The Longitude Act of 1714 and the Last Parliament of Queen Anne

Historical literature on the Longitude Act of 1714 has postulated a direct monocausal connection between a British naval disaster off the Scilly Isles in 1707 and the parliamentary enactment seven years later. This article proposes, and provides evidence for, a multicausal interpretation encompassing political, economic, and scientific factors. It argues that the Longitude Act, whose tercentenary was marked in July 2014, was the outcome of general circumstances, the legislation being concurrent with other statutory measures designed to protect shipping at a time of expanding commercial opportunities. The article re‐evaluates the parliamentary process and timetable and considers the role of MPs, men of science and journalists in promoting and seeing through parliament this important statute. It notes that the events in June 1714 mark one of the first instances of expert scientific opinion being heard at parliamentary level. It also evidences an earlier bill in 1712 promoted to protect a time movement invention designed to help in the discovery of the longitude, one of the most controversial subjects in the 18th century.     

Empire and Domestic Space in the Fiction of Jamaica Kincaid

Three novels by Jamaica Kincaid are critically investigated for their representation of colonial and domestic space. Aspiring middle-class Afro-Caribbean families in the patriarchal-colonial society of 1950s and 1960s British Antigua occupied social spaces gendered largely according to western design. In Kincaid’s fiction, the house and yard are designated as feminine and reproductive spaces, while outside the home lies the public world of employment, administration, formal education and migration opportunity, all of which are governed by the norms and expectations of a white Eurocentric culture. Kincaid’s female characters display strategies of subversion and resistance which disrupt the homogeneity of territorial and cultural colonisation.     

Down Jamaica Way with Theodore Roosevelt the Diplomat

Book reviewed in this article:
William Tilchin, Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft     

Charles the bold and the crusade: politics and propaganda

The pressures on Charles the Bold (duke of Burgundy from 1467 to his death in 1477) to lead, or lend his support to, a crusade were many. His Italian allies and the papacy all pleaded for his help and participation; and these appeals were augmented by the exhortation contained in much of the literature popular at the Burgundian court and by the presence there of refugees from the East.Charles's response was mixed. Political and moral pressures made it impossible for him to ignore the question of the crusade, but, even if his attitude should be characterized as cautious rather than as indifferent, he never did go on crusade. Equally, however, he repeatedly justified his comparative inaction and, at the same time, made propaganda against his enemies by suggesting that their hostility alone prevented him from embarking on an expedition to drive back the infidel.This response, since it was not untypical of the princes of his generation, helps explain the West's failure to unite against the Turks. From the point of view of Burgundian history, Charles's cautious attitude towards the crusade tends to support the revisionists who argue that he was far less ‘rash’ than the traditional historical view allows.     

Charles the bold and the crusade: politics and propaganda

The pressures on Charles the Bold (duke of Burgundy from 1467 to his death in 1477) to lead, or lend his support to, a crusade were many. His Italian allies and the papacy all pleaded for his help and participation; and these appeals were augmented by the exhortation contained in much of the literature popular at the Burgundian court and by the presence there of refugees from the East.Charles's response was mixed. Political and moral pressures made it impossible for him to ignore the question of the crusade, but, even if his attitude should be characterized as cautious rather than as indifferent, he never did go on crusade. Equally, however, he repeatedly justified his comparative inaction and, at the same time, made propaganda against his enemies by suggesting that their hostility alone prevented him from embarking on an expedition to drive back the infidel.This response, since it was not untypical of the princes of his generation, helps explain the West's failure to unite against the Turks. From the point of view of Burgundian history, Charles's cautious attitude towards the crusade tends to support the revisionists who argue that he was far less ‘rash’ than the traditional historical view allows.