers [who?] preserved it as a great power.” (378) Dominated by foreign (german) favorites until Catherine 1762
• France: “the crucial political issue for France kept alive down to 1789 was a reassertion of noble power and the parliaments’ right to participate in making legislation” (380) / public finances in chaos [Goubert also stresses this point after the death of Louis in 1715]
  • John Law (see N. Fergusson’s Ascent of Money); 1719 Co of the Indies –> Mississippi Bubble 1720; paper money. [What effects?]
• England: new dynasty (Hanover) 1714; Tory Party out of power; Jacobite Rebellion 1715; only 250,00 of 6 million had the vote – Commons an oligarchy representing an oligarchy; Bubble Act 1720; by mid 18th en balance of power shifted to House of Commons.

“In general, all across Europe, “absolutism” was under siege.” (377) [Doesn’t this contradict what Shurmer said in class?]

“While party labels were becoming increasingly meaningless [in Britain], in these years they still designated more than the struggle between ins and outs, or between court and country; they stood for real divisions on matters of principle and of policy.” (383)

“Peace, trade, prosperity – these were Walpole’s aims… and his favor rested upon the favor of the king and the House of Commons” (385)

Walpole – he gave them something better than glory. ‘Yet in the end it was glory, linked to trade by upcoming William Pitt, that brought him down.’ (387) Walpole opposed war (against Spain) in the interests of a segment of commercial community –> traders in slaves, smugglers

Questions:

• what exactly distinguished Whigs from Tories ?
• why is Britain still so concerned w Spain if it is in decline?
• why a ‘prime minister’?