Supplementary document to Sunny Colclough’s JRA Project: Colonial Influences on the English Countryside: Capability Brown’s Commissions and their Imperial Connections.

Spreadsheet of properties and links here

Key to the Spreadsheet:

Nature of Colonial connection

Direct link to property owner

This is given if the property owner:

• Has direct ownership of slaves or slave plantations
• Invested/owns stocks/shares in a company associated with colonial activity
• Worked for a company associated with colonial activity
• Directly oversaw and/or got involved in colonial activity e.g., overseeing the establishment of a new colony
• Directly got involved in colonial trade and/or the slave trade

Direct political link to property owner

This is given if the property owner:

• Served as a governmental/political role in which they performed colonial activity like overseeing colonies, e.g. Secretary of State for the Southern Department, any sort of colonial governor or having a role with strong influence, such as a Prime Minister
• Held a colonial interest in parliament and got involved in colonial affairs
• Voted in parliament for colonial actions e.g., passing certain colonial bills.
• Sometimes this is conflated/ used in tandem with direct link to property owner, if the property owner has both political links and regular links to colonialism
• The “Strength of Colonial connection” tab may be used to indicate the extent of their political colonial links. E.G., if they are known to have directly contributed to colonial activity in their role, they will be ranked higher than someone who held the role but it is uncertain what they did with it. Also, someone with a specific role will be ranked higher than just an MP who may have voted on colonial acts.

Direct military link to property owner

This is given if the property owner:

• Fought in a war concerning colonial/imperial interests, especially if they had a high ranking position, like Colonel, Captain or Admiral
• Sometimes this is conflated/ used in tandem with direct link to property owner, if the property owner has both military links and regular links to colonialism
• The “Strength of Colonial connection” tab may be used to indicate the extent of their military colonial links. E.G., an admiral has stronger colonial links than a regular officer and certain wars have stronger colonial links than others.

Indirect link to property owner

This is given if the property owner:

• Has obtained wealth (not through inheritance) that stems from colonial sources, but they have not got involved in those colonial activities directly (E.G., a banker whose customers are slave owners or colonial traders or someone who gained wealth from).
• Was an executor to slave-estates on the LBS database
• Was involved in activities that could be seen as colonial, e.g. collection of exotic plants from the colonies, but is unknown to have derived much wealth from these actions

Direct family link

This is given if the property owner:

• Had a parent, grandparent or person from whom their wealth was inherited (e.g., an uncle, parent-in-law or cousin) who was involved in colonial activity and derived wealth from colonial sources
• Married someone who had links to colonial activity and colonial wealth, either from direct activity or family inheritance. However, if two people lived at a property together, this may be conflated with “direct link to property owner.” 
• Sometimes, this wealth stemmed from political or military sources. This is noted with “Direct military/political family link”

Indirect family link

This is given if the property owner:

• Has other family members or distant family links to people/families who were involved in colonial activity, e.g: cousins, uncles, in-laws.
• Was related to people who settled in the colonies
• The family name/tree has colonial connections throughout it. The “Strength of Colonial connection” tab may be used to indicate the extent of both the colonial actions of indirect family members and the number of family members with colonial links (though this was not overly researched).
• Sometimes this is conflated/used in tandem with direct links given after Capability Brown
• Sometimes, this wealth stemmed from political or military sources. This is noted with “Indirect military/political family link”

Direct property link

This is given if the property:

• Was owned by previous owners obtained wealth from colonial activities
• The property was listed as a property associated with colonialism/slavery/the British Empire in one of the prominent sources discussing colonial properties (though this may not be applied consistently)
• The property had colonial connections through the decorations and/or collections it held (e.g., having a collection of exotic plants or treasures from the colonies
• The property appeared in the LBS database address search
• A tenant but not owner lived in the property
• Sometimes this is conflated/ used in tandem with direct links given after Capability Brown, as the property link was given for properties owned by people with wealth from colonial activities after Capability Brown
• Sometimes, this wealth stemmed from political or military sources. This is noted with “Direct military/political property link”

Indirect property link

This is given if the property:

• Was owned by previous owners who had any indirect or small links to colonial activity
• The property appeared in the LBS database address search
• Sometimes this is conflated/used in tandem with indirect links given after Capability Brown

If there were no links found, “None” was written.

If there was uncertainty about the nature of the colonial connection, it was indicated with the word “potential.” I tried to be conservative with my use of the word potential. 

If the links are potential, the column for the strength of the colonial connections can denote the supposed strength of the potential connection.

Occasionally, “very” was used to emphasise the strengths of the links, though conservatively.

Some properties only have links to colonial wealth after Capability Brown worked on them or after Capability Brown’s lifestyle. These should have been noted down with “After Capability Brown.”

Strength of colonial connection:

The rankings I used were:

Very Strong

Strong

Somewhat Strong

Medium

Somewhat weak

Weak

Very Weak

The exact reasonings for the strength label varies a lot. However, in general, “very strong” indicated a “direct link to property owner” whereas a “direct political/military link to property owner” typically ranged from being assigned “strong”, “somewhat strong” or “Medium” with “Very Strong” or “Somewhat weak” being used depending on the nature of the activity.

In general, direct family links were awarded between “strong” and “somewhat weak.” Indirect links generally got less than a medium. “Very Weak” was reserved for there being  no colonial connections, or perhaps one dubious or very indirect link.

If the Strength of colonial connection changed after Capability Brown, this should have been noted.

What percentage of Capability Brown’s properties have colonial links?

340 properties listed overall

267 properties with more certain attribution (usually determined by 40% or above Phibbs attribution)

All percentages are rounded to 2 decimal places.

Strength of colonial links

OVERALL (including properties with uncertain Capability Brown attributions and properties where the strength colonial links changed after Capability Brown):

VERY STRONG: 100 properties (29.41%)

STRONG/SOMEWHAT STRONG/POTENTIAL STRONG: 71 properties (20.88%)

ALL STRONG:171 properties (50.29%) of properties have some kind of strong colonial connection (somewhat strong, strong, very strong and potential strong)

This includes properties with uncertain Capability Brown attributions and properties that developed a strong attribution after Capability Brown.

MEDIUM: 47 properties (13.82%) (incl. uncertain attribution & after Capability Brown

VERY WEAK/NONE: 87 properties (25.59%) (before Capability Brown, incl. uncertain attribution)

WEAK/SOMEWHAT WEAK: 55 properties (16.18%)

ALL WEAK (somewhat weak, weak, very weak): 142 properties (41.76%) (incl. uncertain attribution)

UNKNOWN: 3 properties (0.88%)

Excluding uncertain attribution properties: 

141 properties out of 267 properties (52.81%) with higher attribution to Capability Brown have some form of strong colonial connection

81 of 267 properties (30.34%) of these properties have “Very Strong colonial” connections

These statistics include connections after Capability Brown

80.9% (216/267 properties) had some form of colonial connection, including after Capability Brown

51 properties (19.1% of 267) had no found connections including after Capability Brown

Just during Capability Brown’s lifespan EXCLUDING UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTIONS (267 properties):

VERY STRONG: 66 properties (24.72% of 267 properties, 19.41 overall 340 properties)

STRONG/SOMEWHAT STRONG: 63 properties (23.6% of 267 properties)

ALL STRONG: 129 properties (48.31% of 267 higher attribution properties, 37.94% of 340 properties overall)

MEDIUM: 32 properties (11.99% of 267)

ALL WEAK: 104 properties (38.95% of 267)

WEAK/SOMEWHAT WEAK: 42 properties (15.73% of 267)

VERY WEAK/NONE: 62 properties (23.22% of 267)

UNKNOWN: 2 properties (0.75% of 267)

62 properties (23.22% of 267) had none/very weak colonial connections that could be found during Capability Brown’s life

203 properties (76.03% of 267) had some form of colonial connection during Capability Brown

OVERALL NATURE OF LINKS

PROPERTY OWNER LINK

183 properties (53.82%) have some form of “link to property owner”

97 properties (28.53%) have a “direct link to property owner”

49 properties (14.41%) have a “direct political link to property owner”

26 properties (7.65%) have a “direct military link to property owner”
14 properties (4.12%) have a “direct political/military link to property owner”

7 properties (2.1%) have some form of “indirect link to property owner”

These statistics include uncertain Capability Brown attributions, potential links and links after Capability Brown. 

EXCLUDING UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTIONS (267 properties):

146 properties (54.68%) have some form of “link to property owner”

78 properties (29.21%)  have a “direct link to property owner”

42 properties (15.73%) have a “direct political link to property owner”

19 properties (7.12%) have a “direct military link to property owner”

11 properties (4.12%) have a “direct political/military link to property owner”

6 properties (2.25%) have some form of “indirect link to property owner”

FAMILY LINK

186 properties overall had some form of family link (direct family link, direct political/military family link, indirect family link) incl. uncertain attributions and after Capability Brown

EXCLUDING UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTIONS (267 properties):

149 properties (55.8%) had some form of family link 

102 properties (38.2%) had a direct family link (political/military links included) 

PROPERTY LINK

70 properties (20.59%) have some form of “property link”

63 properties (18.53%) have a “direct property link”

7 properties (2.06%) have an “indirect property link”

EXCLUDING UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTIONS (267 properties):

63 properties (23.6%) have some form of “property link”

56 properties (20.97%) have a “Direct Property link”

7 properties (2.62%) have an “indirect property link”

IN SUMMARY:

86.47% (294 properties) have some form of colonial connection found in this research, whether it be after Capability Brown or a weak connection.

74.41% (253 properties) have some form of colonial connection (found in this research), whether it be a weak connection, during Capability Brown’s life

25.59% (87 properties) have no notable colonial connections that could be found in this research during Capability Brown’s life. 

29.41% (100 properties) have very strong colonial links (including properties with uncertain Capability Brown attributions and properties where the strength of colonial links changed after Capability Brown, as well as properties that are part of other properties).

Out of the certain attributions:

81 properties had a Very Strong link during Capability Brown’s life and after it (30.34% of 267 higher attribution properties)

68 properties (20% overall) have no notable colonial connections that could be found in this research, including links discovered after Capability Brown (this statistic includes uncertain attributions)

During Capability Brown’s life: 

VERY WEAK/NONE: 87 properties (25.59%) 

EXCLUDING UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTIONS (267 properties):

VERY WEAK/NONE: 62 properties (23.22%) 

12.05% (41 properties) increased the strength of their colonial connections After Capability Brown’s work there/life. This was usually from subsequent generations of property owners.

19 properties marked as “none” and “very weak” during Capability Brown’s life had colonial connections and increased the strength of the colonial connections After Capability Brown (21.84% of those properties, 5.59% overall).

14 of the 19 properties (73.68%) that had no discovered colonial connection during Capability Brown’s life increased the strength of their colonial connection to medium or higher, with most of them developing strong colonial connections. That is 16.09% of properties marked as having no colonial connections and 4.12% of properties overall (including properties with low Capability Brown attribution).

22 properties (6.47%) had potential in at least one of their natures of colonial connection, of which the details of are offered in the spreadsheet.

An overview of my methods:

• Initially finding the properties Capability Brown worked on, primarily using the sources:

Phibbs, J., 2013. A LIST OF LANDSCAPES THAT HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO LANCELOT’CAPABILITY’BROWN. Garden History, 41(2), pp.244-277.

Stroud, D. and Phibbs, J., 2016. A list of landscapes that have been attributed to ‘Capability’ Brown (Notes from the unpublished papers of Dorothy Stroud), www.capabilitybrown.org.uk. Available at: https://www.capabilitybrown.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160901AttributionsA-Z5th-ed..pdf (Accessed: 12 June 2024). 

Stroud, D., 1975. Capability brown. 3rd edn. London: Faber. 

The list of Capability Brown landscapes and the information they link to on: https://competitions.landscapeinstitute.org/capability-brown/map/index.html 

Capability Brown’s Drummonds Bank account 1753-1783, transcribed in: 

Willis, P., 1984. Capability Brown’s Account with Drummonds Bank, 1753-1783. Architectural History, 27, pp.382-391.

Note: many of these properties are not certainly related to Capability Brown, indicated by John Phibbs’ attribution percentage. These have still been included in the research, but they have been highlighted to not be certain and information has been provided on the nature of their attribution. If the attribution is less than 40%, the row will be highlighted in yellow for that property. If the attribution percentage is between 40%-95%, the property name is highlighted in blue and will be included in the percentages of certain Capability Brown properties, in line with The list of Capability Brown landscapes and the information they link to on: https://competitions.landscapeinstitute.org/capability-brown/map/index.html

There are some exceptions, with some properties with 40% attribution being highlighted in yellow due to alternate circumstances. Additionally, some properties may be listed separately even though they are part of a wider property Capability Brown worked on (e.g. Upper Gatton is part of Gatton and Taplow Court is adjacent/part of Cliveden). If this is the case, it has been listed in the column “Additional info on property and Capability Brown attribution.” The properties are listed separately in line with https://competitions.landscapeinstitute.org/capability-brown/map/index.html and “Stroud, D. and Phibbs, J., 2016. A list of landscapes that have been attributed to ‘Capability’ Brown (Notes from the unpublished papers of Dorothy Stroud), www.capabilitybrown.org.uk. Available at: https://www.capabilitybrown.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160901AttributionsA-Z5th-ed..pdf (Accessed: 12 June 2024)” which list these properties separately for various reasons.

After the list of properties, the year/time-frame of work and the cost of the work was noted, I began to look into the colonial connections of each property.

I primarily did this through:

• Looking at the address and property owner/last name of property owner of the Legacies of British Slavery Database.
• Looking for the property/property owner/property owner family in external academic sources, most notably:

-Huxtable, S.A., Fowler, C., Kefalas, C. and Slocombe, E. eds., 2020. Interim report on the connections between colonialism and properties now in the care of the National Trust, including links with historic slavery. Swindon: National Trust.

-Wills, M. and Dresser, M., 2020. The Transatlantic Slave Economy and England’s Built Environment: A Research Audit.

-Kaufmann, M., 2007. English Heritage Properties 1600-1830 and Slavery Connections. English Heritage.

-Barczewski, S., 2017. Country houses and the British Empire, 1700–1930 (Vol. 116). Manchester University Press.

• Searching the web for the property and its colonial connections. Sometimes, the website of the property or another website may have written about the colonial connections of the property
• Reading sources on the Internet about the property owner’s life, searching for their colonial connections. Most notably, https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ , https://www.wikipedia.org/ (though not used as a source but rather a jumping off point), https://www.oxforddnb.com/ , and the Dictionary of National Biography https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900 
• Looking at their family’s lives, tracing their family history through ancestry websites, most notably: https://thepeerage.com/ , https://www.geni.com/ , https://www.twentytrees.co.uk/ and https://www.ancestry.co.uk/ 
• Any other miscellaneous sources, archives, papers or records that may have mentioned information on the property or the property owner

After writing about the links I was able to find, I determined the Nature of Colonial connection and Strength of Colonial connection using the key above.

Important information to consider:

There are many limitations of these studies.

Due to limitations of time and resources, the properties and people were not researched as deeply as they could have been. It is entirely possible that some properties marked as having no/few colonial connections do have stronger links to colonial wealth. Due to the nature of the research, it would not make sense to delve incredibly deeply into every property. Additionally, as this research is highly controversial, those opposing the research of colonial wealth in the British countryside will be much more liable to critique the research without strong evidence. If the evidence was not easily found through my relatively exterior research, my supervisor and I determined that it was not strong enough to determine a strong connection especially with potential backlash of people claiming that we are stretching the truth to push an agenda.

As the ranking system is something I have developed, it is very likely that another researcher would disagree with my attributions and ideas, especially with more knowledge on how to research this field and experience of what sources are worth more than others.

Many of the names of property owners have common names that are incredibly hard to trace, especially after years have passed. I found this to be a problem especially when searching on the LBS database, for family histories or on sources outside of my primary sources.

I found some sources that seemed contradictory to others, inaccurate or unreliable, but there was little way to tell which sources were correct or whether the source was actually inaccurate. I tried to note when sources did not seem accurate.

As the ranking system was developed and refined throughout the JRA as I would not have had the time to denote the rankings afterwards and come up with the ranking system afterwards, there are inconsistencies within it that I fear I do not have time to refine and fix.

Some properties only have links to colonial wealth after Capability Brown worked on them or after Capability Brown’s lifestyle. These should have been noted down with “After Capability Brown” but they may have been conflated with other rankings.

Unfortunately, as the research project was short and I had to do a lot of learning along the way, I did not have time to sufficiently check over my research. While I have tried to edit where I can, there are inconsistencies in the rankings, especially between the first properties in the alphabet (which I did first) and the last ones in the alphabet.

Explaining certain colonial links:

COMPANIES

East India Company:

“The East India Company was probably the most powerful corporation in history. At its height, it dominated global trade between Europe, South Asia and the Far East, fought numerous wars using its own army and navy, and conquered and colonised modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma.”

“From its foundation in 1600 the Company was granted a monopoly on British trade with the East, and the products it brought back soon began appearing in British homes. During the eighteenth century, cottons, indigo, porcelain, tea, and silks imported by the Company became incredibly popular. On the back of such lucrative trade, many Britons became wealthy, while even those of modest middle-class means benefited from share ownership. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries the Company trafficked enslaved people taken from Africa across the Indian Ocean to work on plantations in India and Indonesia.”

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/discover/history/what-was-the-east-india-company

Royal Africa Company:

“Chartered in 1672, the Royal African Company was a royally chartered company which had a legally based monopoly on English trade to West Africa until 1698. The monopoly specifically extended through five thousand miles of the western coast from Cape Sallee (in contemporary Morocco) to the Cape of Good Hope (in what is now South Africa). The Royal African Company traded mainly for gold and slaves (the majority of whom were sent to English colonies in the Americas). Headquarters were located at the Cape Coast Castle (located in modern-day Ghana). The Royal African Company also maintained many forts and factories in other locations such as Sierra Leone, the Slave Coast, the River Gambia, and additional areas on the Gold Coast. The Royal African Company lost its monopoly in 1698, although it continued to engage in the slave trade until 1731. It was replaced by the Company of Merchants Trading to Africa in 1752. Royally chartered companies like the Royal African Company were important tools in the opening of the African continent to slave trade and later imperial colonizing ambitions. The Royal African Company was the second such attempt by Parliament, as they had chartered the Royal Adventurers into Africa in 1660” (Bilow, 2009).

South Sea Company:

“The South Sea Company was formed in 1711 in London and its purpose was to supply 4800 slaves each year for 30 years to the Spanish plantations in Central and Southern America.” https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/south-sea-bubble 

Hudson’s Bay Company:

“The Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), chartered 2 May 1670, is the oldest incorporated joint-stock merchandising company in the English-speaking world. HBC was a fur trading business for most of its history, a past that is entwined with the colonization of British North America and the development of Canada.” https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/hudsons-bay-company 

“It was incorporated in England on May 2, 1670, to seek a northwest passage to the Pacific, to occupy the lands adjacent to Hudson Bay, and to carry on any commerce with those lands that might prove profitable. It still exists as a commercial company and is active in real estate, merchandising, and natural resources, with headquarters in Toronto. It is the oldest incorporated joint-stock merchandising company in the English-speaking world.” (Britannica, 2024a).

Bank of England:

WARS

American Revolutionary War/American War of Independence:

During the American Revolutionary War, in which American colonists fought for independence from Britain, Britain tried exceptionally hard to hold onto their colony and their trade routes. 

France and Spain supported the American colonists in the American Revolutionary War, viewing it as a chance to regain/expand their colonial properties. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance 

Though they lost the American colony, it changed the way they governed their other colonies in the 19th century. They established a dual imperial system in some colonies (letting locals run most things and only stepping in for the big things) and granting some colonies Dominion status. This allowed them to maintain control of their other colonies for longer. https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/american-revolution-did-britain-treat-all-its-colonies-equally.html 

The American Revolutionary War dealt a significant blow to the power of the British Empire. However, those who fought in it can still be said to have drawn some of their power and wealth from a colonial and imperial source due to fighting to maintain one of Britain’s most lucrative colonies.

Seven Years’ War:

After ongoing tensions between European powers from previous wars like the War of the Austrian Succession, especially colonial disputes (e.g. colonial disputes surrounding North America between Britain and France), the Seven Years War broke out.

Many significant battles of the war were fought in the Americas, such as the capture of Quebec, which was one of the battles that lead to French Canada’s ceding to the British Empire.

France lost their other lucrative North American colonies to the British Empire during the Seven Years’ War (Anderson, 2001).  https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/imperial-wars/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/events-of-the-seven-years-war/ 

France, Britain and Spain also fought for control over Atlantic trade routes and Caribbean islands. As Britain was successful in their fight, obtaining the sugar colonies of Guadeloupe and Martinique from the French and Havana (Cuba) and Manila (Philippines) from the Spanish, this helped strengthen the British Empire (Baugh, 2021). https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/events-of-the-seven-years-war/ 

The British and French also fought for control over locations in West Africa (particularly Senegal, Gambia and Saint-Louis/Gorée Island off the coast of Senegal) in order to fuel the slave trade and slave plantations in the Americas. The British managed to capture Senegal, Gorée and the French Trading post of Gambia which strengthened the British Empire (Røge, 2024).

The British and French also fought for dominance in India, aiming to control trade, territory and the dominance of their respective East India Company in the area. Britain was successful, winning many battles, securing Pondicherry from the French and securing obtaining strong colonial rule over India (Baugh, 2021). https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/seven-years-war 

After the war, the British Empire was an even more domineering colonial power with significant victories across the Americas, Caribbean, Africa and Asian, securing new territories, trade routes and a stronger military force. People who were associated with the Seven Years’ War helped secure British victory, which undoubtedly contributed to the prospering of the British Empire that followed, with expanding colonial territories, increased global trade, a stronger military/navy, the slave trade, the success of companies involved in colonial trade and economic success (Anderson, 2001; Baugh, 2021).

War of the Spanish Succession:

The War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) saw Britain and the Dutch Republic opposing the expanding and powerful French and Spanish empires as well as opposing a potential union of France and Spain. This was to protect their imperial strength and their colonial interests in the Caribbean and North America. The British Empire strengthened its empire and colonial power in significant ways (Alsop, 1991).

The British and French fought over possession of various North American colonies and various trading ports in the Queen Anne’s War. This resulted in France conceding Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the island of Saint Kitts, and the Hudson Bay territory (Britannica, 2024b). https://www.thoughtco.com/queen-annes-war-104573 

Britain secured Gibraltar and Minorca in the Treaty of Utrecht at the end. These were strategic locations for Britain that allowed it to protect its Atlantic and Mediterranean trade routes (Adkins & Adkins, 2017). 

“The Treaty of Utrecht at the end of the war saw British territorial gains, which included the ceding of Gibraltar and Minorca by the Spanish in Europe, but the French also agreed to relinquish their territory of St. Kitts, meaning that the whole of the island was now British territory and would remain so until the island achieved independence in 1967. The Spanish also made another concession, granting Britain’s South Sea Company the asiento, the right to transport 4,800 slaves from Africa to Spanish South America a year. It would be British Spanish disagreements over the asiento and other economic matters that contributed to the next war that Britain fought in the Caribbean” (p25)

https://westindiacommittee.org/historyheritageculture/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WIS-Spanish-succession.pdf

“Britain had secured the rights to supply slaves to Spanish America at the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The South Sea Company bought the contract from the British government for £9,500,000, a large proportion of Britain’s national debt. The sum was so huge because it was hoped that more lucrative trading rights with South America could be won once Britain got a toehold in the market. It was also assumed that the profits from slave trading would be enormous, which proved not to be the case.” https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/south-sea-bubble 

War of the Quadruple Alliance:

The War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) saw Spain’s efforts to restore territories lost in the War of the Spanish Succession. Britain, France, Austria and the Dutch Republic allied with one another to prevent Spain from expanding its colonial interests to protect their own colonial interests. “The War of the Quadruple Alliance is historically viewed as to not to be over West Indies territory or matters. However, trade disputes and want of access to the West Indies markets had indeed again fueled the flames of war. However, trade disputes and want of access to the West Indies markets had indeed again fueled the flames of war” (La Jeunesse, 2019, p59). 

Britain had strong naval dominance which enabled it to protect its trade routes and oppose Spanish influence, particularly in the Caribbean. Additionally, there was tension between Britain and Spain due to the prevalence of illegal trade in the 17th/18th century in Spanish-controlled Indies (La Jeunesse, 2019). They held onto the strategic location of Gibraltar despite strong opposition from Spain, which was crucial to future colonial and imperial success (Adkins & Adkins, 2017). They were able to prevent Spain from expanding its colonial empire, weakening them and strengthening Britain in return. This allowed for future victories later on. While there were not major territorial changes of the colonies, this war set up future colonial conflicts (Dhondt, 2017; James, 1997).

As this war helped maintain the British Empire’s strong colonial control and helped strengthen its military, those involved derived wealth from an imperial source.

War of the Austrian Succession:

The War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48) saw many battles concerning colonial interests.

North America saw the British and French fight King George’s War (1744-48) which fought for control of various areas in North America. One strategy Britain used was to cut off France’s trade to the West Indies. They managed to obtain Louisbourg, which was successful but not as crucial as the British expected.

The British and French also fought the First Carnatic War, where their respective East India Companies fought for control of Indian Trading posts like Madras and Pondicherry. This war saw the British lose control of Madras and fail to capture Pondicherry and Lorient.

While the British did capture Cape Finisterre, they did not currently have the strongest colonial control over India.

Britain also aimed to remove Spain’s trade monopoly in the West Indies and establish free trade. This resulted in failures to block Spanish trading ports in Cartagena de Indias, Florida, Cuba and Panama. However, they successfully captured Portobello.

(de Freitas, 2023)

https://www.prizepapers.de/f/prizepapers/Prize_Papers_Project/Case_Studies/War_of_the_Austrian_S/Timeline_War_of_the_Austrian_Succession.pdf?v=1696864616#:~:text=Caribbean%20Basin%2C%20King%20George’s%20War,in%20capturing%20one%20enemy%20ship.

While Britain did suffer many losses, they had strong colonial victories, especially in North America. All this contributed to strengthening Britain’s military power and strategy, allowing for victory in future colonial battles in the Seven Years’ War (Black, 2002; de Freitas, 2023). Therefore, those involved in the war and those who profited from the war drew their wealth from a colonial and imperial source.

War of Jenkins’ Ear:

The War of Jenkins’ Ear (which eventually merged to the War of the Austrian Succession) was fought between Britain and Spain in 1739. It was primarily fought in New Granada and the Caribbean Sea to improve British trading opportunities in the Caribbean and expand the British Empire’s territory. They wanted to maintain a profitable contract that allowed British merchants to sell slaves in Spanish America and they were originally backed by the South Sea Company in the years leading up to the war (Britannica, 2014; Rivas Ibáñez, 2009).

Nine Years’ War: 

The Nine Years’ War was a European great power conflict (a conflict based around struggle for global influence) against French Imperial expansionism. While it was mainly concentrated in Europe, it also stretched to the Americas, India, Asia and West Africa.

Much of the fighting was concerning colonial possessions of the European powers involved, particularly the English and the French. The European powers aimed to hold onto their colonial possessions while expanding their own colonial possessions through military action. The countries involved also fought to control various forms of colonial trade. This war saw fighting over tensions surrounding trade disputes. This meant that merchants and various colonial companies were involved in the conflict (Childs & Childs, 1991). 

The English and French East India Companies were involved in the war as they fought for influence over India and dominance over trade routes (Wolf, 1951).

The French and English also fought for dominance over North America, particularly in the King William’s War. They also both sought control over the various trades there, like the fur trade. The Hudson’s Bay Company was a spark of conflict due to its commercial interests coliding with France’s (Lovejoy, 2011; Wolf, 1951).

The French and English fought for control around various West Indies islands as well as forts and trading posts along the African coast providing valuable goods and access to the transatlantic slave trade. This war was heavily involved in the British Empire’s involvement in the Slave Trade, establishment of colonial slave plantations in the West Indies and the Royal African Company (McLean, 2014).

People who were associated with the Nine Years’ War helped secure English/British victory, which undoubtedly contributed to the prospering of the British Empire that followed, with expanding colonial territories, increased global trade, a stronger military/navy, the slave trade, the success of companies involved in colonial trade and economic success (Childs & Childs, 1991). 

Therefore, those who profited from the war drew their wealth from a colonial and imperial source.

POLICIES 

Stamp Act 1765:

The Stamp Act of 1765 was imposed by the British Parliament on its colonies in America. It required for printed materials in the colonies to be produced on stamped paper with a revenue stamp to designate tax collection. Additionally, it had to be paid in British currency rather than colonial paper money. This allowed for stronger British control over the colonies and increased wealth extraction from the colonies (Wood, 2002).

“The British needed to station a large army in North America as a consequence and on 22 March 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which sought to raise money to pay for this army through a tax on all legal and official papers and publications circulating in the colonies.” The Stamp Act and the American colonies 1763-67 – UK Parliament 

MPs who voted against the repeal of the Stamp Act typically voted this way to maintain continuing colonial control over America, continue funding the army and its colonial actions and maintain profits from the colonies going back to the British Mainland (Minchinton, 1965; Temperley, 1912).

Sugar Act 1764:

“On April 5, 1764, Parliament passed a modified version of the Sugar and Molasses Act (1733), which was about to expire. Under the Molasses Act colonial merchants had been required to pay a tax of six pence per gallon on the importation of foreign molasses. But because of corruption, they mostly evaded the taxes and undercut the intention of the tax — that the English product would be cheaper than that from the French West Indies. This hurt the British West Indies market in molasses and sugar and the market for rum, which the colonies had been producing in quantity with the cheaper French molasses. The First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Grenville was trying to bring the colonies in line with regard to payment of taxes. He had beefed up the Navy presence and instructed them to become more active in customs enforcement. Parliament decided it would be wise to make a few adjustments to the trade regulations. The Sugar Act reduced the rate of tax on molasses from six pence to three pence per gallon, while Grenville took measures that the duty be strictly enforced. The act also listed more foreign goods to be taxed including sugar, certain wines, coffee, pimiento, cambric and printed calico, and further, regulated the export of lumber and iron. The enforced tax on molasses caused the almost immediate decline in the rum industry in the colonies. The combined effect of the new duties was to sharply reduce the trade with Madeira, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and the French West Indies (Guadelupe, Martinique and Santo Domingo (now Haiti)), all important destination ports for lumber, flour, cheese, and assorted farm products. The situation disrupted the colonial economy by reducing the markets to which the colonies could sell, and the amount of currency available to them for the purchase of British manufactured goods. This act, and the Currency Act, set the stage for the revolt at the imposition of the Stamp Act.” https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.html 

It was the first time Parliament aimed to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.html 

Currency Act 1751/1764:

The Currency Act restricted, prohibited and stripped away the value of paper money being printed and issued in the American colonies. This act further maintained Britain’s colonial rule over America, its reliance on Britain and its profitability to Britain. It also protected British merchants and creditors from being paid in colonial money that was worth less than gold and silver. On top of this, Britain aimed to limit the money it would share with the colonies to remain the most wealthy and most powerful. The British government did not mint enough currency to provide the American colonies with their own currency and they actively hindered the ability to mint their own currency. This left America poor and in a recession and Britain wealthy and in control. MPs that supported this helped maintain this rule. 

Originally, the Currency Act of 1751 prohibited New England colonies from printing and issues bills worth above specified amounts. The 1764 Currency Act applied to all 13 colonies and did not prohibit the printing of their own currency, but simply ruled that the money was not of legal tender and could not be used for payment of public or private debts. https://alphahistory.com/americanrevolution/currency-act/ 

Townshend Acts/duties (the Revenue Act):

The Townshend duties was one of many attempts to collect revenue and maintain control over the American colonies. It introduced custom duties on a range of items imported to the American colonies. They were expected to raise about £40,000 per annum to fund the military and royal officials in the colonies, yet they became almost unenforceable.

“All income collected under the act would be deemed “sterling money of Great Britain”. It would be used for funding “the administration of justice and the support of civil government in the said colonies” and “defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing” the colonies.

Townshend’s legislation also established stronger measures for collection. It established three new Vice-Admiralty Courts in Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston. The act also authorised writs of assistance, giving customs officials the legal authority to search and seize from private ships or buildings.”

MPS who supported the Townshend acts supported stronger colonial control and restrictions over the American colonies, as well as supporting stronger British military and law enforcement control over it. https://alphahistory.com/americanrevolution/townshend-duties/ 

Fox’s East India bill:

Fox’s East India bill would have removed British India from the governmental rule of the East India Company. This would not have removed British colonial rule fully, as the East India Company would still control commerce and administration, and political matters were handled by British governors). https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-James-Fox/The-Fox-North-coalition-1783 

MISCELLANEOUS

The Ulster Plantation/British colonialism of Ireland:

English colonial settlers in Ireland existed since the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1179. In the 17th Century, the British sought to extend their colonial control over Ireland by establishing plantations. English and Scottish settlers who were loyal to the Crown and Protestant were granted large tracts of land in Ireland. The plantations were seen as a way to control, anglicise and civilise Ireland, especially through spreading Protestantism. This eroded the Gael’s culture as well as their legal, socioeconomic and political rights. Britain enforced laws regulating Roman Catholics from certain professions like holding office, preventing them from owning land, limited their access to education and their religion and more. Britain extracted great wealth from these plantations and the settlers and maintained strong control over Ireland. Ireland can be stated to be the first British colony, with much of its tactics of control being replicated throughout the British Empire to its colonies. These include: subjugation of Indigenous people, forced assimilation and displacement, restricting access to land and resources and offering it to British settlers, political control, military control, using the colony for military strategy and garnering great economic profit from the colony (Cavanagh, 2013; Farrell, 2022; Rahman et al., 2017).

MORE INFORMATION ON ATTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES

Althorp & Spencer House:

“David Jacques made this attribution in his book The Reign of Nature, however he provided no evidence to support the

attribution.

There are several accounts for Brown‟s work with Lord Spencer; the different colours used below indicate the possible

division of contracts:

Brown’s accounts at Drummonds Bank

SPENCER, JOHN*, Viscount Spencer (created 1761; created 1st Earl Spencer 1765). Althorp, Northamptonshire, or

Wimbledon Park, Surrey [John Parker and William Parker were paid by Brown, in 1768 and 1775 respectively which might

suggest continued work at Wimbledon]

31 December 1759 By d

o

recd of John Spencer Esqr 800.00.00

8 July 1760 By do

recd Spencer‟s bill on Hoare & Co. 1,000.00.00

18 April 1761 By do

recd of Lord Spencer p Parker 1,000.00.00

19 December 1761 By Cash recd of Lord Spencer 1,000.00.00

29 January 1763 By Cash recd of Lord Spencer 1,000.00.00

4 November 1766 Spencer on Hoare 1,000.00.00

Lord Spencer’s accounts at Hoare’s Bank

In a letter of 1/7/1977, to Stroud from Leslie Harris, he transcribed the following from John Spencer‟s account at Hoare‟s

Bank, showing that the scale of the transactions was about twice that recorded in Brown‟s Drummonds‟ accounts – a useful

reminder of how incomplete a record of Brown‟s business these accounts provide. These may be another record of the

contract listed above (in red), but there is a difference of over £3,000.00.00 between the two:

Ledger Z161 Feb 8 1759 Lancelot Brown £800

Ledger A266 July 13 1759 Lancelot Brown £500

Ledger A267 Dec 7 1759 Lancelot Brown £800

Ledger B77 Apr 16 1761 Lancelot Brown £1000

Ledger B78 Dec 21 1761 Lancelot Brown £1000

Ledger B387 Feb 3 1763 Lancelot Brown £1000

Ledger C129 Jun 17 1763 Lancelot Brown £875

Ledger C130 Jan 4 1764 Lancelot Brown £500

Ledger C231 Apr 26 1765 Lancelot Brown £1000

Ledger C232 July 23 1765 Lancelot Brown £453

Ledger C468 Dec 20 1765 Lancelot Brown £500

Ledger D133 Nov 4 1766 Lancelot Brown £1000

Louise Pickering of the Museum, Hoare’s Bank, has verified these entries. John Spencer was made Viscount Spencer in

1761. and Earl Spencer in 1765. David Brown knows these accounts however and has suggested that they all relate to

Wimbledon.

Brown’s Account book (RHS)

fol.37

The Right Hon.ble the Lord Vis.t Spencer at Wimbledon in Surrey

In July 1765 Recd

the first payment 500.0.0

1766 September the 8th Received of his

Lordship By a Draft on Hoare & Co

Of the 2nd & 3rd Payment 100.0.0

This Acc.t settled and a Bond given for the Balance

March the 2: 1779 Recd of Lord Spencer

A draft on Hoare for May the 22 200.0.0

Recd of his Lordp 200.0.0

£400.0.0

Due to Balance 100.0.0

Thomas Squires Bill for the Rail Fence at Wimbledon Park

42.3.9

John Watridges Bill for Painting the above Fence

13.0.10

Disbursed by G Baustreed in this year to July the 8 1780

90.13.0

In the Wood & Various Parts of the Park

________

£245.17.7

Received by the ommission [sic] of the Rough Rail Fence

21.0.0.

Balance £224.17.7

Paid by a Draft on Mes.r Hoares dated October the 27 1780

1781 April the 16th Recd of Lord Spencer 250.0.0

Nov the 26 Recd of D.o 500.0.0

Settled by the Executors

fol. 38 A Contract with the Right Hon.ble Lord Vis.t Spencer of 1760 Pounds

Begun in January 1765, at the underwritten Times of Payment

At Michaelmas 1765 500.0.0

At Christmas 1765 500.0.0

At Lady Day 1766 500.0.0

In June 1766 when the Work is Completed 260.0.0

£1760.0.0

These accounts have been coloured to emphasise what may have been five or more contracts with Lord Spencer.

To judge from them, the payments into Drummonds (red) were all from one contract which ran from 1759-1766 and

totalled at least £5,900.00.00 (the payments in £1,000 lumps suggest one contract). This contract may not have been for

Wimbledon because Brown recorded the „first payment‟ there in his account book in 1765 (dark blue).

The first Wimbledon contract ran from 1765-6 and was for at least £600.00 (dark blue). There was then a second

Wimbledon contract which ran from 1779-1781 and included the fence. This may in fact have been two separate

commissions (green and plum). This amounted to £324.17.7.

A fourth contract for Wimbledon then began in 1781 and was settled after Brown‟s death in 1783 (turquoise).

Separate from all these there was a fifth contract which ran from 1765-1766 and was almost certainly for another property,

since Brown gave it a separate page in his account book. This amounted to £1,760.00.00 (light blue).

It is also likely that the very large contract recorded in the Drummonds accounts (red) was not for Wimbledon, but for a

separate property. The only surviving volume of Brown‟s accounts is the last, and it is clear that he entered each new

landscape where he was commissioned on a fresh page, more or less in date order, and that he began this last volume in

about 1764. If it had been for Wimbledon then it is likely that the 1765 contract at Wimbledon would have been entered on

the same page. The scale of the payments recorded in the Drummonds accounts is large and each payment is in very

substantial round sums. This is the way in which Brown conducted his finances when undertaking a large building project.

Spencer House was under construction from 1758, designed by James „Athenian‟ Stuart – if not Spencer House then one

may ask what these payments were for? James Stuart was famously idle and hopeless with contracts and money, and there is

a similar situation at Wimpole, where again Stuart worked, and where Brown was paid a large amount of money that cannot

necessarily be accounted for by the work he is known to have done there. Brown did after all build the tower designed by

Sanderson Miller at Wimpole, and he was employed at Stowe to put up buildings designed by others.

The Wimbledon accounts are specifically credited and are relatively easy to follow. George Bowstreed was Brown‟s

foreman, at least for the 1779-1780 contract (plum) and his speciality was waterworks.

The fifth contract, for work from 1765-6, might therefore have been for Althorp.

See also Alan Fletcher `An early ha-ha?‟ Garden History 19:2 p.151 Samuel Lapidge had a contract for work at Althorp in

1787 (British Library, Althorp LI, pp.6-7). Henry Holland took over the contract and continued work at Althorp from

c.1790. The presence of Lapidge and Holland (Brown‟s executor and son-in-law respectively) give some additional weight

to the attribution.” (Phibbs & Stroud, 2016, p4-6)

Gosfield Hall: 

“This attribution is made on the PGUK database, but no evidence is given. There are three possible lines of connection with Brown. 

First, the owner, Robert Nugent (1702 – 1788) was a great friend of Sanderson Miller, Brown‟s collaborator, and Brown must therefore have been known to Nugent, see Lilian Dickens and Mary Stanton An Eighteenth Century Correspondence (London: John Murray, 1910). Nugent was a great friend of Lord Temple‟s and was obviously interested in landscape, boasting to Miller (16th June 1748) „the place is greatly altered, the Lawns are greater, the water is greater, the Plantations are much greater and the House indoors is hardly to be known again.‟ 

Second, Sanderson Miller, is attributed with additions to the west front of the house in 1755 for Lord Nugent, and certainly advised on the laying out of the grounds in 1750, see Jennifer Meir Sanderson Miller and his Landscapes (Chichester: Phillimore, 2006) p.172. Thus Nugent was active in the Gosfield landscape over a long period. 

Third, one might ask where Brown had first come across the Lapidge family. The estate papers in Herts. Record Office (6890) include the farm bailiff‟s accounts (1758-1760) and a Mr Lapidge was hard at work on the large lake from April 4th. It seems quite possible that he had been working there in previous years, the last payment is in September 1758. 

In 1759 Richard Woods recommended William Lapidge to Sir William Lee for Hartwell, Bucks as a „very good gardener‟. William had two sons, also gardeners, whom he wished to be employed under him [John Harvey Early Nurserymen (Phillimore, 1974) p.97]. He is thought to have been the same man and the father of Samuel Lapidge (Brown‟s foreman and executor). 

The owner, Robert Nugent had been asked by the Earl of Essex to help at Cassiobury in 1756: 4 March 1756 `He [`N‟ – assumed to be the MP Robert Nugent] is en affaire reglée with Lady [assumed to be Essex]: at a supper there a few nights ago of two-and-twenty people, they were talking of his going to [assumed to be Cashiobury] to direct some alterations: Mrs N. in the softest infantine voice called out, `My Lady -, don‟t let him do anything out of doors, but you will find him delightful within!‟ Horace Walpole’s Correspondence ed. W.S.Lewis, 1961-1983 Vol. 37 p.447. In consequence, presumably, Samuel Lapidge is to be found working at Cassiobury, probably on `New Waters‟ inter alia from the spring of 1758 until the end of 1759 (Herts Record Office REC. Acc. 1758-9). 

Samuel Lapidge first crops up in Brown‟s Drummonds‟ accounts with a first single payment in 1767. None of this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to secure the attribution. See also the entry on Hartwell, below” (Phibbs & Stroud, 2016, p20-1).

Tatton Park: 

“It has long been suggested that there was correspondence from Brown in the Tatton papers, and this correspondence has been uncovered by Shields. It seems that Brown had been invited to advise at Tatton, and that he did provide a gardener. Unfortunately the first letter is undated and we do not currently have an unarguable indication that he did advise. However Brown‟s dated letter was sent in 1757, at the time when we know both that he was supplying gardeners to great houses and that he continued to advise the men once they had been appointed.

 „to Samuel Egerton esq at Tatton Park near Knutsford Trentham Sir, I was honoured by your Message at this Place and so Sorry that my Time is as to render it impossible for my Duty to you at Tatton Having been detained by several places. I hope soon …ble Opportunity will present which will be a great Pleasure Sir Your most obed. servt Lancelot Brown‟ [The University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, Tatton papers (EGT/3/7/6/2/44)] 

„to Samuel Egerton[?] Sir This informs you, I have found a Gardener that will answer to your Purpose he is ready & waits for your Orders, when and in what Manner you cou‟d have him come to Tatton Park. I am Sir Yr Your most Obed. Servant Lancelot Brown Hammersmith Sep 22 1757 The Survey of Fisherwick is not come yet.‟ [ibid. EGT/3/7/6/2/44/1] 

It is at least possible that Tatton was the „gentleman’s place in Cheshire‟ of which Price spoke: „there is an avenue of oaks situated much in the manner I have described [along the edge of a wood]; Mr. Brown absolutely condemned it; but it now stands, a noble monument of the triumph of the natural feelings of the owner, over the narrow and systematic ideas of a professed improver.‟ [Uvedale Price Essays on the Picturesque (1810 ed.) Vol. 1 Part 2 pp.249-250]. 

The new understanding of Brown‟s role as both a provider and an overseer of gardeners makes Tatton a very acceptable attribution, though we still have no guarantee that any of his advice was taken.” (Phibbs & Stroud, 2016, p40-1)

Wentworth Castle:

This has been a controversial attribution. There is no reference to Brown in the estate accounts and the best documentary

evidence is in the two editions of George Mason‟s An Essay on Design in Gardening

In the first, published in 1768, Mason praised the water at Wentworth Castle: `juster models of artificial disposition are by

no means wanting …Wentworth-Castle will shew you, how rivers can be imitated.‟ (p.50)

In the second, published in 1795, after Brown had died and in the first days of the Picturesque controversy, the passage is

given a very different character: „I will not pretend to give an opinion about BROWN‟s made rivers, because I have seen

very few – – – at least knowing them to be his. Perhaps he made that [river] at Wentworth-Castle, which from a very

imperfect view of it I had commended in the first edition of the essay: nor do I now retract the commendation, though I

have omitted repeating it merely on account of my insufficient acquaintance with that considerable piece of work. Why

BROWN should be charged with all the defects of those, that have called themselves his followers, I have seen no good

reason alleged, nor can I suppose it possible to produce one.‟(pp.130-131). The inference to be drawn here is that Mason

had mistakenly supposed that the water at Wentworth was not designed by Brown, and that he had been corrected. When

he came to publish his second edition he found himself in a difficult position, and so qualified his praise „which from a very

imperfect view of it I had commended…‟ and made his excuses. It is hard to put any other interpretation on the two

versions.

Dr Patrick Eyres has found an independant second source for the attribution in Joseph Wilkinson, Worthies, Families and

Celebrities of Barnsley and the District (London: Bemrose & Sons, 1883), pp. 444-446: “But this style of gardening had its day,

and a new fashion came into vogue, called the natural, irregular or landscape style. Quite a rage set in and in a few years

many of the gardens of our nobility underwent quite a transformation, the terraces, avenues, and geometric figures being

superseded by greater variety of landscape, in which the natural beauties of the situation were made to play a prominent

part. William Earl of Strafford, in the next generation, became a convert to this idea, and called in the aid of Launcelot

Brown, the most eminent landscape gardener of the day, and under his superintendence the grounds at Stainborough

[renamed Wentworth Castle in 1731] were re-formed and entirely changed. The terraces and gardens as then existing were

altered, – the approaches which were then straight, regular, and exact, were removed, and others introduced, in which

winding walks, easy and graceful slopes, and other changes were made, in which nature and ease were consulted, and they

were altered as we see them at the present day. Water was made to play a more prominent part, and the beauties of the

landscape, as forming a part of the whole, brought into requisition. The serpentine canal and the other sheets of water, so

judiciously disposed, were introduced, and with what success those of our readers who know the place may judge, At the

time Brown – Capability Brown – who possessed that force of genius which rendered him, according to Mason, – “The

living leader of thy powers, / Great nature,” was making these improvements, the elegant south front of the mansion had

been erected by Lord Strafford from his own designs, and such was the completeness and character of its architectural

details as a whole that the Hon. Horace Walpole says in his work “On Modern Gardening” … “.

Eyres has also suggested that the reference to „brownness‟ in Young‟s account might allude to Brown: ‘Wentworth-castle is

more famous for the beauties of the ornamented environs, than for those of the house, though the [Palladian] front is

superior to many. The water and the woods adjoining are sketched with great taste. The first extends through the park in a

meandering course, and wherever it is viewed, the terminations are no where seen, having every where the effect of a real

and very beautiful river; the groves of oaks fill up the bends of the stream in the justest-style. Here advancing thick to the

very banks of the water, there appearing at a distance, breaking away to a few scattered trees in some spots, and in others

joining their branches into the most solemn brownness. The water, in many places, is seen from the house between the

trees of several scattered clumps most picturesquely; in others, it is quite lost behind the hills, and breaks every where upon

the view in a style that cannot be too much admired.‟ [Arthur Young, A Six Months’ Tour through the North of England, 4 vols.

(London: [1769] 2nd edn., 1771, including “descriptions of the seats of the nobility and gentry”), vol. I, pp. 132-133

(Wentworth Castle: pp. 127-138)].

The landscape at Wentworth Castle is Brownian in character and very much of a piece with early works like Croome and

Wootton.

See also the entries on Latimer and Porter‟s. (Phibbs & Stroud, 2016, p44-5)

Bibliography:

Adkins, L., Adkins, R., 2017. Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege in British History. United Kingdom: Little, Brown Book Group.

Alsop, J.D., 1991. The age of the projectors: British imperial strategy in the North Atlantic in the war of Spanish succession. Acadiensis, 21(1), pp.30-53.

Anderson, F., 2001,. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. United States: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Baugh, D., 2021. The Global Seven Years War 1754–1763: Britain and France in a Great Power Contest. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Bilow, A., 2009. Royal African Company. BlackPast.org. https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/groups-organizations-global-african-history/royal-african-company-2/ 

Black, J., 2002. Britain As A Military Power, 1688-1815. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia., 2014. War of Jenkins’ Ear. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-Jenkins-Ear 

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia., 2024a. Hudson’s Bay Company. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/money/Hudsons-Bay-Company 

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia., 2024b. War of the Spanish Succession. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-the-Spanish-Succession

Cavanagh, E., 2013. Kingdom or Colony? English or British?: Early modern Ireland and the colonialism question. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, 14(2).

Childs, J.C.R. and Childs, J., 1991. The Nine Years’ War and the British Army, 1688-1697: The Operations in the Low Countries. Manchester University Press.

De Freitas, A.E., 2023. A Global Power Game: The Impact of the War of the Austrian Succession on Britain’s Naval Power and Colonial Influence 1740-1748 , The Prize Papers Projekt. Available at: https://www.prizepapers.de/stories/case-studies/the-war-of-the-austrian-succession (Accessed: 06 August 2024).

Dhondt, F., 2017. ‘Arrestez et pillez contre toute sorte de droit’: Trade and the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718–1720). Legatio: The Journal for Renaissance and Early Modern Diplomatic Studies, (1), pp.97-130. 

Farrell, G., 2022. The Irish and the economy of plantation Ulster. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature.

James, L., 1997. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. United States: St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

La Jeunesse, F., 2019. Anglo-Spanish Trade and Diplomacy 1712-1742.

Lovejoy, D. S., 2011. The Glorious Revolution in America. Ukraine: Wesleyan University Press.

McLean, S., 2014. War, slavery and empire, Global Maritime History. Available at: https://globalmaritimehistory.com/swingen_war_slavery_empire/ (Accessed: 06 August 2024). 

Minchinton, W.E., 1965. The Stamp Act Crisis: Bristol and Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 73(2), pp.145-155.

Rahman, A., Clarke, M.A. and Byrne, S., 2017. The art of breaking people down: The British colonial model in Ireland and Canada. Peace Research, pp.15-38.

Rivas Ibáñez, I., 2009. Mobilizing resources for war: the British and Spanish intelligence systems during the war of Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1744) (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).

Røge, P., 2024. ‘The seven years’ War in West Africa’, The Oxford Handbook of the Seven Years’ War, pp. 487–500. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197622605.013.19. 

Stroud, D. and Phibbs, J., 2016. A list of landscapes that have been attributed to ‘Capability’ Brown (Notes from the unpublished papers of Dorothy Stroud), www.capabilitybrown.org.uk. Available at: https://www.capabilitybrown.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160901AttributionsA-Z5th-ed..pdf  (Accessed: 12 June 2024). 

Temperley, H.W.V., 1912. Debates on the Declaratory Act and the Repeal of the Stamp Act, 1766. The American Historical Review, 17(3), pp.563-586.

Wolf, J. B., 1951. The emergence of the great powers : 1685 – 1715. United States: Harper & Row.

Wood, G.S., 2002. The American revolution: a history. Modern Library.