The Garrison Revisited: Gibraltar in the Eighteenth Century

In the 1940s, scholars across a variety of disciplines started using phrases such as ‘garrison state’ and ‘garrison mentality’ to describe societies where military imperatives predominated. They frequently argued that a perpetual sense of threat and a profound feeling of isolation shaped the outlook of residents in these communities. Such terms continue to surface in contemporary scholarship and popular media, where ‘the garrison’ often remains a stock image. Evidence from eighteenth-century Gibraltar, however, suggests that traditional readings of the garrison as an insulated fortress should be reconsidered. The survival of this strategic outpost actually required that colonial administrators rely on an array of foreigners to keep it supplied during times of both war and peace. At Gibraltar, the garrison was neither isolated from its surrounding environment nor perpetually threatened by its cosmopolitan residents—instead, inescapable dependence on a motley local population often rendered administrators willing to accommodate the alien in their midst and to acknowledge the interconnections between military and civilian.     

The Debate on Economic and Social Security in the Late Eighteenth Century: Lessons ofa Road Not Taken

The laissez faire political economy of the late eighteenth century was marked by two sharply opposing views of the relation between social security or insecurity and economic growth: one associated with Adam Smith, Turgot and Condorcet; and another associated with Malthus. The latter school, with its faith in the motivating force of insecurity and fear, has been the more influential in subsequent economic thought. But, contrary to prevailing neoliberal stereotypes, Smith, Turgot and Condorcet had much to say to modern students of economics concerning the necessary and positive relationship between social security and economic development. This essay explores their vision of how to improve the life chances of the disadvantaged.     

The Atlantic Empires in the Eighteenth Century

Spanish America; John J. Tepaske     

Taubeneck's Laws: Third Parties in American Politics in the Late Nineteenth Century

Third parties were a persistent and important aspect of American politics after the Civil War and have been as well a continuing focus of scholarly interest. This article discusses both the history and the historiography of the most prominent third party by examining the attitudes and actions of Herman E. Taubeneck, the national chairman of the People's or Populist Party. Taubeneck drew from his participation in and study of American politics to formulate a set of laws that he believed defined the creation, organization, direction, and success of third parties in the American political context. His analysis remarkably foreshadowed the ways in which modern scholars, drawing from several different disciplinary perspectives and methodologies, have only recently begun to explain and clarify the complex course of Populism. But Taubeneck's incomplete application of his own principles helped to disrupt and destroy the Populist Party itself.     

The Political Mistress: Intimacy,Emotion, and Parliamentary Politics in the Late 18th Century

Between c.1796 and 1809, Lady Harriet Ponsonby, Countess Bessborough and Lord Granville Leveson Gower were embroiled in a passionate affair. Their liaison created tensions in aristocratic society because they belonged to rival political parties, the Whigs and the Tories respectively. In the early years of their relationship, Leveson Gower was emerging on the political scene, while the countess was already well-versed in the complexities of party politics. Leveson Gower thus solicited her advice and support and Bessborough duly shared her knowledge and insight into the political world, which created an unusual dynamic that scholars have yet to explore. This article examines several letters that Bessborough wrote to Leveson Gower to analyse how she supported her lover's fledgling parliamentary career and how she navigated their political differences. I argue that Bessborough adapted a rhetoric of affection, deference, duty, and loyalty, that was typically used by aristocratic wives, to justify her interest in her lover's career and her passion for parliamentary politics. This article contributes to scholarship that explores aristocratic women's political participation by examining the strategies a political mistress could employ to exert influence over men. It also illustrates the value of using methodologies from the history of emotions to investigate the drives and passions that shaped interactions in the late 18th-century political sphere.