Lord Churchill, the British Empire, and the Glorious Revolution

In 1688 the English ousted their Catholic king from his throne. James II fled to France, and in the following year his daughter Mary took his crown, sharing it with her Dutch husband William of Orange. Traditional English historiography portrays this Glorious Revolution as far more than a change of monarchs, arguing that the events of 1688–89 were of vital importance in the country’s constitutional history. Webb adopts a biographical approach to the history of the Glorious Revolution, arguing that “personality is the lifeblood of history” and stressing that “individuals matter in history” (p. x). This is a narrative that centers on the life of one man—the general and politician John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough and victor over the French at Blenheim and other battles in the War of the Spanish Succession. Of course, there are many biographies of Marlborough, including ones by his illustrious descendant, Sir Winston, and a recent treatment by J. R. Jones. Webb’s book does not pretend to be yet another life of Lord Churchill; rather it is a discussion of the first half of his life, combined with an account of the events in Britain and America which led to the Revolution. Its main thesis is that James II lost his throne as a consequence of a military coup masterminded by Churchill. Webb argues that the general objected to the king’s absolutist policies, to his attempts to return England to the Catholic faith, and to his willingness to win French support by making concessions that undermined English interests in America. As governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Churchill complained in 1687 of French aggression against English bases, and of the king’s reluctance to retaliate. As a good Anglican, he resented James’s efforts to bring the Counter-Reformation to Britain and America. As an advocate of constitutional moderation, he disliked the king’s absolutism. For these reasons, says Webb, he deserted James in 1688, leading a large number of officers into the camp of William of Orange. This coup destroyed the king’s power and brought about the Revolution.

According to Webb, the “coup d’état of 1688” had consequences of the greatest importance for later developments in England and America. It represented “the first stage of the military transformation of British government, moving it from an underdeveloped early modern monarchy towards nationalism and statehood.” As a result of Lord Churchill’s coup, we are told, “England became a centralized, bureaucratized, armed state” (p. 165). In America, 1689 began “a hundred years of imperial war.” Conflict with the French strengthened “an anglicized ruling class in every royal province” of America, and undermined provincialism (p. 270). Before 1688, Webb claims, Britain and its overseas empire was an “underdeveloped” and “primitive polity,” “analogous to a ‘third world state’ in which the army and the church are the only bureaucratically advanced institutions and so constitute the national administrative structure” (p. 166). In America, “extreme underdevelopment mandated even larger roles for religion and for force than they did in England” (p. xi). The “Restoration Empire,” says Webb, was dominated by “religion and the military.” Of these two, the latter was the senior partner. Although it could act for religious reasons—as in Lord Churchill’s coup—“the army was England’s most powerful administrative institution” (p. 266).

This book puts forward the following major contentions. First, the Glorious Revolution was “Lord Churchill’s coup”—a military “putsch” contrived by a leading soldier. Second, Churchill’s motives in turning against the king—his commander-in-chief—were to preserve constitutional government and the Protestant religion. Third, the “primitive” nature of administration in Britain and British America meant that the army was the only institution sufficiently developed to effect major changes in government. Fourth, the Revolution ushered in the modern age in the British world. Each of these points deserves more detailed consideration.

John Churchill (1650...