text:
KNOWPEDIA
KNOWMEDIA
For our ancestors who didn't have the benefit of a world map...
Rizom - April,2018
Let Us Get to Know You!
Select 5 Topics that you are interested in.
Join Knowpia
Create an account to start reading, contributing, sharing stories you love, and more!
"Already have a KNOWPIA account?"
"Sign In"
I've read and accept the Terms and Conditions
Verify < Org >
By creating an account you are verifying the organization at the same instance
Sign in to start reading, contributing, sharing
stories you love, and more!
"Sign in" above to accept KNOWPIA's
Terms of Conditions & Privacy Policy
No account? Create One Today
Forgot Password??
Leave your email in form below and we will send link to reset your
2 Political structure
2.1 Role of Ireland
2.2 Merging of Scottish and English Parliaments
3 Queen Anne, 1702–1714
4 Hanoverian succession: 1714–1760
4.1 George I: 1714–1727
4.2 Age of Walpole: 1721–1760
4.2.1 South Sea Bubble
4.3 Patronage and corruption
4.3.1 Walpole's foreign policy
4.3.2 Lower debt and taxes
4.3.3 Walpole's reputation
5 Age of George III, 1760–1820
5.1 Victory in the Seven Years' War, 1756–1763
5.2 Evangelical religion and social reform
6 First British Empire
6.1 Mercantilist Trade Policy
6.2 Loss of the 13 American colonies
7 Second British Empire
8 Battling the French Revolution and Napoleon
8.1 Napoleon
9 Monarchs
9.1 House of Stuart
9.2 House of Hanover
10 Parliament of Great Britain
11 Peerage of Great Britain
12 Historiography
15.1 Historiography
Kingdom of Great Britain
This article is about the state that existed from 1707 to 1801. For the modern state, see United Kingdom.
Scots:
Great Breetain
Welsh:
Prydain Fawr
Cornish:
Breten Veur
Scottish Gaelic:
Breatainn
Royal coat of arms
Anthem: God Save the King/Queen
Location of Great Britain in 1789 in dark green; Ireland and Hanover in light green
51°30′N 0°7′W / 51.500°N 0.117°W / 51.500; -0.117
Common languages
English (official), Scots, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic
Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Judaism, others
British, Briton
Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• 1707–1714[a]
George I
George II
• 1760–1801[b]
George III
Robert Walpole
Earl of Wilmington
Henry Pelham
Duke of Newcastle
William Pitt the Elder
Lord North
William Pitt the Younger
Parliament of Great Britain
• Upper house
• Lower house
• Treaty of Union
• Acts of Union
• Union with Ireland
230,977 km2 (89,181 sq mi)
Preceded by Succeeded by
Today part of
^ Monarch of England and Scotland from 1702 to 1707.
^ Continued as monarch of the United Kingdom until 1820.
Part of a series on the
History of the United Kingdom
Georgian period
Regency period
Victorian period
Edwardian period
Post-war period (political history)
Post-war period (social history)
United Kingdom portal
The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially called Great Britain,[1][2] was a sovereign state in western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 1 January 1801. The state came into being following the Treaty of Union in 1706, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England (which included Wales) and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands, with the exception of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The unitary state was governed by a single parliament and government that was based in Westminster. The former kingdoms had been in personal union since James VI of Scotland became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 following the death of Elizabeth I, bringing about the "Union of the Crowns". Since its inception the kingdom was in legislative and personal union with Ireland and after the accession of George I to the throne of Great Britain in 1714, the kingdom was in a personal union with the Electorate of Hanover.
The early years of the unified kingdom were marked by Jacobite risings which ended in defeat for the Stuart cause at Culloden in 1746. In 1763, victory in the Seven Years' War led to the dominance of the British Empire, which was to become the foremost global power for over a century and slowly grew to become the largest empire in history.
From the mid-1750s the Kingdom came to dominate the Indian subcontinent through the aggressive expansion of the East India Trading Company, and until suffering defeat in the American War of Independence it claimed vast swathes of the North American continent through its burgeoning American colonies.
The Kingdom of Great Britain was replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on 1 January 1801 with the Acts of Union 1800.[3]
Further information: Britain (place name)
The name Britain descends from the Latin name for the island of Great Britain, Britannia or Brittānia, the land of the Britons via the Old French Bretaigne (whence also Modern French Bretagne) and Middle English Bretayne, Breteyne. The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474.[4]
The use of the word "Great" before "Britain" originates in the French language, which uses Bretagne for both Britain and Brittany. French therefore distinguishes between the two by calling Britain la Grande Bretagne, a distinction which was transferred into English.[5]
The Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union state that England and Scotland were to be "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain",[6] and as such "Great Britain" was the official name of the state, as well as being used in titles such as "Parliament of Great Britain".[2][7][8] Both the Acts and the Treaty describe the country as "One Kingdom" and a "United Kingdom", which has led some much later publications into the error of treating the "United Kingdom" as a name before it actually came into being in 1801.[9][10] The websites of the Scottish Parliament, the BBC, and others, including the Historical Association, refer to the state created on 1 May 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain.[11][12][13][14][15] The term United Kingdom was sometimes used during the 18th century to describe the state, but was not its name.[16][17]
Political structure
Main article: Parliament of Great Britain
The kingdoms of England and Scotland, both in existence from the 9th century (with England incorporating Wales in the 16th century), were separate states until 1707. However, they had come into a personal union in 1603, when James VI of Scotland became king of England under the name of James I. This Union of the Crowns under the House of Stuart meant that the whole of the island of Great Britain was now ruled by a single monarch, who by virtue of holding the English crown also ruled over the Kingdom of Ireland. Each of the three kingdoms maintained its own parliament and laws. Various smaller islands were in the king's domain, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
This disposition changed dramatically when the Acts of Union 1707 came into force, with a single unified Crown of Great Britain and a single unified parliament.[18] Ireland remained formally separate, with its own parliament, until the Acts of Union 1800. The Union of 1707 provided for a Protestant-only succession to the throne in accordance with the English Act of Settlement of 1701; rather than Scotland's Act of Security of 1704, which ceased to have effect. The Act of Settlement required that the heir to the English throne be a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover and not be a Catholic; this brought about the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714.
Legislative power was vested in the Parliament of Great Britain, which replaced both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland.[19] In practice it was a continuation of the English parliament, sitting at the same location in Westminster, expanded to include representation from Scotland. As with the former Parliament of England and the modern Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Parliament of Great Britain was formally constituted of three elements: the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Crown. The right of the English peerage to sit in the House of Lords remained unchanged, while the disproportionately large Scottish peerage was permitted to send only 16 representative peers, elected from amongst their number for the life of each parliament. Similarly, the members of the former English House of Commons continued as members of the British House of Commons, but as a reflection of the relative tax bases of the two countries the number of Scottish representatives was reduced to 45. Newly created peers in the Peerage of Great Britain were given the automatic right to sit in the Lords.[20] Despite the end of a separate parliament for Scotland, it retained its own laws and system of courts, As its own established Presbyterian Church, and control over its own schools. The social structure was highly hierarchical, and the same elite remain in control after 1707.[21] Scotland continued to have its own excellent universities, and with the strong intellectual community, especially in Edinburgh, The Scottish Enlightenment had a major impact on British, American and European thinking.[22][23]
Role of Ireland
As a result of Poynings' Law of 1495, the Parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the Parliament of England, and after 1707 to the Parliament of Great Britain. The Westminster parliament's Declaratory Act 1719 (also called the Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719) noted that the Irish House of Lords had recently "assumed to themselves a Power and Jurisdiction to examine, correct and amend" judgements of the Irish courts and declared that as the Kingdom of Ireland was subordinate to and dependent upon the crown of Great Britain, the King, through the Parliament of Great Britain, had "full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient validity to bind the Kingdom and people of Ireland".[24] The Act was repealed by the Repeal of Act for Securing Dependence of Ireland Act 1782.[25] The same year, the Irish constitution of 1782 produced a period of legislative freedom. However, the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which sought to end the subordination and dependency upon the British crown and establish a republic, was one of the factors that led to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.[26]
Merging of Scottish and English Parliaments
The deeper political integration of her kingdoms was a key policy of Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch of England and Scotland and the first monarch of Great Britain. A Treaty of Union was agreed in 1706 following negotiations between representatives of the parliaments of England and Scotland, and each parliament then passed separate Acts of Union to ratify it. The Acts came into effect on 1 May 1707, uniting the separate Parliaments and crowns of England and Scotland and forming a single Kingdom of Great Britain. Anne became the first monarch to occupy the unified British throne, and in line with Article 22 of the Treaty of Union, Scotland and England each sent members to the new House of Commons of Great Britain.[27][21] The Scottish and English ruling classes retained power, and each country kept its legal and educational systems, as well as its established Church. United, they formed a larger economy, and the Scots began to provide soldiers and colonial officials to the new British forces and Empire.[28] However, one notable difference at the outset was that the new Scottish members of parliament and representative peers were elected by the outgoing Parliament of Scotland, while all existing members of the Houses of Commons and Lords at Westminster remained in office.
Queen Anne, 1702–1714
Further information: Anne, Queen of Great Britain
During the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–14) England continued its policy of forming and funding alliances, especially with the Dutch Republic and the Holy Roman Empire against their common enemy, King Louis XIV of France.[29] Queen Anne, who reigned 1702–1714, was the central decision maker, working closely with her advisers, especially her remarkably successful senior general, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. The war was a financial drain, for Britain had to finance its allies and hire foreign soldiers. Stalemate on the battlefield and war weariness on the home front set in toward the end. The anti-war Tory politicians won control of Parliament in 1710 and forced a peace. The concluding Treaty of Utrecht was highly favourable for Britain. Spain lost its empire in Europe and faded away as a great power, while working to better manage its colonies in the Americas. The First British Empire, based upon the English overseas possessions, was enlarged. From France, Great Britain gained Newfoundland and Acadia, and from Spain Gibraltar and Menorca. Gibraltar became a major naval base which allowed Great Britain to control the entrance from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean.[30] The war marks the weakening of French military, diplomatic and economic dominance, and the arrival on the world scene of Britain as a major imperial, military and financial power.[31] British historian G. M. Trevelyan argues:
That Treaty [of Utrecht], which ushered in the stable and characteristic period of Eighteenth-Century civilization, marked the end of danger to Europe from the old French monarchy, and it marked a change of no less significance to the world at large,—the maritime, commercial and financial supremacy of Great Britain.[32]
Hanoverian succession: 1714–1760
Further information: History of the United Kingdom and Georgian era
In the 18th century England, and after 1707 Great Britain, rose to become the world's dominant colonial power, with France as its main rival on the imperial stage.[33] The pre-1707 English overseas possessions became the nucleus of the First British Empire.
George I: 1714–1727
Further information: House of Hanover
"In 1714 the ruling class was so bitterly divided that many feared a civil war might break out on Queen Anne's death", says historian W. A. Speck.[34] A couple of hundred of the richest landed elite families controlled politics, but they were deeply split, with Tories committed to the legitimacy of the Stuart "Old Pretender", then in exile. The Whigs strongly supported the king in order to uphold the Protestant succession. The new King George I was an unpopular German, and had only a small English army to support him. He did have military support from his native Hanover, and from his allies in the Netherlands. The Earl of Mar led 18 peers with 10,000 men in the Jacobite rising of 1715 based in Scotland which aimed to overthrow the king. It was poorly organised, and was decisively defeated, with several leaders executed, many leaders dispossessed of their lands, and 700 prominent followers deported to labour in the West Indies sugar plantations. A key decision was the refusal of the Pretender to change his religion from Catholic to Anglican, which probably would have mobilised much more of the Tory element. The Whigs came to power under the leadership of James Stanhope, Charles Townshend, the Earl of Sunderland, and Robert Walpole. One by one the Tories were driven out of national and local government, and new laws were passed to impose more national control. The right of habeas corpus was restricted; to reduce electoral frenzy, the Septennial Act 1715 increased the maximum life of a parliament from three years to seven.[35][36][37][38]
He spent only about half as much time abroad during his reign as did William III, who also reigned for 13 years.[39] Jeremy Black has argued that the king wanted to spend even more time in Hanover: "His visits, in 1716, 1719, 1720, 1723 and 1725, were lengthy, and, in total, he spent a considerable part of his reign abroad. These visits were also occasions both for significant negotiations and for the exchange of information and opinion....The visits to Hanover also provided critics with the opportunity...to argue that British interests were being neglected....George could not speak English, and all relevant documents from his British ministers were translated into French for him....Few British ministers or diplomats...knew German, or could handle it in precise discussion."[40]
George I supported the expulsion of the Tories from power; they remained in the political wilderness until young King George III came to power in 1760 and replaced Whigs with Tories.[41] George I has often been caricatured in the history books, but according to his biographer Ragnhild Hatton:
on the whole he did well by Great Britain, guiding the country calmly and responsibly through the difficult postwar years and repeated invasions or threatened invasions.... He liked efficiency and expertise, and had long experience of running an orderly state....He cared for the quality of his ministers and his officers, army and naval, and the strength of the navy in fast ships grew during his reign....He showed political vision and ability in the way in which he used British power in Europe.[42]
Age of Walpole: 1721–1760
Further information: Robert Walpole and History of the United Kingdom
Walpole's grand estate at Houghton Hall housed the Walpole collection and was used for much entertaining. In 1742, he was created Duke of Orford.
Robert Walpole (1676–1745) was a son of the landed gentry who rose to have much power in the House of Commons from 1721 to 1742. He became the first "prime minister", a term in use by 1727. He was succeeded as prime minister by his two followers, Henry Pelham (1743–1754) and Pelham's brother the Duke of Newcastle (1754–1762).[43] Clayton Roberts summarizes Walpole's new functions:
He monopolized the counsels of the King, he closely superintended the administration, he ruthlessly controlled patronage, and he led the predominant party in Parliament.[44]
South Sea Bubble
Main article: South Sea Bubble
Corporate stock was a new phenomenon, not well understood, except for the strong gossip among financiers that fortunes could be made overnight. The South Sea Company, although originally set up to trade with the Spanish Empire, quickly turned most of its attention to very high risk financing, involving £30 million, some 60 per cent of the entire British national debt. It set up a scheme that invited stock owners to turn in their certificates for stock in the Company at a par value of £100—the idea was that they would profit by the rising price of their stock. Everyone with connections wanted in on the bonanza, and many other outlandish schemes found gullible takers. South Sea stock peaked at £1,060 on 25 June 1720. Then the bubble burst, and by the end of September it had fallen to £150. Hundreds of prominent men had borrowed to buy stock high; their apparent profits had vanished, but they were liable to repay the full amount of the loans. Many went bankrupt, and many more lost fortunes.[citation needed]
Confidence in the entire national financial and political system collapsed. Parliament investigated and concluded that there had been widespread fraud by the company directors and corruption in the Cabinet. Among Cabinet members implicated were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster General, and a Secretary of State, as well as two other leading men, Lord Stanhope and Lord Sunderland. Walpole had dabbled in the speculation himself but was not a major player. He rose to the challenge, as the new First Lord of the Treasury, of resolving the financial and political disaster. The economy was basically healthy, and the panic ended. Working with the financiers he successfully restored confidence in the system. However, public opinion, as shaped by the many prominent men who had lost so much money so quickly, demanded revenge. Walpole supervised the process, which removed all 33 company directors and stripped them of, on average, 82% of their wealth.[citation needed] The money went to the victims. The government bought the stock of the South Sea Company for £33 and sold it to the Bank of England and the East India Company, the only other two corporations big enough to handle the challenge. Walpole made sure that King George and his mistresses were not embarrassed, and by the margin of three votes he saved several key government officials from impeachment.[citation needed]
Stanhope and Sunderland died of natural causes, leaving Walpole alone as the dominant figure in British politics. The public hailed him as the saviour of the financial system, and historians credit him with rescuing the Whig government, and indeed the Hanoverian dynasty, from total disgrace.[45][46]
Patronage and corruption
Walpole was a master of the effective use of patronage, as were Pelham and Lord Newcastle. They each paid close attention to the work of bestowing upon their political allies high places, lifetime pensions, honours, lucrative government contracts, and help at election time. In turn the friends enabled them to control Parliament.[47] Thus in 1742, over 140 members of parliament held powerful positions thanks in part to Walpole, including 24 men at the royal court, 50 in the government agencies, and the rest with sinecures or other handsome emoluments, often in the range of £500 – £1000 per year. Usually there was little or no work involved. Walpole also distributed highly attractive ecclesiastical appointments. When the Court in 1725 instituted a new order of chivalry, the Order of the Bath, Walpole immediately seized the opportunity. He made sure that most of the 36 new honorees were peers and MPs who would provide him with useful connections.[48] Walpole himself became enormously wealthy, investing heavily in his estate at Houghton Hall and its large collection of European master paintings.[49]
Walpole's methods won him victory after victory, but aroused furious opposition. Historian J. H. Plumb says:
Walpole's policy had bred distrust, his methods hatred. Time and time again his policy was successful in Parliament only because of the government's absolute control of the Scottish members in the Commons and the Bishops in the Lords. He gave point to the opposition's cry that Walpole's policy was against the wishes of the nation, a policy imposed by a corrupt use of pension and place.[50]
The opposition called for "patriotism" and looked at the Prince of Wales as the future "Patriot King". Walpole supporters ridiculed the very term "patriot".[51]
The opposition "country party" attacked Walpole relentlessly, primarily targeting patronage, which they denounced as immoral corruption. In turn Walpole imposed censorship on the London theatre and subsidised writers such as William Arnall and others who rejected the charge of evil political corruption by arguing that corruption is the universal human condition. Furthermore, they argued, political divisiveness was also universal and inevitable because of selfish passions that were integral to human nature. Arnall argued that government must be strong enough to control conflict, and in that regard Walpole was quite successful. This style of "court" political rhetoric continued through the 18th century.[52] Field Marshal Lord Cobham, a leading soldier, used his own connections to build up an opposition after 1733. Young William Pitt and George Grenville joined Cobham's faction—they were called "Cobham's Cubs". They became leading enemies of Walpole and both later became prime minister.[53]
By 1741, Walpole was facing mounting criticism on foreign policy—he was accused of entangling Britain in a useless war with Spain—and mounting allegations of corruption. On 13 February 1741, Samuel Sandys, a former ally, called for his removal.[54] He said:
Such has been the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, with regard to foreign affairs: he has deserted our allies, aggrandized our enemies, betrayed our commerce, and endangered our colonies; and yet this is the least criminal part of his ministry. For what is the loss of allies to the alienation of the people from the government, or the diminution of trade to the destruction of our liberties?[55]
Walpole's allies defeated a censure motion by a vote of 209 to 106, but Walpole's coalition lost seats in the election of 1741 and by a narrow margin he was finally forced out of power in early 1742.[56][57]
Walpole's foreign policy
Further information: International relations, 1648–1814 and France–United Kingdom relations
Walpole secured widespread support with his policy of avoiding war.[58] He used his influence to prevent George II from entering the War of the Polish Succession in 1733, because it was a dispute between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. He boasted, "There are 50,000 men slain in Europe this year, and not one Englishman."[59] Walpole himself let others, especially his brother-in-law Lord Townshend, handle foreign policy until about 1726, then took charge. A major challenge for his administration was the royal role as simultaneous ruler of Hanover, a small German state that was opposed to Prussian supremacy. George I and George II saw a French alliance as the best way to neutralise Prussia. They forced a dramatic reversal of British foreign policy, which for centuries had seen France as England's greatest enemy.[60] However, the bellicose trouble-maker King Louis XIV died in 1715, and the regents who ran France were preoccupied with internal affairs. King Louis XV came of age in 1726, and his elderly chief minister Cardinal Fleury collaborated informally with Walpole to prevent a major war and keep the peace. Both sides wanted peace, which allowed both countries enormous cost savings, and recovery from expensive wars.[61]
Henry Pelham became prime minister in 1744 and continued Walpole's policies. He worked for an end to the War of the Austrian Succession.[62] His financial policy was a major success once peace had been signed in 1748. He demobilised the armed forces, and reduced government spending from £12 million to £7 million. He refinanced the national debt, dropping the interest rate from 4% p.a. to 3% p.a. Taxes had risen to pay for the war, but in 1752 he reduced the land tax from four shillings to two shillings in the pound: that is, from 20% to 10%.[63][64]
Lower debt and taxes
By avoiding wars, Walpole could lower taxes. He reduced the national debt with a sinking fund, and by negotiating lower interest rates. He reduced the land tax from four shillings in 1721, to 3s in 1728, 2s in 1731 and finally to only 1s (i.e. 5%) in 1732. His long-term goal was to replace the land tax, which was paid by the local gentry, with excise and customs taxes, which were paid by merchants and ultimately by consumers. Walpole joked that the landed gentry resembled hogs, which squealed loudly whenever anyone laid hands on them. By contrast, he said, merchants were like sheep, and yielded their wool without complaint.[65] The joke backfired in 1733 when he was defeated in a major battle to impose excise taxes on wine and tobacco. To reduce the threat of smuggling, the tax was to be collected not at ports but at warehouses. This new proposal, however, was extremely unpopular with the public, and aroused the opposition of the merchants because of the supervision it would involve. Walpole was defeated as his strength in Parliament dropped a notch.[66]
Walpole's reputation
1740 political cartoon depicting a towering Walpole as the Colossus of Rhodes.
Historians hold Walpole's record in high regard, though there has been a recent tendency to share credit more widely among his allies. W.A. Speck says that Walpole's uninterrupted run of 20 years as Prime Minister
is rightly regarded as one of the major feats of British political history... Explanations are usually offered in terms of his expert handling of the political system after 1720, [and] his unique blending of the surviving powers of the crown with the increasing influence of the Commons.[67]
He was a Whig from the gentry class, who first arrived in Parliament in 1701, and held many senior positions. He was a country squire and looked to country gentlemen for his political base. Historian Frank O'Gorman says his leadership in Parliament reflected his "reasonable and persuasive oratory, his ability to move both the emotions as well as the minds of men, and, above all, his extraordinary self-confidence."[68] Hoppit says Walpole's policies sought moderation: he worked for peace, lower taxes, growing exports, and allowed a little more tolerance for Protestant Dissenters. He avoided controversy and high-intensity disputes, as his middle way attracted moderates from both the Whig and Tory camps.[69] H.T. Dickinson sums up his historical role:
Walpole was one of the greatest politicians in British history. He played a significant role in sustaining the Whig party, safeguarding the Hanoverian succession, and defending the principles of the Glorious Revolution (1688) ... He established a stable political supremacy for the Whig party and taught succeeding ministers how best to establish an effective working relationship between Crown and Parliament.[70]
Age of George III, 1760–1820
Further information: George III of the United Kingdom
Victory in the Seven Years' War, 1756–1763
The Seven Years' War, which began in 1756, was the first war waged on a global scale and saw British involvement in Europe, India, North America, the Caribbean, the Philippines, and coastal Africa. The results were highly favorable for Britain, and a major disaster for France. Key decisions were largely in the hands of William Pitt the Elder. The war started poorly. Britain lost the island of Minorca in 1756, and suffered a series of defeats in North America. After years of setbacks and mediocre results, British luck turned in the "miracle year" ("Annus Mirabilis") of 1759. The British had entered the year anxious about a French invasion, but by the end of the year, they were victorious in all theatres. In the Americas, they captured Fort Ticonderoga (Carillon), drove the French out of the Ohio Country, captured Quebec City in Canada as a result of the decisive Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and captured the rich sugar island of Guadeloupe in the West Indies. In India, the John Company repulsed French forces besieging Madras. In Europe, British troops partook in a decisive Allied victory at the Battle of Minden. The victory over the French navy at the Battle of Lagos and the decisive Battle of Quiberon Bay ended threats of a French invasion, and confirmed Britain's reputation as the world's foremost naval power.[71] The Treaty of Paris of 1763 marked the high point of the First British Empire. France's future in North America ended, as New France (Quebec) came under British control. In India, the third Carnatic War had left France still in control of several small enclaves, but with military restrictions and an obligation to support the British client states, effectively leaving the future of India to Great Britain. The British victory over France in the Seven Years' War therefore left Great Britain as the world's dominant colonial power, with a bitter France thirsting for revenge.[72]
Evangelical religion and social reform
The evangelical movement inside and outside the Church of England gained strength in the late 18th and early 19th century. The movement challenged the traditional religious sensibility that emphasized a code of honor for the upper-class, and suitable behaviour for everyone else, together with faithful observances of rituals. John Wesley (1703–1791) and his followers preached revivalist religion, trying to convert individuals to a personal relationship with Christ through Bible reading, regular prayer, and especially the revival experience. Wesley himself preached 52,000 times, calling on men and women to "redeem the time" and save their souls. Wesley always operated inside the Church of England, but at his death, it set up outside institutions that became the Methodist Church.[73] It stood alongside the traditional nonconformist churches, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptists, Unitarians and Quakers. The nonconformist churches, however, were less influenced by revivalism.[74]
The Church of England remained dominant, but it had a growing evangelical, revivalist faction the "Low Church". Its leaders included William Wilberforce and Hannah More. It reached the upper class through the Clapham Sect. It did not seek political reform, but rather the opportunity to save souls through political action by freeing slaves, abolishing the duel, prohibiting cruelty to children and animals, stopping gambling, avoiding frivolity on the Sabbath; they read the Bible every day. All souls were equal in God's view, but not all bodies, so evangelicals did not challenge the hierarchical structure of English society.[75]
First British Empire
Further information: Historiography of the British Empire
The first British Empire, was based largely in mainland North America and the West Indies, with a growing presence in India. Emigration from Britain went mostly to the Thirteen Colonies and the West Indies, with some to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Few permanent settlers went to British India, although many young men went there in the hope of making money and returning home.[76]
Mercantilist Trade Policy
Mercantilism was the basic policy imposed by Great Britain on its overseas possessions.[77] Mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries to maximise exports from and minimise imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling—which became a favourite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in London and other British ports. The government spent much of its revenue on a superb Royal Navy, which not only protected the British colonies but threatened the colonies of the other empires, and sometimes seized them. Thus the Royal Navy captured New Amsterdam (later New York) in 1664. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal was to enrich the mother country.[78]
Loss of the 13 American colonies
Main article: American Revolution
During the 1760s and 1770s, relations with the Thirteen Colonies turned from benign neglect to outright revolt, primarily because of the British Parliament's insistence on taxing colonists without their consent. In 1775, the American Revolutionary War began, as the Americans trapped the British army in Boston and suppressed the Loyalists who supported the Crown. In 1776 the Americans declared the independence of the United States of America. Under the military leadership of General George Washington, and, with economic and military assistance from France, the Dutch Republic, and Spain, the United States held off successive British invasions. The Americans captured two main British armies in 1777 and 1781. After that King George III lost control of Parliament and was unable to continue the war. It ended with the Treaty of Paris by which Great Britain relinquished the Thirteen Colonies and recognized the United States. The war was expensive but the British financed it successfully.[79]
Second British Empire
The loss of the Thirteen Colonies marked the transition between the "first" and "second" empires, in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa.[80] Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, had argued that colonies were redundant, and that free trade should replace the old mercantilist policies that had characterised the first period of colonial expansion, dating back to the protectionism of Spain and Portugal. The growth of trade between the newly independent United States and Great Britain after 1781[81] confirmed Smith's view that political control was not necessary for economic success.
Main article: History of Canada
After a series of "French and Indian wars", the British took over most of France's North American operations in 1763. New France became Quebec. Great Britain's policy was to respect Quebec's Catholic establishment as well as its semi-feudal legal, economic, and social systems. By the Quebec Act of 1774, the Province of Quebec was enlarged to include the western holdings of the American colonies. In the American Revolutionary War, Halifax, Nova Scotia became Britain's major base for naval action. They repulsed an American revolutionary invasion in 1776, but in 1777 a British invasion army was captured in New York, encouraging France to enter the war.[82]
After the American victory, between 40,000 and 60,000 defeated Loyalists migrated, some bringing their slaves.[83] Most families were given free land to compensate their losses. Several thousand free blacks also arrived; most of them later went to Sierra Leone in Africa.[84] The 14,000 Loyalists who went to the Saint John and Saint Croix river valleys, then part of Nova Scotia, were not welcomed by the locals. Therefore, in 1784 the British split off New Brunswick as a separate colony. The Constitutional Act of 1791 created the provinces of Upper Canada (mainly English-speaking) and Lower Canada (mainly French-speaking) to defuse tensions between the French and English-speaking communities, and implemented governmental systems similar to those employed in Great Britain, with the intention of asserting imperial authority and not allowing the sort of popular control of government that was perceived to have led to the American Revolution.[85]
Main articles: History of Australia (1788–1850), History of Australia, and History of New Zealand
In 1770, British explorer James Cook had discovered the eastern coast of Australia whilst on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement. Australia marks the beginning of the Second British Empire. It was planned by the government in London and designed as a replacement for the lost American colonies.[86] The American Loyalist James Matra in 1783 wrote "A Proposal for Establishing a Settlement in New South Wales" proposing the establishment of a colony composed of American Loyalists, Chinese and South Sea Islanders (but not convicts).[87] Matra reasoned that the land was suitable for plantations of sugar, cotton and tobacco; New Zealand timber and hemp or flax could prove valuable commodities; it could form a base for Pacific trade; and it could be a suitable compensation for displaced American Loyalists. At the suggestion of Secretary of State Lord Sydney, Matra amended his proposal to include convicts as settlers, considering that this would benefit both "Economy to the Publick, & Humanity to the Individual". The government adopted the basics of Matra's plan in 1784, and funded the settlement of convicts.[88]
In 1787 the First Fleet set sail, carrying the first shipment of convicts to the colony. It arrived in January 1788.
Lord Clive of the East India Company meeting his ally Mir Jafar after their decisive victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757
India was not directly ruled by the British government, instead certain parts were seized by the East India Company, a private, for-profit corporation, with its own army. The "John Company" (as it was nicknamed) took direct control of half of India and built friendly relations with the other half, which was controlled by numerous local princes. Its goal was trade, and vast profits for the Company officials, not the building of the British empire. Company interests expanded during the 18th century to include control of territory as the old Mughal Empire declined in power and the East India Company battled for the spoils with the French East India Company (Compagnie française des Indes orientales) during the Carnatic Wars of the 1740s and 1750s. Victories at the Battle of Plassey and Battle of Buxar by Robert Clive gave the Company control over Bengal and made it the major military and political power in India. In the following decades it gradually increased the extent of territories under its control, ruling either directly or in cooperation with local princes. Although Britain itself only had a small standing army, the Company had a large and well trained force, the presidency armies, with British officers commanding native Indian troops (called sepoys).[89][90]
Battling the French Revolution and Napoleon
Further information: French Revolutionary Wars, War of the First Coalition, and War of the Second Coalition
With the regicide of King Louis XVI in 1793, the French Revolution represented a contest of ideologies between conservative, royalist Britain and radical Republican France.[91] The long bitter wars with France 1793–1815, saw anti-Catholicism emerge as the glue that held the three kingdoms together. From the upper classes to the lower classes, Protestants were brought together from England, Scotland and Ireland into a profound distrust and distaste for all things French. That enemy nation was depicted as the natural home of misery and oppression because of its inherent inability to shed the darkness of Catholic superstition and clerical manipulation.[92][93]
It was not only Britain's position on the world stage that was threatened: Napoleon, who came to power in 1799, threatened invasion of Great Britain itself, and with it, a fate similar to the countries of continental Europe that his armies had overrun. The Napoleonic Wars were therefore ones in which the British invested all the moneys and energies it could raise. French ports were blockaded by the Royal Navy.[94][95]
The French Revolution revived religious and political grievances in Ireland. In 1798, Irish nationalists, under Protestant leadership, plotted the Irish Rebellion of 1798, believing that the French would help them to overthrow the British.[96][97]. They hoped for significant French support, which never came. The uprising was very poorly organized, and quickly suppressed by much more powerful British forces. Including many bloody reprisals, The total death toll was in the range of 10,000 to 30,000.[98]
William Pitt the Younger, the British prime minister, firmly believed that the only solution to the problem was a union of Great Britain and Ireland. The union was established by the Act of Union 1800; compensation and patronage ensured the support of the Irish Parliament. Great Britain and Ireland were formally united on 1 January 1801. The Irish Parliament was closed down.[99]
The coat of arms of the House of Hanover
Anne (1707–1714) (previously Queen of England, Queen of Scots, and Queen of Ireland since 1702)
House of Hanover
George I (1714–1727)
George II (1727–1760)
George III (1760–1801) (continued as King of the United Kingdom until his death in 1820)
Main articles: Parliament of Great Britain and Elections in Great Britain
Pitt addressing the Commons in 1793
The Parliament of Great Britain consisted of the House of Lords (an unelected upper house of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal) and the House of Commons, the lower chamber, which was elected periodically. In England and Wales parliamentary constituencies remained unchanged throughout the existence of the Parliament.[100]
During the 18th century, the British Constitution developed significantly.
Peerage of Great Britain
Main article: Peerage of Great Britain
As a result of the Union of 1707, no new peerages were created in the Peerage of England or the Peerage of Scotland. English peerages continued to carry the right to a seat in the House of Lords, while the Scottish peers elected representative peers from among their own number to sit in the Lords. Peerages continued to be created by the Crown, either in the new Peerage of Great Britain, which was that of the new kingdom and meant a seat in its House of Lords, or in the Peerage of Ireland, giving the holder a seat in the Irish House of Lords.
For a more comprehensive list, see historiography of the United Kingdom and historiography of the British Empire.
Great Britain in the Seven Years' War
Timeline of British history (1700–1799)
Early Modern Britain
Jacobitism
^ Parliament of the Kingdom of England. Union with Scotland Act 1706, Article I, from legislation.gov.uk. "That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain ..."
^ a b "After the political union of England and Scotland in 1707, the nation's official name became 'Great Britain'", The American Pageant, Volume 1, Cengage Learning (2012)
^ The Acts of Union passed by both parliaments in 1800 and which created the United Kingdom, came into effect on 1 January 1801.
^ Denys Hay (1968). Europe: the emergence of an idea. Edinburgh U.P. p. 138.
^ François-Gille-Pierre Manet, Histoire de la petite Bretagne ou Bretagne armorique (1934), p. 74 (in French)
^ "The Treaty (act) of the Union of Parliament 1706". Scots History Online. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
"Union with England Act 1707". The national Archives. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
"Union with Scotland Act 1706". Retrieved 18 July 2011. :
Both Acts and the Treaty state in Article I: That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon 1 May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN.
^ Harold Melvin Stanford, The Standard Reference Work: For the Home, School and Library, Volume 3 (1921): "From 1707 until 1801 Great Britain was the official designation of the kingdoms of England and Scotland"
^ United States Congressional serial set, Issue 10; Issue 3265 (1895): "In 1707, on the union with Scotland, 'Great Britain' became the official name of the British Kingdom, and so continued until the union with Ireland in 1801".
^ Scottish referendum: 50 fascinating facts you should know about Scotland www.telegraph.co.uk, 11 January 2012: "Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for more than three hundred years"
^ "BBC – History – British History in depth: Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom".
^ England – Profile BBC, 10 February 2011
^ Scottish referendum: 50 fascinating facts you should know about Scotland (see fact 27) www.telegraph.co.uk, 11 January 2012
^ Uniting the kingdom? nationalarchives.gov.uk, accessed 31 December 2010
^ The Union of the Parliaments 1707 Archived 2 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine Learning and Teaching Scotland, accessed 2 September 2010
^ The Creation of the United Kingdom of Great britain in 1707 Archived 15 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine Historical Association, accessed 30 January 2011
^ Bamber Gascoigne. "History of Great Britain (from 1707)". History World. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
^ William E. Burns, A Brief History of Great Britain, p. xxi
^ Act of Union 1707, Article 1.
^ Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714 – 1760 (2nd ed. 1962) pp 11–43
^ a b Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714 – 1760 (1962) pp 271–87.
^ Alexander Broadie, ed.. The Cambridge Companion to the Scottish Enlightenment (2003).
^ Arthur Herman, How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (2001).
^ W. C. Costin & J. Steven Watson, eds., The Law & Working of the Constitution: Documents 1660–1914, vol. I for 1660–1783 (A. & C. Black, 1952), pp. 128–129
^ Costin Watson (1952), p. 147
^ Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714 – 1760 (1962) pp 287–306.
^ The Treaty or Act of the Union scotshistoryonline.co.uk, accessed 2 November 2008
^ David Allan, Scotland in the Eighteenth Century: Union and Enlightenment (2002) online
^ James Falkner (2015). The War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1714. Pen and Sword. pp. 22–25. ISBN 9781781590317.
^ Julian Hoppit, A Land of Liberty?: England 1689–1727 (2000) ch 4, 8
^ David Loades, editor, Readers Guide to British History (2003) 2:1219–21.
^ G.M. Trevelyan, A shortened history of England (1942) p 363.
^ Anthony, Pagden (2003). Peoples and Empires: A Short History of European Migration, Exploration, and Conquest, from Greece to the Present. Modern Library. p. 90.
^ W. A. Speck (1977). Stability and Strife: England, 1714–1760. Harvard UP. pp. 146–49. ISBN 9780674833500.
^ Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (1974), pp 72–89.
^ Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714–1716 (2nd ed. 1962), pp 150–65.
^ Julian Hoppit, A Land of Liberty? England 1689–1727 (2000), pp 392–98.
^ Speck, Stability and Strife: England, 1714–1760 (1977), pp 170–87.
^ Gibbs, G. C. (21 May 2009). "George I". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 1. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/10538.
^ Jeremy Black (2016). Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of George I, 1714–1727. pp. 44–45. ISBN 9781317078548.
^ Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714 – 1760 (1962) pp 11–44
^ Ragnhild Hatton, "New Light on George I," in Stephen B. Baxter, ed. England's Rise to Greatness (1983): 213–55, quoting p. 241.
^ Williams, The Whig Supremacy: 1714 – 1760 (1962), pp 180–212
^ Quoted in Stephen Taylor, "Walpole, Robert, first earl of Orford (1676–1745)", in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 2004; online edition, January 2008, accessed 15 Sept 2017 (subscription required)
^ Marshall, pp 127–30.
^ Richard A. Kleer, "Riding a wave: the Company's role in the South Sea Bubble" (2015) p 165.
^ Reed Browning, Duke of Newcastle (1975) pp 254–60.
^ Andrew Hanham, "The Politics of Chivalry: Sir Robert Walpole, the Duke of Montagu and the Order of the Bath." Parliamentary History 35.3 (2016): 262–297.
^ Clayton Roberts et al. a history of England: Vol 2 1688 to the present (3rd ed 1991) 2: 449–50
^ J. H. Plumb England in the Eighteenth Century (1950) p. 68.
^ Vincent Carretta (2007). George III and the Satirists from Hogarth to Byron. pp. 44–51. ISBN 9780820331249.
^ Horne, Thomas (October – December 1980), "Politics in a Corrupt Society: William Arnall's Defense of Robert Walpole", Journal of the History of Ideas, 41 (4): 601–614, doi:10.2307/2709276, JSTOR 2709276
^ D. Leonard (2010). Eighteenth-Century British Premiers: Walpole to the Younger Pitt. p. 94. ISBN 9780230304635.
^ Peter Kellner (2011). Democracy: 1,000 Years in Pursuit of British Liberty. Random House. p. 264. ISBN 9781907195853.
^ Joel H. Wiener, ed., Great Britain: the lion at home: a documentary history of domestic policy, 1689–1973 (1983) 1:66–67.
^ Paul Langford (1998). A Polite and Commercial People: England, 1727–1783. pp. 54–57. ISBN 9780198207337.
^ Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (2nd ed. 1975) pp 183-91.
^ Jeremy Black, "Foreign Policy in the Age of Walpole." in Black, ed., Britain in the Age of Walpole (1984) pp 144–69.
^ C. Grant Robertson (1921). England under the Hanoverians. p. 66.
^ Jeremy Black, Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of George I, 1714–1727 (2014)
^ A.M. Wilson, French Foreign Policy during the Administration of Cardinal Fleury, 1726–1743: A Study in Diplomacy and Commercial Development (1936) online.
^ Williams, Whig Supremacy pp 259–70.
^ Stephen Brumwell and W.A. Speck, Cassell's Companion to Eighteenth Century Britain (2002) p 288.
^ Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (1974) pp 221–27.
^ A.W. Ward et al. eds. (1909). The Cambridge Modern History: Volume VI: the Eighteenth Century. p. 46. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
^ Paul Langford, A polite and commercial people: England, 1727–1783 (1998) pp 28–33.
^ W.A. Speck, Stability and Strife: England 1714–1760 (1977) p 203
^ Frank O'Gorman, The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History 1688–1832 (1997) p 71
^ Julian Hoppit, A Land of Liberty? England 1689–1727 (2000) p 410
^ H. P. Dickinson, "Walpole, Sir Robert," in David Loades, editor, Readers Guide to British History (2003) 2:1338
^ Frank McLynn, 1759: The Year Britain Became Master of the World (2005).
^ Fred Anderson, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (2006)
^ Anthony Armstrong, The Church of England: the Methodists and society, 1700–1850 (1973).
^ Asa Briggs, The age of improvement, 1783–1867 (1959), pp 66–73.
^ John Rule, Albion's People: English Society 1714–1815 (1992) ch 2–6
^ Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire (2008). online
^ Max Savelle, Seeds of Liberty: The Genesis of the American Mind (2005) pp. 204–211
^ William R. Nester, The Great Frontier War: Britain, France, and the Imperial Struggle for North America, 1607–1755 (Praeger, 2000) p, 54.
^ Jeremy Black, War for America: The Fight for Independence, 1775–1783 (2001)
^ Anthony, Pagden (1998). The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire. Oxford University Press. p. 92.
^ James, Lawrence (2001). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus. p. 119.
^ Phillip Buckner, Canada and the British Empire (2010), ch 2
^ Maya Jasanoff, Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World (2012)
^ Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada: A History (2000)
^ Desmond Morton, A short history of Canada (2001)
^ Deryck Schreuder and Stuart Ward, eds., Australia's Empire (The Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2010), ch 1
^ Harold B. Carter, "Banks, Cook and the Eighteenth Century Natural History Tradition", in Tony Delamotte and Carl Bridge, eds., Interpreting Australia: British Perceptions of Australia since 1788, (London, Sir Robert Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, 1988), pp. 4–23.
^ Alan Atkinson, "The first plans for governing New South Wales, 1786–87", Australian Historical Studies, 24#94 (1990), pp. 22–40, p.31.
^ Philip Lawson, The East India Company: A History (Routledge, 2014).
^ Philip J. Stern, "History and historiography of the English East India Company: Past, present, and future!." History Compass 7.4 (2009): 1146–1180.
^ Roger Knight, Britain against Napoleon: The Organization of Victory, 1793–1815 (2013) pp 61–62.
^ Marjule Anne Drury, "Anti-Catholicism in Germany, Britain, and the United States: A Review and Critique of Recent Scholarship" Church History (2001) 70#1
^ Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (1992) pp 35, 53–54.
^ David Andress, The Savage Storm: Britain on the Brink in the Age of Napoleon (2012)
^ Brendan Simms, "Britain and Napoleon," Historical Journal (1998) 41#3 pp. 885–94 in JSTOR
^ "British History – The 1798 Irish Rebellion". BBC. 5 November 2009. Retrieved 23 April 2010.
^ Daniel Gahan, Rebellion!: Ireland in 1798 (1998)
^ J. Holland Rose, William Pitt and the Great War (1911) pp 339–64 online
^ John Ehrman, The Younger Pitt: The Consuming Struggle (1996), pp 158–96.
^ Chris Cook & John Stevenson, British Historical Facts 1760–1830 (The Macmillan Press, 1980)
Black, Jeremy. Britain as a Military Power, 1688–1815 (2002) excerpt and text search
Brisco, Norris Arthur. The economic policy of Robert Walpole (1907) online
Brumwell, Stephen, and W.A. Speck. Cassell's Companion to Eighteenth Century Britain (2002), an encyclopaedia
Cannon, John. Aristocratic century: the peerage of eighteenth-century England (Cambridge UP, 1987).
Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (2nd ed. 2009) excerpt and text search
Cowie, Leonard W. Hanoverian England, 1714–1837 (1967).
Daunton, Martin. Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain 1700–1850 (1995) excerpt and text search
Hilton, Boyd. A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?: England 1783–1846 (New Oxford History of England) (2008) excerpt and text search
Hoppit, Julian. A Land of Liberty?: England 1689–1727 (New Oxford History of England) (2000)
Hunt, William. The History of England from the Accession of George III – to the close of Pitt's first Administration (1905), highly detailed on politics and diplomacy, 1760–1801. online; also Gutenberg edition
James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (2001)
Langford, Paul. A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783 (New Oxford History of England) (1994) excerpt and text search
Langford, Paul. Eighteenth Century, 1688–1815 (1976), a history of foreign policy.
Leadam, I. S. The History of England From The Accession of Anne to the Death of George II (1912) online, highly detailed on politics and diplomacy 1702–1760.
Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth-Century England (2nd ed. 1974), political and diplomatic history 1714–1784; online
Marshall, Dorothy. English People in the Eighteenth Century (1956), social and economic history; online
Newman, Gerald, ed. (1997). Britain in the Hanoverian Age, 1714–1837: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780815303961. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) online review; 904pp; 1120 short articles on Britain by 250 experts
O'Gorman, Frank. The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History 1688–1832 (1997) 415pp
Owen, John B. The Eighteenth Century: 1714–1815 (1976), survey
Peters, Marie, "Pitt, William, first earl of Chatham [Pitt the elder] (1708–1778)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2009 accessed 22 Sept 2017
Plumb, J. H. England in the Eighteenth Century (1950), short older survey by a leading expert. online
Plumb, J. H. Sir Robert Walpole: The Making of a Statesman (1956) ends in 1722; vol 2: Sir Robert Walpole, The King's Minister (1960), ends in 1734; vol 3 never finished.
Porter, Roy. English Society in the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed. 1990) excerpt and text search
Robertson, Charles Grant. England under the Hanoverians (1911). online, 587pp; useful old classic, strong on politics 1714–1815.
Rule, John. Albion's People: English Society 1714–1815 (1992)
Simms, Brendan. Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783 (2008). online
Speck, W.A. Stability and Strife: England, 1714–1760 (1977), strong on political system, with a short narrative history. excerpt
Speck, W.A. Literature and Society in Eighteenth-Century England: Ideology, Politics and Culture, 1680–1820 (1998)
Taylor, Stephen. "Walpole, Robert, first earl of Orford (1676–1745)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2008) accessed 22 Sept 2017
Ward, A.W. and G.P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815 online
Watson, J. Steven. The Reign of George III, 1760–1815 (Oxford History of England) (1960), Wide-ranging survey focused on politics and diplomacy; online
Williams, Basil. The Whig Supremacy 1714–1760 (1939) online edition; summarizes the following in-depth articles; they are online:
Williams, Basil. "The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole" The English Historical Review 15#58 (Apr., 1900), pp. 251–276 in JSTOR
"The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole (Continued)" English Historical Review 15#59 (July, 1900), pp. 479–494 in JSTOR
"The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole (Continued)" English Historical Review 59#60 (Oct., 1900), pp. 665–698 in JSTOR
"The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole" English Historical Review 16#61 (Jan., 1901), pp. 67–83 in JSTOR
"The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole (Continued)" English Historical Review 16#62 (Apr., 1901), pp. 308–327 in JSTOR
Further information: Historiography of the United Kingdom and Historiography of the British Empire
Black, Jeremy. "British foreign policy in the eighteenth century: A survey." Journal of British Studies 26.1 (1987): 26–53. online
Devereaux, Simon. "The Historiography of the English State during 'the Long Eighteenth Century': Part I–Decentralized Perspectives." History Compass 7.3 (2009): 742–764.
Devereaux, Simon. "The Historiography of the English State During 'The Long Eighteenth Century'Part Two–Fiscal‐Military and Nationalist Perspectives." History Compass 8.8 (2010): 843–865.
Johnson, Richard R. "Politics Redefined: An Assessment of Recent Writings on the Late Stuart Period of English History, 1660 to 1714." William and Mary Quarterly (1978): 691–732. in JSTOR
O'Gorman, Frank. "The recent historiography of the Hanoverian regime." Historical Journal 29#4 (1986): 1005–1020. online
Schlatter, Richard, ed. Recent Views on British History: Essays on Historical Writing Since 1966 (1984) pp 167–254.
Simms, Brendan, and Torsten Riotte, eds. The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837 (2007) excerpt
Media related to Kingdom of Great Britain at Wikimedia Commons
The Treaty of Union, Scottish Parliament
Text of Union with England Act
Text of Union with Scotland Act
12 July 927 – 1 May 1707
Kingdom of Scotland
c. 843 – 1 May 1707 Kingdom of Great Britain
1 May 1707 – 31 December 1800 Succeeded by
1 January 1801 – 6 December 1922
Union of 1707
Whig plots
Jacobite risings
War of Jenkins' Ear
Boston Massacre
Anglo-Dutch War (1780–1784)
French Revolutionary Wars
Panic of 1796–97
British Agricultural Revolution
Scottish Agricultural Revolution
Financial Revolution
Royal houses
List of Parliaments
Acts of Parliament:
Elections:
Privy Council
Whigs
Whig Junto
Patriot Whigs
Kit-Cat Club
Romantic literature in English
Romanticism in Scotland
Scottish 18th-century literature
Blue Stockings Society
East India Company
Window tax
Proclamation of Rebellion
South Sea Company
Speenhamland system
Royal arms
History of Great Britain category
Articles related to the Kingdom of Great Britain
Years in Great Britain (1707–1800) → 1801–present
Legislation of the Parliament of Great Britain
Acts of
United Kingdom (England
Wales)
Ireland–United Kingdom relations
British–Irish Council
British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference
British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly
Common Travel Area
Islands of the Clyde
Northern Isles
Irish Free State
Kingdom of Ireland
Auregnais
Guernésiais
Sercquiais
Irish Sign Language
Northern Ireland Sign Language
English Gypsies
Irish Travellers
Ulster-Scots
https://dev.knowpia.com/pedia/123
By using this platform, you agree to the Terms of Use
©2019 Knowpia


text:
<?php

$I = new ApiTester($scenario);

$I->wantToTest("Routing for block's controllers.");

require(__DIR__.'/../../components/BlockControllerTrait.php');
$urlAnchor=\app\components\BlockControllerTrait::$blockUrlAnchor;

$I->amGoingTo("Load outerBlock's controller in module");
$I->sendGET("/test/{$urlAnchor}/outer/test-view");
$I->seeResponseCodeIs(200);
$I->seeResponseContains("Outer block controller (in module) is running!");

$I->amGoingTo("Load innerBlock's controller in module");
$I->sendGET("/test/{$urlAnchor}/outer/inner/test-view");
$I->seeResponseCodeIs(200);
$I->seeResponseContains("Inner block controller (in module) is running!");

$I->amGoingTo("Load innerBlock's controller (in module) in module");
$I->sendGET("/{$urlAnchor}/test/test-view");
$I->seeResponseCodeIs(200);
$I->seeResponseContains("Block controller is running!");

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Georgia Gwinnett College Request Info Apply Visit Give
Info for …
students graduates parents and family alumni faculty/staff community
Academic Opportunities and Support
Kaufman Library
Student Engagement and Success
AEC Tutoring
Mentoring and Advising Center
Student Success Courses
English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
Plans, Policies and Analysis
GGC Athletics
GGC at a Glance
Student Consumer Info
Sustainability at GGC
INFO FOR ...
GIVE TO GGC
News and Events / Notables
Home // About GGC // News // GGC News Archives // 2016 // GGC physicist leads team in innovative black hole research
GGC physicist leads team in innovative black hole research
First-ever simulation supports aspects of popular science fiction scenarios
Dr. Lior Burko
Black holes are the subject of much fascination, not just in science but also in popular media. For example, the 2014 movie "Interstellar" portrays a fast-rotating, supermassive black hole, into which the protagonist falls in order to probe its center.
Such a scenario may be more than the stuff of Hollywood magic, according to a research team led by Lior Burko, associate professor of physics at Georgia Gwinnett College, and including Gaurav Khanna, associate professor of physics at UMass Dartmouth, and Anil Zenginoǧlu, science coordinator at the Center for Scientific Computation and Mathematical Modeling at the University of Maryland.
At the center of a black hole, density and gravity are infinite and the laws of physics and space-time, as we know them, cease to exist. The mysteries of this phenomenon have driven scientists to push the boundaries of what is known about black holes. Supercomputers are required to run the complex computer simulations used in this kind of research.
"Non-rotating black holes have been studied in computer simulations for decades," Burko said. "We developed a first-of-its-kind computer simulation of how physical fields evolve on the approach to the center of a rotating black hole."
The complexity of the simulation led the scientists to develop a new model that will help other researchers further understand black holes. The simulation also revealed a result that might come as a surprise for those familiar with the usual portrayal of black holes.
"It has often been assumed that objects approaching a black hole are crushed by the increasing gravity," Burko said. "However, we found that while gravitational forces increase and become infinite, they do so fast enough that their interaction allows physical objects to stay intact as they move toward the center of the black hole. Therefore, the simulation is consistent with aspects of popular science fiction scenarios in which black holes are used as portals for hyperspace travel, which require space ships, and the astronauts within them, to stay intact."
The team's work will appear in a paper in the Feb. 9 edition of Rapid Communication in Physical Review D, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Physical Society. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.
Critical to the project was the novel supercomputing support from UMass Dartmouth's Center for Scientific Computing & Visualization Research (CSCVR). Khanna serves as associate director of the CSCVR, which provides services for collaborative research in the computational sciences within the university and with researchers at other universities, national labs and industry.
"This has never been done before, although there has been lots of speculation for decades on what actually happens inside a black hole," Khanna said. "The problem is very challenging – requiring development of many new mathematical and computational techniques. I expect this to be a new additional area of focus for my research program over the next several years."
Burko joined the Georgia Gwinnett faculty in 2014. He received his bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees in physics from The Technion – Israel School of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Burko has held faculty positions at institutions such as the University of Utah and University of Alabama at Huntsville. His research interests include computer simulation/modeling, gravitational physics, black holes, space-time singularities and physics education.
Return to News and Events
View our News Archive by Year
' + eventTitle + '
' + eventSummary + '
'); }); $('div.eventcalwrapper').remove(); });
Call for Submissions: Student Art
Announcing a call for student art for a virtual art show entitled "2020: A Year in Reflection," hosted by the GGC Art Committee.
Students are welcome to submit art of any medium to Art Committee co-chairs Janet Stephens (jstephens@ggc.edu) and Catherine Moore (cmoore10@ggc.edu).
Rolling submissions accepted through January 22nd. The show will be displayed on the GGC Art Club Instagram page.
Spring 2021 Nelnet Payment Plan – Deadline 3
Do you have a balance for the spring 2021 semester? Enroll in the Nelnet Payment Plan by January 22 using the link below and pay:
50% down payment
Two monthly payments (Feb. and Mar.)
$70 non-refundable enrollment fee
studentaccounts@ggc.edu
Center for Teaching Excellence – January Events
The mission of Georgia Gwinnett College's Center for Teaching Excellence is to provide programming that promotes the design and implementation of creative learning environments. Below are a list of events that occur in January:
Winter Institute - Student Success: Understanding the Whole Student
Winter Institute - Student Success: Building Rapport and Relationships with Students
Winter Institute - Student Engagement in Online Space – Lessons Learned and Future Possibilities
Winter Institute - Faculty Self-care and Well-being in Times of Multiple Pandemics
Winter Institute – Diversity Equity and Inclusion – Practices for a Fair and Equitable Classroom
D2L Content: Building Content and Copying Components from Another Class
Using D2L's Quiz Question Converter to Bring Quizzes in Your Brightspace (D2L) Course
D2L Groups: Working with Groups
Using OER and Library Resources in Teaching and Learning
The GGC Teaching, Learning and Research Symposium
D2L Grades: Setting up your Brightspace (D2L) Gradebook
Using D2L's Quiz Question Converter to bring Quizzes in your Brightspace
DLC: Hybrid and Online Teaching and Learning
Intro to Integrative Learning Online, Hybrid and Asynchronously
DLC: Intro to Video Editing with Adobe Premiere Rush
Visit the CTE Events page for a list of events for the semester.
GGC's Facebook Page
GGC's Instagram Profile
GGC's Twitter Profile
GGC's LinkedIn Profile
GGC's YouTube Channel
© 2021 Georgia Gwinnett College
1000 University Center Lane | Lawrenceville, GA 30043 | 678.407.5000
Accreditation Report Incident
A bachelor degree-granting unit of the University System of Georgia.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Jayeola, Dovydas and Amy delivered the items we collected for our 'reverse Advent calendars' to the soup kitchen. Along with the donations, they took a Christmas card and a cheque for £210 from the money collected at this year's Christmas performances. All at the soup kitchen were very grateful and excited to see the items arriving!
We have also donated to the collection by Notts County's Football in the Community team. The team collected toys, books and selection boxes for children who will be spending Christmas in shelters and may not otherwise receive a present. These were delivered last week, along with a huge bag of hats, gloves and scarves that were generously donated by the families of St. Mary's.
Year 6 would like to thank everyone who brought in donations to support the Calais Action group who are working hard to support refugees fleeing from danger in their home countries.
Due to the huge support the group have received, the Muslim Hands Centre was no longer collecting by the time we have received all of our donations on Friday. We found another collection point, however, at Malt Cross in the city centre and Vincenzo and Max from Year 6 helped Miss O'Neill and Mrs Smith deliver the donations.
Living out the Gospels in our own lives- making a difference.
Year 6 shared with visitors how they had helped to organise donations of warm clothing and sleeping bags for refugees arriving in Britain.
This effort was led by Vincenzo and inspired one of the visitors so much that they generously donated £200 to support those affected by the immigration crisis.
This year the children of St Mary's decided to fundraise for the people of The Philippines following their recent disaster.
We had a 'wacky' day where the children dressed in the most imaginative, weird and wonderful clothing they could find.
We had a great day and we were very impressed by the effort everyone made.
The children and staff came to school wearing s silly clothes!!
We also had a really special assembly to help us learn more about the work of CAFOD. It was a really special day.
Five members of staff took part in this year's 'Big Sleep Out', sleeping outside for the night in Bolero Square to raise money for the homeless charity, Framework.
It was a cold night but they managed to get a few hours sleep and raise around £1200 for this very worthwhile cause!
A visit from some St. Mary's children helped to cheer them on. Thank you Ella-George, Maisie & Bridie.
The whole school took part in a sponsored walk to the Arboretum.
The money raised will help towards the cost of taking children to watch the pantomime at Christmas.
Children, staff and a number of parents were involved in this enjoyable afternoon. Once we got there, we had a play on the field before walking back to school. It felt like a long way, especially to the younger children!


Contains some comprehensive information of funny wedding ideas as well as some funky wedding invitations, weddding toasts, attaractive bridal shower games, wedding favors for making wedding more memorable.
Learn how to any woman fast and easy. Simple dating tips that works every time and you will never be rejected again.
Help for marriage relationships in danger of separation or divorce.


Brand new from I Want Fabric, our Siah is a duck egg slubbed basketweave plain chenille fabric. A great all-rounder suited to both contemporary and traditional, vintage styles. This fabric is sure to brighten up any interior.


This conceptual paper will discuss how faculty from The School of Library and Information Science at The University of South Carolina partnered with their university's Center for Teaching Excellence. This partnership resulted in the facilitation of professional development workshops and online tools for peer educators to better serve distance education/online students who are differently-able (students who are medically or socially labeled as having disabilities). National-level online instruction standards, instructional techniques, as well as outcomes and future plans will be discussed.
Moorefield-Lang, H., Copeland, C.A. & Haynes, A. (2016). Accessing Abilities: Creating Innovative Accessible Online Learning Environments and Putting Quality into Practice. Education for Information, 32 (1), 27-33. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/193979/.


from one of gambling's most respected figures.
Revised and updated from the 1984 edition.
ID: X12372 edge and game variations.
£19.95 Pub: 2000 287pp next level of expertise.
£14.95 Pub: 2003 256pp from 232 shoes.
ID: X1140 beginners up to serious players.
£18.95 Pub: 1997 246pp highest stakes.
Ed Rhea Jr. and beating baccarat.
£14.95 Pub: 1999 214pp ID: X1372 friendly and one is player-deadly.
ID: X12371 yourself before you go to the tables.


Let's call it like we see it. Calling someone a Pharisee is normally a character assassination attempt to your opposition to try and get them to be quiet or to make them look like they aren't worth listening to. Normally when we use this word we use it as an attempt to call someone a legalist. Most Christian's today love to hate legalism. We throw around the pharisee word in attempt to appear hip with the modern Christians of our day. "Pharisee" is a buzz word that gets peoples attention.
Without immediately getting to far into what the Pharisees were in their day I want to point out something to Christians in our day who use this term. The Pharisees were actually really popular in their time. The Jews highly esteemed them and the masses followed their teaching. They were far from the "crazy-legalist-uncle" persona we usually use this term for. Normally when we here the word "Pharisee" being used today we think of the guy wearing the dark suit and white shirt, pants pulled up to his armpits, sporting a tie, carrying his family Bible. He's the guy that uses his Bible as a weapon and constantly cries foul at anyone or anything that disagrees with his preferences. Certainly there are those kind of people out there but frankly that's not how people viewed the Pharisees in their day. It's important for you to understand who the pharisees really were especially considering the misuse of the word in our day today.
Throughout the initial portion of the Roman occupation of Palestine, two groups surfaced in reaction to the Roman attempt to Hellenize Israel: Hellenists, who preferred the implementation of Greek ideas, and Hasidim, who intensely opposed any influence of the Greek culture. While some Hasidim determined to continue to battle Hellenistic influence, others decided violence was not the answer. This group came to be convinced that God had allowed foreign oppression because of the failure of the people in that day to obey the Torah.
It is generally believed that this group was the Pharisees who followed in the line of the Hasidim (pious ones). The Pharisees emerged as a society for the stricter and more thorough observance of the rules of Levitical purity that they felt was being widely ignored among the provincials of that time. The very term Pharisees conveys the implication "separatist." It is this devotion to the law that the Pharisees are best known for.
The original pietistic character of Pharisaism developed most evidently in the rules that administered both admittance and expulsion. These rules resembled those recorded by Josephus for the Essenes.  Their intention was to protect the Jews from being influenced by the Hellenistic society and so they meticulously studied the five books of the Pentateuch and strove to submit to the very minutia of the law.
The Pharisees' belief system is best understood against the backdrop of the Zealots. Distinct from the Zealots, the Pharisees taught to withhold from the application of armed dynamism. They believed that God controlled all historic destinies and it was the duty then of all devout Israelites to be passionately devoted to the Law and the traditions that had been engrafted upon it.
In their day the Pharisees were considered the foremost interpreters of the law. Their goal was to protect the Torah but this goal was often misapplied and led to radical rules and regulations being placed on the people. The Pharisees declared not only the written Torah, but also declared the "oral law" developed by their scribes. This is why Josephus would write that the Pharisees had imposed upon the people many laws taken from the tradition of the Father's that were not found in the law of Moses.  Even with their outlandish requirements for themselves and the people the Pharisees still held enormous sway over the common folk as the peoples primary teachers of the Torah.
Today the term Pharisee is the equivalent of hypocrisy and legalism, but this would not have been the assessment of most people in first-century Israel. The Pharisees were revered for their piety and devotion to the Law. The Pharisees' goal was indeed a noble one: to maintain a life of purity and submission to the Law. In truth the problem with the Pharisees was not their pursuit of holiness but their saying of one thing and doing another, of raising interpretations of the Bible as being on the level of God's commandments (Mark 7:8), and of becoming infatuated with the externals while neglecting the heart issues.  They "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"(Matthew 23:23-24).
Let's apply this to our current use of the word "Pharisee" today. The truth is that it is completely false to use the word "pharisee" to refer to a person who loves God and wants to keep his commands. There may be those who have strict rules they live by in an effort to become more like Christ. I don't see that as inherently pharisaical or legalistic. So long as that individual is living in the Spirit of God and not imposing those rules on everyone around him I see nothing wrong with his practice. Effort to become more like Christ is not legalism. It is when you compare your faith to another persons that you are the one acting like a pharisee.
While the group called the "pharisees" does not exist today, I believe that their spirit is still alive and well. However, I don't believe that modern use of the word is the spirit of the biblical pharisees. Those who call people pharisees are more like pharisees themselves. Think about it. Those who throw around the pharisee label are those who have their own opinions and practices that they have so elevated they cannot accept someone else disagreeing with them. We must all be careful not to allow our traditions or customs to become the barometer by which we judge spirituality, but this cuts both ways.
 Mark Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2007), 101.
 Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees, the Sociological Background of Their Faith (Philadelphia: Press of the Jewish Publication Society, 1938), 76.
 Emil Shurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1885), 10.


text:
Culture, Diss Talk
No comments on Diss Talk: Eleanor Kashouris on the body, writing and childbirth
Diss Talk: Eleanor Kashouris on the body, writing and childbirth
(This article contains mentions of abortion, obstetric abuse, battery and discussion of cis-sexism).
My dissertation looks at one particular 'girl talk' and its codes of transmission: women talking about giving birth. I first became interested in birth stories when reading about the 2013 California court case of a woman, Kelly, who sued her obstetrician for battery after he performed an episiotomy on her as she begged him to stop. This is just one story in a history of birthing bodies labouring under abuse of authority: the Mexican woman unable to communicate with her doctor, told by her mother to do as he said; the women pressured into convenience caesareans or else labelled 'too posh to push'; the trans man terrified to give birth in an NHS hospital; the six out of ten US episiotomies performed without consent.
There is clearly a need for talk about birth- education in the form of transmission of stories. Nevertheless, my reading prompted the realisation that there is only one established genre of women talking about birth: Old Wives' Tales. The bad reputation of this grisly genre precedes it, leading to the startling realisation that our stories of birth do not come from those who have given birth themselves. Instead, they come from medical professionals, the state, partners and friends. Think about the books you have read with birth scenes, the films, the TV shows. Where were these stories coming from?
And yet, birth is a huge moment in anyone's life. We need stories about birth. When it comes to talk about birth, a woman talking to other women forms a 'we'; building solidarity amongst diverse groups and enabling us to transmit feminist critique from this place of solidarity. But we must also recognize that such bonding also engenders division. In a patriarchy, women too are responsible for the transmission, and often the enforcement, of social rules and codes. Where solidarity can be built across women, birth talk can also exclude certain groups.
Whose story is it anyway? A typical filmic representation of childbirth which excludes female subjectivity
In the last twenty years, there has been a mainstream emergence of women-authored discourses about birth. A new genre, dubbed 'mummy diaries', has emerged, with titles from TOWIE star Sam Faiers, Irish Laureate Anne Enright and GBBO's Mel Giedroyc. This girl talk is dominated by cis-white women. Feminism and maternity is a sticking point, historically exclusive of women of colour and more recently, of trans folk. Birth can be seen as a focusing point, a catalyst for social forces that are better concealed elsewhere. The abuse of women in childbirth is an enactment of oppression under patriarchy and it would be negligent to ignore the gendered way women in partum have been treated. However, because there has been little written in the Anglo-American tradition about birth since the 1970s, as feminism has moved on from preoccupations with the 'essential female body', today I use the potentially gender-exclusive term 'mother' for want of a better word. How do we write about birth now? It seems that this area of discussion has lagged behind despite being vitally important. Looking to the future, we must hope that much needed stories of birth will appear from a broader range of people who have given birth themselves.
Importantly, the stagnation of discourse surrounding birth since the 1970s manifests itself today in the way we imagine the mother-foetus relationship. Birth, like abortion, challenges our understanding of what the individual is. Where does one person begin and the other end? Our society and culture has no way to comprehend a more complex understanding of personhood, leaving us with both polarised abortion discourses and an uncomfortable opposition of mother and baby in childbirth. The conclusions of my dissertation became clear to me when I was recently asked by an anti-choice campaigner in Cambridge to engage with the question: 'is the unborn a person or not?' My dissertation hopes to show that this is the wrong question to ask. Instead, we might question why and if we need to answer that question. For me, abandoning this question and rethinking the way birth has been formulated may be a step towards liberating the delivery room and bringing talk about birth into 21st century feminism via a more inclusive girl talk.
Main image: El Nacimiento de mi Hija (2005) by Argentine-Spanish artist Ana Alvarez-Errecalde, one of the representations of birth that I analysed in my dissertation.
Eleanor Kashouris is a fourth-year student at Jesus College reading Modern and Medieval Languages


text:
Thread: All Eyes on Florida Governor as Holdout on Refugee Consent
All Eyes on Florida Governor as Holdout on Refugee Consent
01/14/2020 ~ Ann Corcoran
Florida has for decades been one of the top ten resettlement states in the nation, and so, just like Texas, has done more than its fair share of admitting impoverished third worlders and seeing to their (expensive) needs.
Now that Texas Governor Greg Abbott (read that story and send thanks to the governor) says he wants to take a breather from primary resettlement, albeit for only a few months this year (from June to September), the nine federal refugee contractors*** have turned their guns on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Will Florida Governor support the President's efforts to rein-in the UN-driven Refugee Resettlement Program or cave like the other pandering (to the Left) Republican governors?
The contractors already have notches in their belts for 19 Republican governors who foolishly jumped, long before they needed to, and begged the US State Department for more refugees from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
When I saw this article from Miami New Times, I laughed out loud!
Look who is trying to put the screws to the governor—none other than the "ministry" as the New Times calls them—Church World Service.
It is a long story for another day, but RRW exists because of Church World Service's "ministry."
(emphasis below is mine)
Florida Among Small Minority of States That Haven't Agreed to Accept Refugees
The future of refugee resettlement in Florida hangs by a thread as Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis remains silent days before a crucial January 21 funding deadline.
Under an executive order signed in September by President Donald Trump, states and localities may choose whether to receive refugees in 2020. DeSantis is one of a shrinking number of holdouts: Only seven other states, six of them led by Republican governors, have yet to offer to accept more refugees, according to the resettlement agency Church World Service. Only one state, Texas, has declined to admit new refugees.
The Rev. John L. McCullough head 'minister' of Church World Service (far left) was arrested in October on the Capitol steps along with CAIR's Nihad Awad protesting the President's refugee reform efforts.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org...tol-this-week/
"Florida has historically been one of the most important states when it comes to refugee resettlement," says Jen Smyers, policy and advocacy director for Church World Service's immigration and refugee program. "It would be tragic for Florida to stop resettlement and would have serious implications for refugees already in the state."
It isn't tragic for Florida! It is tragic for Church World Service because they stand to lose millions of dollars!
I must say we are now, after more than a decade of watching, seeing media reports about how this whole business of refugee resettlement revolves around these nine federal profiteers getting their (our!) MONEY!
A decision by DeSantis to cut off refugee resettlement would also effectively preclude Florida resettlement agencies from qualifying for large amounts of federal funding.
According to Smyers, agencies such as Church World Service depend on grants tied to resettlement work to keep the lights on and to fund many key services for refugees already in the state, including cash and medical assistance, English-language classes, and job training.
If those federal dollars dry up, Smyers says, Church World Service could be forced to shutter its offices in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.
To "keep the lights on" and pay the Reverend's annual salary of over $300,000 (twice what the governor of Florida earns), so he can be arrested from time to time? See details of CWS income and McCullough's compensation here.
Pay attention to this next paragraph. The lobbying pressure from the contractors is about their ability to get their MONEY in a timely manner!
The Reverend McCullough was arrested in 2014 protesting OBAMA's deportation policies. The good Reverend earned over $1 million in salary and benefits in the last 4 years—good work if you can get it!
Technically speaking, DeSantis could make a decision anytime before new federal contracts go into effect June 1.
However, agencies such as Church World Service have until only January 21 to submit their funding proposals to the U.S. Department of State along with any letters of consent. In that sense, no decision from DeSantis could choosing to block resettlement.
Trump's executive order also offered localities the opportunity to provide or decline consent to continued resettlement. However, the governor's decision would likely take precedence.
If the governor says yes, individual counties are also required to say yes to the US State Department if they want refugees. See the Funding Guidance (the rules for the Executive Order).
*** For new readers these (below) are the nine federally-funded refugee contractors that operate as a huge conveyor belt monopolizing all refugee placement in America.
A 'religious' message from CWS's "ministry!" CWS is one of three federally funded contractors suing to stop the President's effort to reform the UN-driven Refugee Admissions Program.And, they do not limit their advocacy toward only legal immigration programs, but are heavily involved in supporting the lawlessness at our borders.
The question isn't as much about refugees per se, but about who is running federal immigration policy now and into the future?
Go here to see that the nine contractors sucked down over $3 BILLION in federal grants in the last 11 years.
(I plan to say this once a day from now on!)
I continue to argue that these nine contractors are the heart of America's Open Borders movement and thus there can never be long-lasting reform of US immigration policy when these nine un-elected phony non-profits are paid by the taxpayers to work as community organizers pushing an open borders agenda.
Church World Service (CWS)
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
World Relief Corporation (WR)
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2020/01/14/all-eyes-on-florida-governor-as-holdout-on-refugee-consent/
Last edited by Beezer; 01-14-2020 at 01:41 PM.
CHURCHES MAKE BIG BUCKS OFF THEIR HUMAN TRAFFICKING BUSINESS!
MONEY OUT OF OUR WALLETS!!!
SHUT THEM DOWN!
NO REFUGEES FROM ANYWHERE!
Lutherans Report on their Refugee Consent Lobbying Efforts; Falling Short on Counties
By Beezer in forum General Discussion
Tell Your Governor not to consent to refugee resettlement
By ALIPAC in forum illegal immigration Announcements
Florida Eyes Subprime Settlement From BofA
By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
MA: Governor eyes in-state tuition for illegal aliens
By zeezil in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
Consent of those who govern VS. The Consent of the people
By smde in forum General Discussion


Designed for outdoor living, the property features a main level deck, ground level patios, fire pit, pier with boathouse and sun deck, and upper level decks, all with panoramic views of the lake and surrounding landscaped grounds. The lakeside structure is connected by a section of green roof to its garden side counterpart.
The family hall connects the state-of-the-art kitchen, soaring great room, and intimate fire nook each offering expansive views. Tasked with using the owner's existing collection of furniture and accessories our arrangement is reflective of the home's and owner's characters.
Across an elevated walkway a waterfall tumbles to one side with an the indoor climbing wall rising over the game area, bar, play loft, and adjacent twenty four person theater. A total of six luxuriously appointed bedroom suites, accommodations for staff, and whole house smart home technology make for a perfect family getaway.


If you wish to create the feel of a tile, you can decide to lease a grinder that has a diamond blade so that it may be used to provide a correct finish. Begin with an easy and fast plaster of paris project and see how simple it is to make really awesome works of art. The ability to make high-quality paper is very important and intricate skill.
If you prefer to maximize your profit, you should essay writer help be searching for inexpensive signs. A very good basic resume should present your aims, abilities, education, and experiences in addition to why you could be interested in the job for which you're applying. When you pay a person to compose a paper you need to have an opportunity to receive it improved in the situation, you're displeased with the outcome.
Therefore, when you have been assigned to complete such paper and you're struggling with it, don't be afraid to turn to their customized pay someone to compose my paper service stating details of your project and supply them with the info on services you want to receive, and their customer service representative will promptly help you. Resume services can vary from very little money to huge amounts and each resume service will provide a wide range of services for you to https://www.masterpapers.com/custom_term_paper pick from. In summary, our best-in-class service provides you with the BOOST you must excel in academics!
Such task as admission essay writing requires quite a bit of time, and you probably understand that you won't get anywhere near an excellent application essay in only one night. The significance of the content and caliber of your admission essay cannot be over-emphasized. Regardless of what college you want to enroll at, you will have to compose an admission essay.
Inside my opinion, if you wish to simply read books and do very little on-line activity, you've got two choices. The important analysis report must incorporate a quick description, a very simple outline, and a succinct overview of the work that you are likely to critically analyze in your essay. Put simply, you are going to have professional to compose my paper regardless of your financial opportunities and price range.
When you select the essay topics, think if you're able to say something interesting through it. Analyze the essay to determine that it's conveying precisely what is supposed http://passport.edu.co/italicized-quotes-essays-or.pdf to be said. Although you must be creative when writing your essay, resist the need to find creative with the facts.
The upcoming important part might be that the research methodology part of someone's own newspaper. You'll discover that it's easy to talk with them at any quick regarding any event you might have. If you would like to finish your assignments quickly and without a lot of effort, the next article.
Persuade the admission officers that you are incredibly worthy for admission. Over the duration of the admission procedure, the admission committee has to handle a great number of applications. On the flip side, an agreement doesn't have to be legally binding when it isn't backed up by consideration.
It is also simpler to compare the write my term paper services supplied by the various writing companies online. If you've written on number of topics then it's going to be definitely superior than having written just a single form of content because most companies want writers for all sorts of writing jobs and not simply one or two. Our business is among them.
Paper matter are you going to will need help with, we've got you covered! Take a look at our price calculator to determine what your perfect price for the paper is! If you own a research paper that should be written, we are here to assist you.
If it comes to term papers, we possess the best skills to compose your essay. Analyze the essay to determine that it's conveying precisely what is supposed to be said. Finding an excellent essay has never been simpler or more convenient!
Realize that fantastic essays were created with over 1 draft. Simply make a decision as to what you now wish to do.