British Foreign Policy in an Age of Revolutions, 1783-1793
In 1783 Britain had lost America and was unstable domestically. By 1793 she had regained her position as the leading global power. During the intervening years Britain went several times to the brink of war, and in 1793 Britain and France went beyond the brink. These successive crises are examined in an effort to throw light on the British state in an "Age of Revolutions." This is a study of British foreign policy in a crucial period of international political development. It provides a comprehensive account of the subject, and acts as a guide to the nature of the British state in the period and to international relations.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
The aftermath of war
Years of isolation 17831786
Trade France and the Dutch 17861787
To the banks of the Danube 17871790
To the shores of the Pacific
The failure of Britains continental policy 17901791
AngloFrench relations from the Dutch crisis to the Declaration of Pillnitz 17871791
Other editions - View all
accept AE CP alliance ally appeared argued attack Auckland Austrian Austrian Netherlands BL Add Black Britain British government Carmarthen Catherine century claimed clear concern continued crisis developments diplomatic discussion domestic Dorset Dutch early eastern effect Empire envoy Europe European Ewart feared force foreign policy France Frederick French gains George George III Grenville Harris hoped important India influence instructions interests issue January Joseph July June Keith late lead Leeds less letter London Lord Louis major Malmesbury March ministers ministry Montmorin nature naval necessary negotiations opposition Paris peace period Pitt played Poland political position possible present pressed PRO FO problems question relations reported response revolutionary role Russia seen Sept situation sought Spain Spanish success suggested territorial trade treaty Turks United Provinces views wish wrote
Page 7 - To suppose that any nation could be unalterably the enemy of another was weak and childish. It had neither its foundation in the experience of nations, nor in the history of man. It was a libel on the constitution of political societies, and supposed the existence of diabolical malice in the original frame of man.