The 1739 war between England and Spain, known as the War of Jenkin’s Ear, has been regarded as being caused by the opposition’s propaganda campaign against the Walpole ministry and the popular clamour it inflamed.
Consequently, historians have often dealt with the political debate conducted during this period in the context of a search for the War’s causes. More recently, in terms of political history, K. Wilson has analyzed this debate in order to show new features relating to the participation of extra-parliamentary groups in British politics during the mid-eighteenth century. Now, in light of the progress being made in the research on early modern fiscal-military states, the present article reexamines the political debate over the conflict with Spain from a new perspective and with a different purpose: to reveal the logic and reasoning by which British politicians justified or criticized the efforts of the armed forces, in particular, the British Navy.
Using as primary sources both contemporary newspapers and pamphlets and Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England, which records debates in both Houses during that time, the author analyzes the political discussion conducted over four years between early 1737, when the issue of “Spanish depredations” began to be introduced into Parliament, and the end of 1740, when the War of Jenkin’s Ear merged into the War of the Austrian Succession. The analysis includes not only arguments presented by the opposition, but also those on the government’s side, which have yet to be fully examined. The author also points to a correlation between arguments in Parliament and those appearing in publications outside of Parliament.
The analysis is intended to shed more light on 1) how both the government and opposition sides invoked broad national economic interests, including those of landed elites as well as of merchants, in order to support their claims; 2) that the opposition criticism was levelled not at the Navy itself, but at the cost-effectiveness of its operations, unlike its views on the standing army, whose very existence often attracted harsh criticism; and 3) the process in which both the opposition and the government came to advocate “freedom of navigation” as an indisputable British right, in order to justify the war against Spain.

View full abstract

This article focuses on the “assemblies” that existed widely in prefectural governments in the early Meiji period. These assemblies were consulting institutions, guided by parliamentary rules and consisting of junior officials from each governmental section that deliberated on important matters in the prefectures. By highlighting the process of decision making in prefectural administrations, the article investigates the way in which koron（legitimate decisions based on public discussions）and public opinion changed during the early period of a modern nation.
In the aftermath of the establishment of prefectures in place of feudal domains, some local assemblies, consisting of prefectural officials, government-appointed district chiefs, village heads, and elected members of the public, appeared for a short time. These assemblies were based on mutual discussions of both kan, the officials, and min, the people. With the development of public elected assemblies, officials were gradually excluded. The officials, looking for a way to gather opinions and create a path for decision making based on impartial discussions, also created assemblies in many prefectures from the end of the first decade of the Meiji period to the early years of the second.
An investigation into the circumstances of the birth of the “as-semblies” and their rules and minutes shows that the “assemblies” played an important role in the administration of prefectures, especially in affairs relating to parliament. There are two reasons for the continuity of parliament-like decision making by administrations despite the establishment of prefectural assemblies. First, because of the weakness of the hierarchy and professionalization within the bureaucratic system, it was relatively easy to gather opinions from discussions and to have impartial discussions within the government. Second, the junior officials in the “assemblies” were conscious of their roles, not simply as representatives of regional interests but as individuals influenced by their understanding of koron. Their view of koron---that it indicates the results of a process of impartial discussions among people who had knowledge and able to adopt a disinterested approach---was nurtured by their background and education.
Subsequently, alongside the restructuring of the bureaucratic system of local officials, the “assemblies” were reduced to bureau-chief-level talks. However, in response to new projects in the parliamentary system, the shape of “assemblies” still appeared from time to time.
　Thus, in the early Meiji period, koron was divided into, on the one hand, local assemblies of the min and prefectural assemblies, and on the other, the “assemblies” supported by prefectural junior officials of the kan. Koron thus comprised public discussions from both the kan and the min. The legitimacy of koron was thus secured by the various forms of public discussions in the administrative sphere.

View full abstract