Sarah Kinkel discusses the royal navy from the late seventeenth century to the American Revolution, and, reflecting a trend among naval scholars to move away from narrow institutional histories, examines the connections between naval affairs, imperial politics, and popular political culture across the British Atlantic world. Kinkel revises previous ideas of how and why the navy developed across this period, contending that the geographic, economic, institutional, and tactical factors that scholars have highlighted are important components, but provide an incomplete explanation. She persuasively argues that a vital dimension has been largely overlooked by naval historians of the eighteenth century: political conflict within the imperial ruling class, and beyond, over the purpose of the navy and the best way to realize this purpose. Challenging notions of a “fundamental consensus” in eighteenth-century naval politics (8), Kinkel argues that “[d]ebates over the navy were intimately connected with questions of imperial governance and the nature of the British constitution, two of the most divisive issues” of the day (17). She not only uncovers persistent conflict and explains its significance but shows how the navy was both a microcosm of, and a focal point for disputes over, the nature and future of the empire.

The book begins with foundations laid in the later seventeenth century, when naval activity grew in scope and scale, but the navy was “implicated in the most explosive political debates of the 1660s–1680s” (40). With the appearance of nascent political parties at the turn of the eighteenth century, competing naval visions coalesced, the Tories supporting territorial control and centralized power, while the Whigs prioritized free trade and colonial markets. Kinkel then traces the subsequent development of these ideologies and their implications for naval and imperial government, especially the variants of Whig ideology. By the 1720s, when war with Spain and competition between the South Sea Company and independent traders provoked public controversies, the Whigs had split into “establishment” and “dissident” groups, the latter sometimes aligned with the Tories in opposition, but rarely in agreement with them. Once again, “different imperial and foreign policy aspirations [meant] the naval policies they would have required were mutually incompatible” (65).

These divisions continued into mid-century, leading to significant change. Political contests over naval reforms in the later 1740s reflected conflicting views of British society. The dissident Whigs had divided further, into “authoritarian whigs,” who feared disorder from below and sought greater uniformity and discipline in the navy and elsewhere, and “patriots,” who were more concerned over corruption and the growing power of the government through professional military forces. The authoritarian Whigs, in control of the admiralty, implemented their schemes for a more hierarchical and strictly managed navy, but faced concerted opposition in print and Parliament. The Seven Years’ War brought further discord, particularly provoked by the trial and execution of Admiral Byng, and the patriots continued to propose an alternative imperial approach using privateers and militia rather than navy and army. Even after victory in the war seemed to vindicate the authoritarian Whigs, the navy provoked considerable resentment in Britain and its empire for the increasingly heavy taxes required to finance it and for its role in enforcing imperial control with consequent encroachments upon common law and liberty. These tensions fed into the American Revolution, and defeat in the ensuing war reignited debate about the navy in Britain.

Throughout this period, then, “The navy was not exempt from the ongoing political ferment taking place across the British Empire … [but] was a mirror for imperial society” (217). Disagreements about imperial society catalyzed naval policy and brought a cultural and strategic shift from an inherently defensive navy to a more aggressive one. At the same time, the navy created by the authoritarian Whigs simultaneously enforced a particular model of this society and generated widespread resistance. Kinkel's masterful narrative thus shows, in a new and insightful way, the impact of the navy on the empire, and of the empire on the navy. She bases this narrative on a range of evidence, from government archives to newspapers, magazines, ballads, and cartoons, illustrating the very public arena in which many of these debates occurred: the book contains particularly detailed discussions of the 1749 Navy Bill and Byng's trial, both of which generated much comment at the time.

The scope of this study could, perhaps, have been pushed further in some ways. Even with its attention to public opinion, Kinkel's focus remains largely on Westminster, and the navy appears at times as the passive object of politicians’ and pamphleteers’ machinations. It would be valuable to consider the navy itself as a site of confrontation, not just as the subject of it—this appears briefly at times, especially in the discussion of the 1740s reforms, but is lost elsewhere. Similarly, concentrating on the “Anglo-imperial world” (and more specifically the Atlantic region of that world) makes sense, but a case could be made for more international comparison. Kinkel does a good job of placing British political developments within the context of imperial diplomacy, but were similar debates over sea power and society occurring in France, Spain, or the Netherlands? Given scholarly debate over Britain's preeminence as a naval empire, and increasing recognition that imperial worlds were deeply entangled with one another, this aspect is worthy of further consideration.

While these alternative perspectives might be of advantage to the analysis offered in Kinkel's book, it is nevertheless a compelling discussion in and of itself. Putting the navy back into politics, and politics back into the navy, provides a more coherent understanding of Britain and its empire during the eighteenth century, as Disciplining the Empire demonstrates in an eminently readable fashion.