Preaching to Princes: John Burgess and George Hakewill in the Royal Pulpit

This article examines a previously unnoticed link between the Puritan John Burgess and the Calvinist conformist George Hakewill. In 1604 Burgess preached a court sermon so outspoken and critical of James I’s religious policy that he was imprisoned. Nearly twenty years later, however, Hakewill chose to incorporate extended passages from Burgess’s sermon into the series of sermons, King David’s vow (1621), preached to Prince Charles’s household. This article considers why Burgess’s sermon became so resonant for Hakewill in the early 1620s and also demonstrates how Hakewill deliberately sought to moderate Burgess’s strident polemic. In so doing the article provides important new evidence for the politically attuned sermon culture at Prince Charles’s court in the early 1620s and also suggests how, as the parameters for clerical conformity shifted in the latter years of James’s reign, Calvinist conformists found a new appeal in the works of moderate Puritans. I

Fabricating Economic Development

Much of the literature, regardless of academic discipline, presents the publication of Economic Development in 1958 as analogous to a"big bang" event in the creation of modern Ireland. However, such a "big bang" perspective misrepresents the sophistication of economic debates prior to Whitaker's report as well as distorting the interpretation of subsequent developments. This paper reappraises Irish economic thinking before and after the publication of Economic Development. It is argued that an economically "liberal" approach to Keynesianism, such as that favoured by T. K. Whitaker and George O'Brien, lost out in the 1960s to a more interventionist approach: only later did a more liberal approach to macroeconomic policy triumph. The rival approaches to academic economics were in turn linked to wider debates on the influence of religious authorities on Irish higher education. Academic economists were particularly concerned with preserving their intellectual independence and how a shift to planning would keep decisions on resource allocation out of the reach of conservative political and religious leaders.