No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Collusion and convergence in 18th‐century English political action
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
Extract
It is now more than thirty-five years since Sir Lewis Namier gave his famous shot in the arm to the study of the parliamentary politics of the 18th century. Under his impact, the great Tory and Whig monoliths have been effectively dethroned and their places taken by ‘connections’ and ‘groups’, by ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ – and among the ‘outs’ the ‘loyal’, or sometimes ‘factious’, opposition. But Namier's preoccupations, and the enthusiasm they inspired, far from stimulating research into the whole field of political action, have rather had the effect of confining its operation to Parliament alone. Hence, the unofficial opposition – that of the ‘political nation’ without-doors – has tended to be neglected. Yet, in this more spontaneous, unofficial opposition from ‘without doors’, it is instructive to see the way in which different actions, starting in different quarters of the community converge for more or less brief periods and exert a common pressure. Anomic and associational movements, social protest and political demands, well-organized and clear-sighted interest groups and ‘directaction’ crowds, leaders and followers come together in a chorus of united opposition, in which, however, the individual parts can still be distinguished and identified.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1966
References
1 See Pearl, Valerie, The City of Lodon and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution, 1961, pp. 107–59.Google Scholar
2 See Morley, Iris, A Thousand Lives. An Account of The English Revolutionary Movement, 1660–1685, London, 1954.Google Scholar
3 Sutherland, Lucy S., ‘The City of London in Eighteenth‐Century Politics,’ in Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, ed. Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J.P., 1956, pp. 53–55. For an explanation of this opposition, see ibid., pp. 55–8.Google Scholar
4 Isaac, D. G. D., ‘A Study of Popular Disturbances in Britain, 1714–1754’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1953, pp. 143–85 (consulted by permission of the Librarian of the University of Edinburgh)Google Scholar
5 Mitchell, A. A., ‘London and the Forty‐Five,’History Today, 10 1965, pp. 719–26.Google Scholar
6 Sutherland, op. cit., pp. 62–3; R.R. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, 3 vols., 1895, iii, pp. 479,368.
7 See my article, “‘Mother Gin,” and the London Riots of 1736,’The Guildhall Miscellany, no. 10, September 1959, pp. 53–62.
8 Perry, Thomas W., Public Opinion, Propaganda, and Politics in Eighteenth‐Century England. A Study of theJewish Naturalization Act of 1753, Cambridge Mass., 1962 Google Scholar
9 See Sharpe, op. cit., iii, pp. 38, 48, 58–65.
10 Sutherland, Lucy S., The City of London and the Opposition to Government, 1768–1774, 1959, pp. 10–11. Strictly speaking, the term ‘radicalism’ applied to a political movement is an anachronism, as it was only invented by the Benthamites in the 1830s. But I use it here, as no doubt, Dr Sutherland does too, for the sake of convenience.Google Scholar
11 C.Hill, The century of Revolution, 1603–1714, 1961.
12 See my article, ‘The London “Mob” of the Eighteenth Century,’ The Historical Journal, 11, No. I, 1959, pp. 1–18.
13 For the above, see my Wilkes and Liberty. A Social Study of 1763 to I774, Oxford, 1962. For the geographical limits of the Willrite and radical movement in 1774, see Christie, I.R., ‘The Wilkites and the General Election of 1774,’The Guild hall Miscellany, 11, No. 4, 1962, pp. 155–64; and Sutherland, op. cit., pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
14 For the reform movement of 1779–82, see I. R. Christie, Wilkes, Wilkes and Reform, 1962; and far the radical‐Tory line‐up against the Fox‐North coalition in Yorkshire, see Phillips, N. C., Yorkshire and English Natwnal Politics, 1783–1784, Christchurch, N.Z., 1961.Google Scholar
15 See my article, ‘The Gordon Riots. A Study of the Rioters and their Victims,’Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, vi, 1956, 93–114
16 Sutherland, ‘The City of London in Eighteenth‐Century Poltics’, p. 73. It should be noted that the City's own radicalism, though wrenched from its popular moorings, did not die a sudden death. In the aftermath of the riots, it fought a protracted duel with the government over its claim to form voluntary associations with their own appointed officers—ostensibly to protect City properties against ‘the rabble’, but also as an assertion of its traditional privileges against ministeriaI encroachment. (See my article, ‘Some Financial and Military Aspects of the Gordon Riots’, The Guildhall Miscellany, no. 6, February 1956, pp. 31–42.)
17 Lecky, W.E.H., A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, 7 VOlS., 1906, iv, 299–300.Google Scholar
18 See my ‘The Gordon Riots. A Study of the Rioters and their Victims,’ pp. 108–112.
19 Rose, R.B., ‘The Priestley Riots of 1791,’Past and Present, 11 1960, pp. 68–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Yet there is little justification for calling the whole crop of London industrial disputes of 1768–9 ‘an outbreak of political strikes’ (see Raymond Postgate, That Devil Wilkes, 1956, p. 181; and Wilkes and Liberty, pp. 90–104).
21 Cambridge University Library, Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS. P/70, file 2/14 (consulted by permission of the Most Hon. the Marquess of Chohondeley).
22 Middlesex Journal, 13–15 April 1769.
23 Perry, op. cit., pp. 72–122.
24 Lime Street Wardmote Minute Book, 178–1866, Guildhall Library, MS. 1169/12, p. 2.
25 ‘Proceedings of the Common Council’ (7 June 1780), Corp. London R.O., Box 18, no. 32.
26 See my The Gordon Riots …, p. 102.
27 Thomas, Peter D. G., ‘John Wikes and the Freedom of the Press (1771),’Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxxiii, 05 1960, pp. 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Archdeacon William Coxe, Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, 3 vols., 1798, III, p. 357.