When it comes to the study of eighteenth-century British politics, the barrier to entry can seem either deceptively simple or surprisingly difficult. At first glance an understanding of the period appears to be a straightforward matter of defining the terms Whig and Tory, the names of the two political parties through the eighteenth century. Yet definitions are hardly straightforward, especially considering there is good reason to wonder if the terms define anything at all; and if they do, their meaning changes significantly over the course of the era. In his essay “Of the Parties of Great Britain,” David Hume admits that “to determine the nature of these parties is, perhaps, one of the most difficult problems that can be met with, and is a proof that history may contain questions as uncertain as any to be found in the most abstract sciences.”

Hume was not alone in struggling with this problem, which continues to frustrate students of the period today. These terms do not have exact modern equivalents, and it can be anachronistic, even misleading, to link them with current categories such as “liberal” or “conservative.” But the frustration posed by Whig and Tory is only the beginning, as the terms permutate into Hanoverian and Jacobite, Court and Country, and the ever-vexatious Patriot, which can be applied, for good or ill, to all or none. Complicated twists and turns of policy, as new monarchs and ministries followed old, and supporters of one war opposed the next, make it difficult to figure out what the parties stood for.