thompson patrician society

7/29/2019 Thompson Patrician Society

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thompson-patrician-society 1/25

Peter N. Stearns

Patrician Society, Plebeian CultureAuthor(s): E. P. ThompsonSource: Journal of Social History, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1974), pp. 382-405Published by: Peter N. StearnsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463 .

Accessed: 06/10/2011 18:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Peter N. Stearns is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Social

History.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pns

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pns



E.P. THOMPSON

PATRICIAN OClElY,PLEBEIANCULWRE

The relationsbetweenthe gentryand the laboringpeoplein eighteenth-centuryEngland reoftencharacterizeds"paternalist."This s,oneshould

note,a characterizationeen"fromabove.") f we enter hisdiscussion ithan ill-defined otionof "popular ulture"we willendup tradingnstancesagainst achother:thisevidence f paternalistontrolhere, hatevidence fnot or disturbancehere.It maybehelpful,beforewe attempt o examine"popularulture,"o attend o certain spects f what snor "culture."

Whatwerethe institutions,n the eighteenthentury,whichenabledherulers o obtain,directlyor indirectly, controloverthe whole life of thelaborer,sopposedo thepurchase,eriatim,ofhislaborpower?

Themostsubstantialactliesontheothersideof thequestion.This s thecenturywhichsees the erosionof half-freeormsof labor,the declineofliving-in,hefinalextinction f labor eraricesnd headvancef free,mobilewage abor.Thiswasnot aneasyor quick ransition.Hillhasreminded softhelongresistancemadeby the free-born nglishmangainsthe pottageoffreewage abor.Oneshouldnoteequally he longresistancemadeby theirmasters gainst omeof its consequences.hesewisheddevoutlyo have hebestof boththe oldworldandthenew,without hedisadvantagesf either.

Mr. Thompson is authorof Ne Makingof the EngNishWorkingClass.He wishes toapologizefor ffie absenceof footnotes. Thispapercombinesmaterial,all of which s in

active preparationfor publication. A study of anonymousletters will appearin acollectivevolumeon CEimendSocietyin EnWandn the 18th Century to be publishedin 1974), editedby DouglasHay,PeterLinebaugh ndMr.Thompson.Othermaterial nanonymousagrarian rotest willappearn his studyof the originsof the "Waltham lackAct" of 1723, 9 GeorgeI. c. 22 (forthcoming); ndthe mainargument f thispaper,onpaternalism nd deference,will be presented n his forthcomingvolume of studiesineighteenth-centuryocialhistory,entitledCustoms in Common.



PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE 383

They clung to the imageof the laboreras an unfreeman, a "servant:"servant n husbandry,n the workshop, n the house. (They clung simulZtaneously o the imageof the free or masterlessmanas a Yagabond,o bedisciplined,whipped and compelled o work.) But crops could not beharvested, loth couldnot be manufactured,oodscouldnot be transported,housescouldnot be built and parks nlarged,without abor eadily vailableandmobile, or whom t wouldbe inconvenient r impossibleo accept hereciprocities f the master-servantelationship. he masters isclaimedheirpaternalresponsibilities;ut they did not cease, for many decades, ocomplain t the breachof the "great aw of subordination,"he diminutionof deference,hatensuedupon heirdisclaimer:

The Lab'ringPoor, in spight of double Pay,Are saucy, mutinous, and Beggarly.

The most characteristicomplaint hroughout he greaterpart of thecenturywas as to the indiscipline f workingpeople, their irregularityfemployment,heir ackof economicdependency nd heir ocial nsubordina-tion. Defoe, who was not a conventional low wages" heorist,and whocould on occasion ee merit n higherwageswhich ncreasedhe consumingpowerof "manufacturers"r of "artificers,"tated he full case n his Great

Law of SubordinationConsider'd; r, the Insolence and UnsufferableBehgriour f Serrantsn England uly enquir'dnto (1724). He argued hatthrough he insubordinationf servants:

Husbandmen are ruin'd, the Farmers disabled, Manufacturersand

Artificers plung'd, to the Destruction of Trade... and that no Menwho, in the Course of Business, employ Numbers of the Poor, candepend upon any Contracts they make, or perform any thing theyundertake,having no Law, no Power . . . to oblige the Poor to performhonestly what they are hir'd to do.

Under a stop of Trade, and a general want of Work, then they areclamorous and mutinous, run from their Families, load the Parisheswith their Wivesand Children . . and . . . grow ripe for all manner ofmischief, whetherpublick Insurrection,or privateplunder.

In a Glut of Tradethey grow saucy, lazy, idle, and debauch'd . . theywill Workbut two or three Days in the Week.

Paternalist ontrol over the whole life of the laborerwas in fact being

eroded;wageassessmentell into desuetude;he mobilityof labor s manifest;the vigorof eighteenth-centuryiring-fairs,statutes" r "statties," roclaimthe rightof the rural as well as urban) aborer o claim f he so wished,achange f master.Moreover,here s evidence in the veryrefusal f laborers



384 journal f socialhistory

to submitto the work-disciplineemanded f them) of the growthof anewly-wonpsychologyof the free laborer. n one of Defoe's moralistic

anecdotes, he J.P. summons he cloth workerupon a complaint rom hisemployerhathis workwasbeingneglected:

Justice. Come in Edmund, I have talk'd ssith your Master.

Edmund. Not my Master,andst please your Worships I hope I am my

own Master

Justice. Well, your Employer, Mr. E--, the Clothier: will the word

Employer do?

Edmund. Yes yes, and't please your Worship, any thing, but Master.

This is a largechange n the termsof relations: ubordinations becoming(although etween rossly nequal arties) egotiation

The eighteenth enturywitnesseda qualitative hange n laborrelationswhosenature s obscuredf we see it only in termsof an increasen the scaleand volume of manufacture nd trade. This occurred,of course. But itoccurred n such a way that a substantial roportion f the laborforce

actuallybecamemore free fromdisciplinen theirdailywork,morefree tochoosebetweenemployers nd betweenworkand eisure, ess situated n apositionof dependencen theirwholeway of life, than fieyhadbeenbeforeor than they wereto be in the first decades f the discipline f the factoryandof the clock.

This was a transitory hase,with threeprominenteatures.Firstwas theloss of non-monetary sagesor perquisites, r theirtranslationnto moneypayments. Such usages were still extraordinarilyervasive n the earlyeighteenthcentury. They favored paternalsocial control because theyappeared imultaneously s economicand as social relations,as relations

betweenmen not as paymentsor services r things.Mostevidently, o eat atonessemployer's oard, o lodge n his barnor abovehis workshop,was tosubmit to his supervision. n the great house the servantswho weredependentupon "vails"from visitors,the clothing of the mistress, heclandestineperquisitesof the surplusof the larder, spent a lifetimeingratiating avors. In the unenclosedvillage,access to common rightsdepended artlyuponexpressed tatuswiiin the social conomy whethercopyholderor cottager),partly upon unexpressed r informalstatus-alaborerwho had won the goodopinionof neighbors ndwho was lnlikely ofall on the poor rateswas more ikely to get awaywith erecting cottageatthe roadside r grazinghe oddbeastwherehe hadno statutory right."Eventhe multiformperquisiteswithin industry increasingly eingredefined s"theft," were more likely to starvive here he workers ccepted hem asfavors ndsubmittedo a filialdependency.



PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTUE 385

Onoccasion,one catchesa glimpseof the extinctionof a perquisiterservicewhichmusthave induceda shockto paternal ontrol out of allproportiono the economicgainto the employer.ThuswhenSirJonathanTrelawney,s Bishopof Winchester,asseeking o increase he revenue fhis see, he employedas Steward ne Heron,a manstrongly ommittedoruthlesseconomicrelationalization. mong accusationsbroughtagainstHeron, n 1707,by tenantsandsubordinatefficialsof the Biffiop'sCourtswere hat:

He breakesold Customes . . in MinuteandSmallmatters,whichareofSmall value to your Lordshipp,... he has denyed to Allow five

Shillings at Walthamto the Jury att the Court... to drinke yourLordshipps health, a Custome that has beene used time out ofMind, . . he has denyedyour Lordshipp'sStewardandOfficersa smallperquisiteof haveingtheire horses shoo'datt WalthamAccording o anAntient usage which never Exceeded above Six or Seven Shillings,.. .he denied your Lordshipp'sTennantsTimber or the repaireof SeverallBridgesandCommonpounds.

'rOhisHeron eplied,omewhatestily:

I own, I affect sometimesto Intermitthose minuteCustomsas he callsthem because I observethat your Predecessor's avoursare prescribedfor againstyour Lordship&insistedon as Rights, &then your Lordshipis not thanked for them; Besides though they are Minute, yet manyMinuteExpences . . amountto a Sumeat the end.

In such ways economicrationalization ibbled(and had long beennibbling)hroughhe bondsof paternalism.heother eadingeature f thistransitional eriodwas of coursethe enlargementf that sectorof theeconomywhichwasindependent f a subject elationshipo thegentry. he

"subject"conomyremained uge:not onlythe direct etainersf thegreathouse, he chambermaidsnd ootmen,coachmenndgrooms ndgardeners,the gamekeepers nd laundresses,but the furtherconcentricrings ofeconomic lientship-the questrianrades nd uxury rades,hedressmakersandpastrycooksandvintners,he coachmakers,heinnkeepersndostlers.

But the centurysawa growing reaof independence ithinwhichthesmallemployers nd aborerselt theirclientrelationshipo thegentryverylittleor not at all.Thesewerethe peoplewhomthe gentry aw as"idleanddisorderly,"withdrawnrom their socialcontrol;from amongthese-the

clothingworkers,urbanartisans, olliers5 argees ndporters,aborers ndpetty dealers n the food trades-thesocialrebels,the food or turnpikenoters,were ikelyto come.Theyretainedmanyof theattributesommonlyascribed o "pre-industrialabor."Working ften in theirown cottages,owningor hiringtheir own tools, usuallyworking or smallemployers,



386 journalof socialhistory

frequently working irregularhours and at more than one job, they hadescaped from the social controls of the manorialvillage and were not yet

subjectto the disciplineof factorylabor.Many of their economic dealingsmight be with men and women littlehigherin the economic hierarchy han themselves.Their"shopping"wasnotdone in emporiumsbut at market stalls;and the cottageror small farmer'swives would trudgein at dawn to the markettown, and set their basketsofeggs, fruit and vegetables,butter and poultry, at the side of the square.Thepoor state of the roadsmadenecessarya multitudeof local markets,at whichexchangesof products between primaryproducersmight still be unusuallydirect.In the 1760s,

Hard-labouring olliers, men andwomen of Somersetshireand Glou-cestershire, travelled to divers neighbouring towns with drifts of

horses... laden with coals.... It wascommonto see suchcolliers adeor fill a two bushel coal sack with articles of provisions. . . of beef,mutton, largehalf striptbeef bones, staleloavesof bread,andpiecesofcheese.

Such markets and, even more, the seasonal fairs provided not only aneconomicbut a culturalnexus.

In many regions, the people had not been shakenaltogetherfrom somesketchy enure of the land. Since much industrialgrowthtook the form,

notofconcentration nto largeunits of production,but of the dispersalof pettyunits and of by-employments (especially spinning) there were additionalresourcesor "independence."This independencewas for many never farfrommere subsistence:a bountifulharvestmightbnng momentaryaffluence,a ong wet seasonmightthrowpeople onto the poor rates.But it was possibleformany to knit together this subsistence,from the common, from harvestandoccasional manualearnings, rom by-employments n the cottage, fromdaughtersn service, from poor rates or charity.And undoubtedlysome ofthepoor followed their own predatoryeconomy, like "the abundanceofloose,dle anddisorderly

persons"who werealleged, n the time of GeorgeII,to ive on the marginsof EnfieldChase,and who "infest the same,going indarkights,with Axes, Saws,Bills,CartsandHorses,andin goingandcomingRobhonest people of their sheep, lambs and poultry...." Such personsappeargainand againin criminalrecords,estate correspondence,pamphletandress;they appearstill, in the 1790s, in the agricultural ountrysurveys;theyannothavebeen wholly a ruling-classnvention.Thus the independence of labor (and small master) from clientagewas

fosteredn the one hand by the translationof non-monetary"favors" ntopayments;nd on the other by the extension of tradeand industryon the

basisf the multiplicationof many small units of production,with muchby-employmentespeciallyspinning)coincidentwith manycontinuing ormsofetty landtenure(or commonright)andmanycasualdemarldsor manuallabor. his is an indiscriminatepicture, and deliberately so. Economichistoriansave made many carefuldiscriminationsbetween different groups



PATRICIANOCIEW,PLEBI CULTUE 387

of laborers.Butthesearenot relevanto ourpresent nquiry.Norwere hese

discriminationsommonlymadeby commentatorsrom among he gentrywhenthey consideredhe general roblem f the "insubordination"f labor.Rather, hey saw beyond he parkgates,beyond he railings f the Londonmansion, blur of indiscipline-the"idle and disorderly,"the mob," the"populace"-andhey deplored-

their open scoffings at all discipline, religious as well as civil: theircontempt of all order, frequent menace to all justice, and extreme

promptitude o tumultuousrisings rom the slightestmotives.

It is, as always,an indiscriminateomplaint gainst he populace s a whole.

Free labor had broughtwith it a weakening f the old means of socialdiscipline. o far froma confWldentatriarchalociety, he eighteenthenturysees he old paternalismt a pointof crisis.

II

And yet one feels that "crisis" s too stronga term.If the complaintcontinues hroughouthe century hatthe poor were ndisciplined,nminal,prone o tumultand riot,one never eels,before he FrenchRevolution,hatthe rulers of Entand conceivedthat their whole socialordermight beendangered. heinsubordinationf the poor was an inconvenience;t wasnot a menace.Thestylesof politicsand of architecture,he rhetoric f thegentry and their decorativearts, all seem to proclaimstability, self-confidence, habitof managng ll threatso theirhegemony.

We may of coursehave overstatedhe crisisof paternalism.n directingattention to the parasitism f the State at the top, and the erosion oftraditionalelations y free aboranda monetary conomy t the bottom,wehave overlookedntermediateevelswhere the older economichouseholdcontrolsremainedtrong,and we haveperhaps nderstatedhe scaleof the"subject" r "client" reas f the economy.Thecontrolwhichmenof power

and moneystillexercised ver he whole ife andexpectationsf thosebelowthem remained normous, nd if paternalism as in crisis,the industrialrevolutionwas to showthat crisismustbe taken everal tagesurther-as arasPeterloo nd heSwingRiots-beforet lost all credibility.

Nevertheless,he analysisallowsus to see that ruling-classontrol n theeighteenth enturywas located primarilyn a cultural egemony, nd onlysecondarilyn anexpression f economic r physicalmilitary) ower.To saythat it was "cultural"s not to say that it was immaterial,oo fragile oranalysis,nsubstantial.o definecontroln terms f cultural egemonys notto gve up attemptsat analysis,but to prepareor analysis t the pointsat

which t shouldbemade: nto the images f powerandauthority,he popularmentalities f subordination.

Defoe's ictionalcloth worker, alledbefore he magistrateo account ordefault, ffersa clue:"notmyMaster,and'tplease ourWorship,hopeI ammy own Master."The deferencewhichhe refuses o his employer, verflowsin the calculated bsequiousnesso "yourWorship." e wishes o struggle



388 journalof socialhistory

freefromthe immediate, aily,humiliationsf dependency. utthe largeroutlinesof power, stationin life, politicalauthority appear o be asinevitablendirreversibles

theearthand llesky.Culturalegemony f thiskind nduces xactlysucha stateof mind nwhich heestablishedtructuresof authority ndevenmodesof exploitation ppearo be in theverycourseof nature.Thisdoesnot preclude esentment r evensurreptitiousctsofprotest rrevenge;t doesprecludeffirmativeebellion.Thegentry n eighteenthenturyEnglandxercisedhiskindof hegem-ony. Andtheyexercisedt allthe moreeffectivelyince herelation f rulerto ruledwasveryoftennot face-to-faceutindirect.Absenteeandowners,and the ever-presentmediationof bailiffsapart,the emergence f thethree-tierystemof landowner,enantfarmer ndlandlessaborer,meant

thatthe ruralaborers,n the mass,didnotconfronthegentry semployersnor were the gentryseen to be in any directsenseresponsibleor theirconditions f life;fora sonor daughtero be taken nto service tthegreathousewasseen o be,notanecessitybutafavor.

And n otherwaystheywerewithdrawnromthe polarities f economicandsocialantagonism.Whenhe priceof foodrose, hepopularage elinoton the landowners ut upon middlemen,orestallers,millers.Thegentrymightprofit romthe saleof wool,but theywerenot seento be ina directexploitiveelationo theclothingworkers.In thegrowingndustrialreas,hegentry .P. requentlyived

withdrawnfrom he main ndustrialenters, t his country eat andhe wasat pains opreserveomeimageof himselfasarbitrator, ediator r evenprotector fthepoor.It wasa common iew fiat"wherevertradesmansmadeajusticea yrant s created."Thepoor aws, f harsh,werenot administeredirectlyby hegentry;where herewasblamet couldfallupon hepoor-ratearingfarmersnd tradesmenromamongwhomthe overseersame.Langbornepresentsheidealized aternalisticture;xhortinghecountryustice o

bend the browsevereOnthe sly, pilfering,cruel

overseer;Theshufflingfarmer, aithfulto no trust,Ruthlessas rocks,insatiateas the dust.When he poor hind,with lengthof yearsdecay'd,Learls eebly on his once subduing pade,Forgotthe serviceof his ablerdays,Hisprofitabletoil, andhonestpraise,Shallthis low wretchabridgehis scantybread,Thisslave,whoseboardhis former aboursspread!

And,nceagain,at leasta ghostlymage f paternalesponsibilitiesouldbemaintainedt very ittlerealoutlay n effort.ThesameJ.P.whoin hisownclosed arishaggravatedhe problems f povertyelsewhere,by refusingsettlementsnd by pullingdown the cottageson the common,couldatquarteressions,by grantinghe occasional ppealagainsthe overseersf




otheropen parishes, r by calling o order he corruptworkhousemaster,

placehimself bove he linesof battle.Wehavethe paradoxhatthe credibilityf the gentry s paternalistsrosefromthehighvisibility f certainof their unctions, nd he lowvisibility fothers.A greatpartof the gentry's ppropriationf the laborvalueof thepoorwasmediatDdy their enantry, y tradeor by taxation.Physicallyheywithdrewncreasinglyromface-to-faceelationswiththe people n village rtown.The rage ordeerparks nd he threatof poachersed to the closure frightsof way across heirparksand theirencirclement ithhighpalings rwalls; andscape ardening, ith ornamental atersand fishponds,menag-eriesandvaluable tatuary, ccentuatedheir secretion nd the defenses f

their grounds,whichmightbe enteredonly throughhe highwroughtrongates,watchedoverby the lodge. Thegreatgentryweredefended y theirbailiffs rom theirtenants,andby theircoachmenrom casual ncounters.Theymet the lowersort of people mainlyon their own terms,and whenthesewere clients for theirfavors; n the formalities f the bench;or oncalculatedccasions f popular atronage.

Butin performinguch functions heirvisibilitywas formidable,ustastheir formidablemansionsmposedheirpresence, part rom,but guardingover, the villageor town. Their appearancesavemuchof the studiedself-consciousnessf publictheatre.The swordwas discarded,xceptforceremonial urposes; ut the elaboration f wig and powder,ornamentedclothingand canes,and eventhe rehearsedatricianestures nd he hauteurof bearing nd expression, llweredesignedo exhibitauthorityo the plebsand to exact fromthem deference.Andwith this went certain ignificantritualappearances:he ritualof the hunt;the pompof assizes andallthetheatricaltyle of the law courts);he segregatedews,the lateentriesandearlydepartures,t church.And fromtimeto timetherewereoccasionsoran enlargedceremonial,which had wholly paternalist unctions:thecelebrationf a marriage, coming-of-age,nationalestival coronationr

jubileeor naval ictory),healms-givingo the poorat a funeral.Wehaveherea studiedandelaborate egemonictyle, a theatricalole n

whichthe greatwere schooled n infancyandwhich hey maintainedntildeath.And if we speak f it as theater,t is not to diminishtsimportance.great part of politicsand law is always heater;once a socialsystemhasbecome"set," t does not need to be endorsed ailyby exhibitionsf power(although ccasional unctuationsf forcewill be made o define he limitsof the system's olerance); hatmattersmore s a continuingheatricaltyle.Whatone remarksf the eighteenth enturys elaborationf this styleandthe self-consciousnessithwhich t wasdeployed.

Thegentryand(in matters f social ntercourse)heir adies udged o anicetythe kindsof conspicuousisplay ppropriateo eachrankandstation:what coach,howmany ootmen,what able,evenwhatpropereputationor"liberality." he show wasso convincinghat it hasevenmisledhistorians;one noticesan increasing umberof referenceso the "paternalesponsi-bilities"of the aristocracy,pon which"the wholesystemrested."Butwe



390 journal of social history

haveso farnotedgestures ndpostures ather hanactual esponsibilities.he

theaterof the greatdependednot upon constant,day-by-day ttention oresponsibilitiesexcept n the supreme fficesof State)almost very unctionof the eighteenth-centuryristocracy,ndmanyof thoseof the higher entryand clergy, was held as a quasi-sinecurehose dutieswere farmedout tosubordinates)ut uponoccasional ramaticnterventions:he roasted x, theprizesoffered or someraceor sport, :he iberaldonation o charityn timeof dearth, he applicationor mercy, he proclamationgainstorestallers.tis as if the illusion of paternalism as too fragile o be riskedto moresustainedxposure.

The occasions of aristocratic nd gentry patronage ertainlydeserve

attention: his social ubncantof gestures ould only too easily makethemechanisms f power and exploitation evolvemore sweetly. The poor,habituated o their irrevocable tation, have often been madeaccessories,through heir own good nature, o their own oppression; year of shortcommons anbe oompensatedor by a liberalChristmasole.

But such gestureswere calculated o receiere return n deference uitedisproportionateo the outlay and hey certainly on'tmerit he descriptionof "responsibilities.' hesegreatagrarian ourgeois nnced little sense ofpublic,or even corporate, esponsibility. he century s not noted for thescale of its publicbuildings ut for that of its privatemansions; nd is asmuchnoted for the misappropriationf the charities f previous enturies sfor the founding f new ones.

One public function the gentry assumedwholly as their own: theadministrationf the law,the maintenance,t timesof crisis of publicorder.At this point they becamemagisteriallyndportentously isible.Responsi-bility this certainlywas although t was a responsibility,n the first and nthe secondplace, to their own property nd authority.With egularity ndwith awful solemnitythe limits of toleranceof the social system werepunctuated y London'shangingdays;by the corpse ottingon the gibbet

beside he highway; y the processionalf Asslzes.However ndesirableheside-effects the apprentices nd servantsplaying ruant rom service,,hefestivalof pickpockets, he acclamation f the condemned) he ritualofpublicexecutionwas a necessary oncomitant f a systemof socialdisciplinewhere greatdealdepended pon heater.

III

If the greatwere wiffidrawno much,within their parks nd mansions,from publicview, t followsthat the plebs, n manyof theiractivities,were

withdrawnalso from them. Effective paternalsway requiresnot onlytemporal ut also spintualor psychicauthority. t is herethat we seemtofindthe systemsweakestiS.

It would not be difficult o find, in this parishor in that, ei«teenth-century lergy ulfilling,with dedication, aternalistunctions.Butwe know



PATRICIANOCIETY,LEBIAN ULTURE 391

verywellthatthesearenot characteristicen.ParsonAdamssdrawn, otto

exemplifyhe practices f the clergy but to criticizehem;he maybe seen,at once,as the DonQuixoteof ie eighteenth-centurynfiicanChurch. heChurchwasprofoundlyErastian;ad it performed n effective,a psychologicallycompellingpaternalistole, the Methodtstmovementwouldhavebeenneithernecessaryorpossible.

All this couldno doubtbe qualified.Butwhat s centralo ourpurposesthat the "magcal"commandof the Churchand of its ritualsoverthepopulace,whilestillpresent,wasbecoming eryweak.In the sixteenffi nd

seventeenthenturies, uritanismadsetout to destroyhebondsof idolatryandsuperstition-thewaysideshrines,he gaudychurches,he localmiracle

cults,the superstition ractices,he confessional riesthood-which,s onemay still see in Eireor in partsof southernEurope oday,canhold thcommonpeople n awe.TheRestorationouldnot restorea tissueof papistidolatryor which,n anycase,Englandadneverbeennotablydisposed.Butthe Restoration idloosenthe newbondsof discipline hichPuntanismadbrought n its place.Therecan be little doubt that the earlyeidlteenthcenturywitnessed greatrecessionn Puritanism,ndthe diminutionnthesizeof the popularPuritanollowing ven n thoseartisanenterswhichhadrlourishedhe Cinl Warsects. In the result, therewas an accessionof

freedom,aliough of a negativekind, to the poor-a freedom rom thepsychicdisciplinendmoral upervisionf priesthoodrof presbyters.A pnesthoodwith active pastoralcare has usuadly ound ways of

co-existingwith the paganor heretical uperstitionsf its flock.Howeverdeplorableuch compromisesmayappearo ffieologians,he priest earnsthat manyof thebeliefsandpractices f "folklore'areharmless;f attachedto the calendarearof the Churchheycan be to thatdegreeChristianized,andcanserve o reinforcehe Church'suthority.Whatmattersmost s thatthe Church hould in its rituals,commandhe ritesof passage f personallife,andattach hepopularestivalso itsowncalendar.

TheAnglicanChurch f the eighteenthentllrywas not a creaturef thiskmd.It wasservednot by priestsbut by parsons.t had,except n unusualnstances, bandonedhe confessional.t recruitedew sonsof thepoor ntothe priesthood.Whenso manypriestsservedas temporalmagistratesndofElceredhe sarneawas the gentry, hey couldscarcely resenthemselvesconvincinglys the agentsof an alternativepintual uthority.When ishopswerepoliticalappointments,ndwhenthe cousins f thegentrywereplacedin countrylivings,where they enlargedheirviaragesand adoptedthegentry'styleof life, it wasonly too evident romwhatsourceheChurch'sauthoritywasderived.

Aboveall,the Churchost command verthe "leisure"f the poor, heirfeastsand festivals, nd,withthis,overa largeareaof plebeian ulture.The

term"leisure"s, of course,tselfanachronistic.n rural ocietywhere mallfarmlngand the commonseconomy persisted,and in large areas ofmanufacturingndustry,he organizationf workwassovaried nd rregulg



journalof socialhistory92

that t is falseto makeasharp istinction etween"work" nd"leisure."On

the one hand,socialoccasionswere ntermixedwithlabor-withmarketing,sheepshearing ndharvesting,etchingandcarryinghe materials f work

and so on throughouthe year. On the otherhand,enormous motional

capitalwasinvested,not piecemealn a succession f Saturday ightsand

Sundaymornings,utinthespecialeastsand estival ccasions.Manyweeks

of heavy aborandscantydietwerecompensatedorbytheexpectationor

reminiscence) f these occasions,when food and drinkwere abundant,

courtship ndeverykindof socialntercourselourished,nd hehardshipf

life wasobliterated.For the young,the sexualcycleof the yearturnedon

thesefestivals.Theseoccasionswere,in animportantense,whatmenand

women ived or;and f theChurch ad ittlesigniElcantartn theirconduct,then t had,to iat degree, eased o engagewiththe emotional alendarf

thepoor.Onecansee thisin a literal ense.Whileheoldsaintsdayswerescattered

liberally cross he calendar heChurch'situal alendaroncentratedvents

intothe monthsof lightdemands pon abor, romthewintero thespring,

fromChristmaso Easter.Whilehepeoplestillowedtributeo thelasttwo

dates,whichremained s days of maximum ommunion)he eighteenth-

centurycalendarof popular estivitycoincidescloselywith the agrarian

calendar.The villageand town feastsfor the dedicationof churchesor

wakes-hadnotonlymoved rom hesaints'days o theadjacent unday, ut

in mostcases heyhadalsobeenremovedwherenecessary)rom hewinter

to the summer olstice.In about 1730, the antiquarian,homasHearne,

madea note of thefeastdayof 132villages rtowns nOxfordshirer onits

borders.All fellbetweenMayandDecember;4 (ormore hanthree-fifths)

fell in AugustandSeptember;o fewer han43 (oralmostone-third)ellin

the last week of Augustand the fslrstweekof September.Apart roma

significantroupof some wentywhich ellbetweenheendof Juneand he

endof July,andwhich nanormal earmightbeexpectedo fallbetweenhe

endof thehayharvest ndthecommencementfthecereal arvest,heweightof theemotionalestivecalendarell ntheweeksmmediatelyfter heharvest

wasgatheredn.Or.Malcolmsonas reconstructedcalendarf feasts orNorthampton-

shire n the latereighteenth enturywhichshowsmuchthe same ncidence.

Alongwiththesecularizationf thecalendaroesasecularizationf thestyle

andthe functionof the occasions.f not pagan,hennewsecularunctions

were addedto old ritual;the publicans,huckstersand entertainersn-

couraged,with theirnumeroustalls,the feastswhentileircustomers ad

uncustomaryarvest arningsn theirpockets;hevillage harity ndbenefit

clubs took over the old churchales of Whitsuntide. t BamptonWhit-Monday'slubfeast ncluded processionwi drumandpiper orfiddler),

morrisdarlcers, clownwitha bladderwhocarriedhe"treasury"amoney

box'forcontributions), swordbearerwitha cake.Therewas,of course,no

crucifix,no priestor nuns,no imagesof virginor saints:theirabsences




perhapsoo littlenoticed.Not one of the 17songsormelodiesecorded ad

theleastreligiousssociation:Oh,my Billy,my constantBilly,Whenshall I see my Billyagain?When he fishes fly over ie mountain,Thenyou'll see your Billyagain.

Bampton,hatlivingmuseum f folklore,wasnot an solated ural illage,buta sturdycenterof the leatherndustry;ustas theMiddleton ndAshtonof Bamford'soyhoodwerecentersof domesticndustry.What s manifest,in manysuch districts,and in manyruralregionsalso in the eighteenth

century, s that one could never or a moment ustain heviewwhich(forexample)PaulBoisis ableto assertof theeighteenthZcenturyrench easantof the West, hat"c'etait'egliseal'ormbre e laquelleenouaientoutes esrelations."Of course, he religious nd the secular or pagan)hadcoexisteduneasily,or conflicted, or centuries:he Puritanswereconcernedo keepmornsdancers utof thechurch, ndhuckster'stallsout of thechurch-yard.Theycomplainedhat churchales weredefiledby anmal baiting,dancing,andallmanner f 4'lewdness."ut there emains sense nwhich heChurchwasthe hub aroundwhichthe spokesof thispopularraditionurned; nd

the StuartBookof Sports ought o confirmhisrelationshipgainst uritarattack. n the eighteenth entury,he agrarianeasonalalendar as he hubandthe Church rovided one of themovingorce.It isadifficult hange odefinebutwithoutdoubt t wasalargeone.

The dualexperienceof the Reformationnd of the decline n Puritanpresenceeft a remarkableissociation etween he polite andthe plebeianculture in post-Restoration ngland.Nor shouldwe underestimatehecreative ulture-formingrocess rombelow.Not onlythe obvious hings-folk songs,tradesclubsand corndollies weremadefrombelow,but alsointerpretationsf life satisfactions nd ceremonials.The wife sale,in its

crudeandperhaps xotic way, performed functionof ritualdivorcebothmoreavailable nd morecinlized than anything he politeculturecouldoffer. Thentualsof roughmusic,cruelas theymight ometimes e,werenomore vengefuland really no more exotic than the ritualsof a SpecialCommissionf OyerandTerminer.

The egendof the revival f "merryEngland"fter heRestorations onewhichhistonanshaveperhaps een too impatient o examine.Even f someof the moresensationallaimsarediscountedDefoe,as a goodaccountantassuresus that 6325 maypoleswere erected n the five yearsafter theRestoration) here is no doubt that therewas a generaland sometimesexuberantevival f popularportsS akes,rushbearings ndrituals."Help,Lord!"exclaimed he Rev. OliverHeywood, he tected minister,whenrecounting he cockfighting,horse racing and stooluball ndemicin theHalifaxdistrict in the 1680s: 'SOh,what oaths sworn!at wickednesscommitted!' And recounting he MayDay celebrations f 1680 he had



394 journalof socialhistorylamented: Thereneverwassuchwork nHalifax bove iftyyearspast.Hellsbrokeoose."

Wearemoreaccustomedo analyze he agein termsof its intellectualistory,andto thinkof thedeclineof hell.Butthebreakingooseof thishellf a plebeian ulturequitebeyond heircontrolwas hewaking ightmarefhe surviving untans.Pagan estivalswhich heChurch adattachedo itsalendarn the middleages(althoughwith incompleteuccess) evertedourely ecular estivitiesn the eighteenth entury.Wakenightscameto annd;but the feastsof the followingdayorweekbecamemorerobustwithachdecade.Theceremony f strewingushesn the churchesingered erend here;but the feastsof rushbearingswent fromstrengtho strength.earHalifax gain, he incumbenta ReverendWitter) ttemptedo preventhese

easts in 1682, at which (he complained)he peoplemakegreatrovisionf fleshandale,come romallparts, 'and atanddrink ndrant nbarbarouseathenishmallner."Mr.Witter's oorswerebrokendownandewasabusedasa "cobbler." herush-bearingeremony ontinuedn thisistrictor at leasta further150years.But,asin mostdistricts,t hadlostnyacred ignificance. hesymbolson the richly-decoratedartsbecameellsndpaintedpots.Thepicturesqueostumes f the menandthewhiteressesnd garlands f the women appearmore and morepagan.Theageantsaya merepassing beisanceo Christianymbolism:Adamandve,t.George ndtheDragon,heVirtues,heVices,RobinHoodandMaidarian,obbyhorses,weepson pigs,morrisdancers.Thefestivities ndedithaitings,wrestling, ancing nddrinking,ndsometimeswiththe tourfhehousesof thegentryandof wealthyhouseholdersordrink,oodandoney.IcouldnotsuppressheseBacchanals,"rote heRev.JohnWilliameaFlechere f the ShropshireWakes: the mpotentdykeI opposed nlyadehe torrentswellandfoam,withoutstoppinghe course.sMoreover)heeoplehadfoundpatronsoutsidethe Church:f LaFlechere reachedgainstrunkenness,howsandbullbaitingnthepublicansndmaltsters illotorgiveme. Theythinkthat to preachagainstdrunkennessndto cutheirurse tringssthesame

hing."Butthe resurgencef thisculture annotbeputdown o thecommercial-zationosteredby publicanslone.Thegentryhadmeans, hroughQuarteressions,o harryhem ntheir icensesf theyhadwished.Thisefflorescencefestivitiesan scarcely ave akenplacewithouta permissivettitudeonheartof manyof the gentry. nonesense, hiswasnomore han helogicfhe times. The materialism f the eighteenth-centuryich and therastiallismf theirChurchweremet by the materialismf the poor.Theaceeetings f therichbecamehepoor'spopular olidays.Thepermissiveolerancef the gentrywassolicitedbythemany avernswhich-as nnsignstillproclaim-soughto putthemselvesnder hepatronagef thegreat.Theentryould make no convincingmissionary xpeditions o reform heannersndmorals f the poor f theywereunwfllingo reformheirownstentatiousndpleasantices.

Butsexplanationhisis not finallyconvincing. nlyaruling lasswhicheelstselfto bethreatenedsafraido flauntadouble tandard.Mandevilles



PATRICIANOCIEItY,LEBIAN ULTURE395

only unusualn pressingo thepointof satireheargumenthatprivate ceswerepublicbenefits.In more softened ormthe sameargument,s to thevaluableunctionof luxury n providingmploymentndspectacleorthepoor,waspartof ie economic antof thetime.

Indeed, we have seen that the conspicuousdisplayof luxury and"liberality" as partof ie theater f thegreat. nsomeareaswagesheory,the poor laws, the crlminal ode), the materialismf the richconsortedwithout difficultywith a disciplinaryontrolof the poor. But ln otherareas-ie permissivettitude o the robust,unchristimpopular ulture,acertain autionandevendelicacynthehandlingf popular isturbancevena certainlattery xtendedo thepoorasto their iberties ndrights-in hese

areaswearepresented itha problemwhichdemandsmore ubtleanalysis.tsuggestssome reciprocity n the relationsbetween rich and poor;aninhibitionupon the use of force against ndiscipline nd disturbance;caution onthepartof thench)againstakingmeasures hichwouldalienatethe poortoo far,and (on the partof thatsectionof the poorwhich romtimeto timeralliedbehind he cryof 'Churehnd King>) sense hatthereweretangibleadvantageso be gainedby solicitinghe favorof the rich.There s some mutualityof relationship erewhidh t is difficultnot toanalyzeat the levelof classrelationship. ndyet, havewe not beenoftentold that it is premature,n the eighteenth entury,o speakof a ;'working

class?"Of course,no one in the eighteenth enturywouldhavethoughtof

describingheirownas a "one-classociety."Therewerethe rulers ndtheruled, fiehighandthe low people,persons f substancendof independentestateandthe looseanddisorderlyort.In between,where he professionKandmiddledasses,andthesubstantialeomallry7houldhavebeen,relationsof dientageand dependencywereso strong hat,at leastuntilthe 1760s,thesegoups appearo offerlittledeflectionof the essential olarities.Onlysomeonewho was"independent"f the needto defer o patrons ouldbethoughtof ashavillgilllpoliticaldentity:so much sa point n favorof the

"one-class"iew.But classdoesnot define tself in politicaldentityalone.For Fieldingshe evidentdivisonbetween hehighand the low people, hepeopleof fashion ndof no fashion,aylike a culturalissure crossheland:

whilst the people of fashionseizedseveralplacesto theirown use, such

as courts, assemblies, operas, balls, &c., the people of no fashion,

besidesone royal place, called his Majesty'sBear-Garden, ave been in

constantpossessionof all hops, fairs,revels,&c.... So farfromlooking

on each other asbrethren n the Christiananguage, hey seemscarceto

regardeach otheras of the samespecies.

Thisis a worldof patriciansndof plebs; t is no accidenthatthe rulersturnedbadk o allcientRome oramodelof theirOWI1ociologicalrder.Butsucha polanzation f classrelations oesn't herebydeprivehe plebsof allpoliticalexistence.They areat one side of the necessaryquationof therespublica.

A plebs s not, perhaps, working lass.Theplebsmay acka consistencyof self-definition,n consciousness;larityof objectives;he structurlngf



396 journalof social history

class organization. ut the politicalpresenceof the plebs, or"mob," or"crowd,"s manifest;t hasbeenchronicled,or London,by GeorgeRude; timpinged ponhighpoliticsat a scoreof critical ccasions-Sacheverelliots,excise agitation,CiderTax, the patrioticand chauvinisticbullitionswhichsupported he careerof the elder Pitt) and on to Wilkes ndbeyond.Evenwhenthe beastseemed o be sleeping, he tetchysensibilitiesf a libertariancrowddefined, n the largest ense, he limitsof whatwaspolitically ossibleThere s a sense n whichrulers nd crowdneededeach other7watched achother, performed heaterand countertheatero each other'sauditorium,moderated achother'spolitical ehavior. his s a moreactiveandreciprocalrelationship han the one normallybrought o mind under the formula

"paternalismnddeference.'It is necessary lso to go beyond the view that laboringpeople,at thistime, were confined within the fraternal oyalties and the "vertical"consciousness f particularrades; nd that this inhibitedwidersolidaritiesand "horizontal"onsciousnessf class.There s somethingn this,certainly.Theurban raftsmanetained omething f a guildoutlook; ach radehad tssongs(with the implements f the trademinutelydescribed),ts chapbooksand legends;some trades, like the blacksmiths nd the wool combers,maintained heir ritual saint's days and processions. o the shoemaker'sapprenticemight be given by his master7she Delightful, Princely and

EntertainingHistoryof the Gentle-Craft, nd hereread:

never yet did any know

A shooemakera Begginggo.Kind they are one to another,

Using each Strangeras his Brother.

He read his in 1725, andhe wouldhavereadmuch he same n the timeofDekker.At timesthe distinctions f tradeswerecarried ver nto festival ndsocial ife. Bristol, n the early eighteenth entury, aw an annualpugilistic

combat on Ash Wednesday etween the blacksmiths, nd the coopers,carpenters nd sailors,with the weavers ometimesoining n on the side ofthe smiths.And in more substantialways, when defining heir economicinterestsas producers craftsmenand workers-Thames-sideoal heavers,Londonporters,Spitalfieldsilk weavers,west of England lothingworkers,Lancashireotton weavers-organizedhemselvesightlywithin heir rades,and petitioned he Stateor corporate uthoritiesor theirfadingpaternalistfavors.

Indeed, here s substantialvidence n thisside;and he degree o whichaguild or "trade" outlook and even vestigialcontinuityof organization

contributedo the earlytradeunionswas understated y the Webbs.Buttosuppose that such trade fraternitywas necessarily t odds with largerobjectives r solidaritiess quite false. The tradeconsciousnessf Londoncraftsmenn the 1640sdid not inhibit upportor JohnLilburne.What rade




consciousnessmayinhibit s economic olidarities etweendifferent roupsof producers s againstheiremployers;ut if we lay aside hisanachronisticpostulate, we will find among eighteenth-century orkmenabundantevidence of horizontalsolidaritiesand consciousness. n the scores ofoccupationalistswhich I have examined f food rioters, urnpike ioters,riots over libertarianssuesor enclosure f urban ommons,t is clear hatsolidarities erenot segregated y trade;n a regionwhere lothingworkers,tinnersor colliers re predominant,heseobviouslypredominaten the listsof offenders, utnot to the exclusionof otherworking ccupations.hopeto have shown,in anotherplace,that all these groups,during ood riots,

shared common onsciousness-ideologyndobjectives-as ettyconsumersof the necessities f life. But these peoplewere consumerslso of culturalvalues,of libertarianhetoric, f patriotic rejudice;ndon these ssues heycould exhibit solidanties s well. When,n the quiet 1750s,PrincessAmeliatried to close all access to RichmondNew Park,she was opposedby avigoroushorizontalconsciousnesswhich stretched from John Lewis, awealthy ocal brewer,o GrubStreetpamphleteers,ndwhichembracedhewhole local "populace."When, n 1799,the magistratesttemptedo putdown Shrove Tuesdayfootball in the streets of Kingston, t was"thepopulace"and "the mob" who assembled nd triumphantly efied their

orders.Themobmaynot havebeennoted or an mpeccableonsciousnessfclass;but the rulers f England ere nno doubtat all that t wasa horizontalsortof beast.

Let us take stockof the argumento this point. It is suggestedhat, inpractice,paternalism as as much theaterandgesture s effectiveresponsiwbility; that so far froma warm,household,ace-to-face elationship e canobservea studiedtechniqueof rule.While here was no novelty in theexistenceof a distinctplebeian ulture,with its own rituals, estivals,andsuperstitions, e have suggested hat in the eighteenth entury his culture

was remarkablyobust,greatlydistancedromthe polite culture, ndthat tno longeracknowledged,xcept in perfunctory ays, he hegemony f theChurch.

This plebeianculturewas not, to be sure, a revolutionaryor even aproto-revolutionaryulture in the senseof fostering lterior bjectiveswhichcalled in question he social order);but one should not describe t as adeferential ulture ither.It bredriotsbut not rebellions: irectactionsbutnot democraticorganizationsOne notices the swiftnessof the crowd'schangesn mood,frompassivityo mutiny o cowedobedience.Wehave hisin the satirical allad f the "BraveDudleyBoys":

Webin marchin'up and deownWo boys, wo

Fur to pull the Housen deown




And its O the brave Doodley boys

WQboys, wo

It bin O the brave Doodley boys.

Some gotten sticks, some gotten steavs

Wo boyss wo

Fur to beat all rogues and kne-avs

Butthe not reachesAsappointedimit,and-. . . the Dra-gunes they did come,

And it's devil take the hindmost whum.

We all ran down our pits

Wo boys, wo

We all ran down ollr pits

Frietened a' most out of our wits

And its O the brave DoodJey boys

hd thence o the reassertionf deference:God Bless Lord Dudley Ward

Wo boys, wo

He lmowSd as times been hard

He called back the sojermen

Wo boys, wo

And we'll never riot again

And its O the brave Doodley boys

It is easy to characterizehis behavior s child ike. No doubt, f we insistupon looking at the eighteenthcentury only through he lense of themneteenth-centuryaborMovement,we will see only the immature,hepre-political he infancyof class.And fromone aspect this is not untrue:repeatedly ne sees pre*figurementsf nineteenth-centurylassattitudes ndorganization;leeting expressions f solidarities,n riots, in strikes)evenbefore the gallows; t is tempting o see eighteenth-centuryorkers s animmanentworking lass,whoseevolutions retarded y a senseof the futilityof transcendingts situation.But the '4to-froackeying'of the crowd tselfahistoryof greatantiquity: ;4primitiveebels" f one age mightbe seenfrom an earlierage, to be the decadent nherltors f yet more primitiveaxlcestors. oo muchhistorical indsight istracts s fromseeing he crowdasit was, sui generis, with its own objectives, perating ithin he complex nd

delicate olarity f forcesof its own context.I haveattempted lsewhereo reconstructhesecrowdobjectives, nd helogicof the crowd'sbehavior n one particularase:the food riot. I believethat all othermajor ypesof crowdacfionwS afterpatient nalysis, evealsiTnilarogc: it is only the short-sightedistorianmrho nds he eruptions fthe crowd o be "blind*" ere wish o discuss riefly hreecharacteristicsf




popular ction,andthento return nceagaino thecontextof gentry-crowd

relationsnwhichall tookplace.Firstis the anonymousradition.The anonymoushreat,or eventheindividualerronstact, is often found in a societyof total clientage nddependency, n the other side of the medalof simulated eference. t isexactly n a rural ociety,whereanyopen,identified esistanceo the rulingpowermayresult n instantretaliation-loss f home,employment,enancy,if not victimizationt law-that one tendsto findthe actsof darkness:heanonymousetter,arsonof the stack or outhouse,houghing f cattle,theshotor bnckthroughhe window, he gate off itshinges,heorchardelled,the fish-pondluicesopenedatnight.Thesamemanwhotoucheshisforelock

to the squireby day-and who goes down to historyas an exampleofdeference-may illhis sheep,snarehispheasantsrpoisonhisdogsatnight.

I don'toffereighteenth-centuryngland s a theater f daily error.Thatwasreservedor 3OhnBull'sOther sland.Buthistoriansave carcely egun

to takethe measure f the volumeof anonymous iolence.Thenotorious"Waltham lackAct" of 1723 aroseout of exactlysucha backgroundfunusuallyorganizedactionsin the forestsof Hampshire nd Berkshire.Successive apitalstatutes,spacedacross he century,werein responseosimilarocaloutbreaks.Anda bizarre ecord f themarch f literacysto befoundin the columnsof the LondonGazette.Thispublication f AugustAuthonty, n whosepages ppearedhemovementsf theCourt,promotionsandcommissionsn the services, ndofElcialoticesof everykind, herealsoappeareddvertisementsf rewards ndproffered ardons.n pursuit f theauthors f anonymousetters, hese etterswereoftenpublishednfull,withtheiroriginalrthography.

What hese etters how s thateighteenth-centuryaboringmenwerequitecapable,n the securityof anonymity, f shatteringny llusion f deferenceandof regardingheirrulers n a whollyunsentimentalndunfilialway.AwriterromWitney,n 1767,urgedherecipient: donotsuffer uchdamned

wheesing at gutedRoguesto Starve he Poor by such Hellishways onpurposehattheymayfollowhuntinghorseracing&c and o maintainheirfamilysn Prideandextravagance."n inhabitantf Henley n-Thames,hohad seen the volunteersn actionagainst he crowd,addressed imself o"you gentleman s you are pleaseto call Yourselves-Altllohat is yourMistakes-for ou area sett of themostDamnable ougs hatEverExisted."(AnOdiham uthor,writing n a similarheme n l800, remarkedwedontcarea Damforthemfellows hatCallThemselves entlemenoldiersBut nouropinion he Look moore ikeMonkeysiding n Bears.")ometimeshelack of properdeferencecomesthroughmerelyas a briskaside:"Lord

Buckingham,"handbillwriternNorwich emarkedn 1793,"whodied heotherday hadThirtyThousand ounds,yeerlyFor settinghis Arse n theHouseof Lords nddoingnothing."

These ettersshow-andthey aredispersedvermostpartsof England,swellas partsof Wales-thatdeference ouldbe verybrittlendeed,andmadeup of onepartof self-interest,nepartof dissimulation,ndonlyonepartof



400 journalof socialhistorYf

the aweof authority.Theywerepartof thecountertheaterf thepoor.Theywere ntended o chillthe spineof gentryandmagistratesndmayorsrecallthem o theirduties, nforce rom hemcharityn timesof dearth.

Thistakesus to a secondcharacteristicf popular ction whichI havedescribed s countertheater.ustas the rulers ssertedlleirhegemorlyy astudied heatrical tyle, so the plebsassertedheirpresence y a theaterofthreatandsedition.From he timeof WiLkesorwardhe languagef crowdsymbolisms comparatively'modern"ndeasyto read:effigyburning;hehangngof a boot from a gallows; he illumination f windows or thebreakingf thosewithout llumination);he untilingof a housewhich,asRudEnotes,hadanalmostritualisticignificance.n London he unpopularminister,he popular olitician

needed he aidof no pollsterso know heirratingwitk the crowd; hey mightbe peltedwithobscenities r chairedntriumphhrough he streets.Not only the condemnedrod the stageatTyburn:he audiencealso proclaimed ociferouslyheirassentor disgustwithhebook.But as we movebackwardrom 1760 we entera worldof theatrical

symbolismhich s moredifflcult o interpret: opular olitical ympathiesareexpressedn a cede quitedifferent romthatof the 1640sor of the1790s. t is a languagef ribbonsof bonfslresnf oathsandof therefusal foaths, f toasts,of seditious iddles r3dncientprophecies,f oak eaves nd

ofmaypoles, f balladswithapolitical ouble-entendre,evenof airswhistledin hestreet.Wedont yet knowenoughaboutpopular acobitismo assesshowmuch of it was sentiment,how muchwas substancerut we cancertainlyaythattheplebsonmanyoccasionsmployed acobiteymbolismsuccessfuLlys theater,knowingwell that t wasthescriptmostcalculatedoenragend alarm heirHanoverianulers. n the 172Qs,whena censoredpresseilsrather hanilluminates ublicopinion,one detectsundergroundmoodsn the vigorwithwhichrivalHanoverianndStuart nniversarieserecelebrated.heNorwich Gazette reportedn May1723 that Tuesdayastfbeinghe birthday f Kig Georgeawasobservedn the city sCwithll theusualemonstrationsfjoy and oyalty':

And Wednesdaybeing the Anniversaryof the HappyRestaurationofKingCharlesII, and with him of the royal family,aftera too long andsuccessful usurpation of sanctified tyranny5 it was celebratedin thiscity in an extraordinarymarlner; or besidesringingof bells, fwingofguns, andbonfiress he streetswere strownwith seggs,oakenboughssetup at the doors,arld n some streetsgarlands ndpictureshungout, andvariety of antickand comickdances. . . (with)bumpers o the GioriousMemoryof Charles I.

Manifestlyisloyalas this wasnot only to the Kingbutalsoto the GreatMann his own countySt provided o handIe o the law officersof theCrown.

Ihis was a war of nerves,now satirical,now menacing.The arrowssometimesoundtheirmark. n 1724the King'sministerswereporlngover



PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE401

depositions rom Harwichwhere the loyal Hanoverianaucushad been

insulted y a mostunsavory oughmusic:while the Mayorand otherMembersof the Corporationwere assembled

in the Town Hall to commemorateHis Majesty'sMost happyaccession

to the Throneby drinkingHis Majesty'sandother most Loyal Healths,

he this Deponent . . . did see from a Window . . a person dressedup

with hornson his headattended by a mob.

This "saidInfamousPerson,"John Hart,a fisherman,was being chairedaboutthe town by one of two hundred thersof equal nfamy.They were"drumming ridiculousTuneof RoundheadedCuckolds&c,and [Hart]cameto the Mayorssnd thisDeponent's oorandmade ignswithhis hands

intimatinghatWemightkisshis Arse."If some of the crowd's ctionscanbe seenas countertheater,his s byno

means rue of all.For a thirdcharacteristicf popular ctionwas he crowd'scapacityor swiftdirectaction.To be oneof a crowd, r a mob,wasanotherway of being anonymous,whereasto be a member of a continuingorganization asboundto expose one to detectionand victimization. heeighteenth-centuryrowdwell understoodts capacitiesor actior,,anditsown artof the possible.ts successesmustbe immediate,r notat all. It mustdestroy hese machines,ntimidateheseemployers r dealers, amage hatmill, enforce romtheirmasters subsidyof bread,untile hathouse,beforetroopscameon thescene.Themode s so familiarhatI needonly recall t tomindwithone ortwo citations rom hestatepapers.At Coventry, 772:

On Tuesday evening. . . a greatMob to the Number of near 1,000 of

the . . . lower class of People . . . assembledby Fife and Beat of Drum

on Account, as they pretended,of a Reductionof Wagesby . . . one of

the principalRibbon Manufacturers... They declared heir intention

to . . . pull down his House, & to demolishhim, if they couldmeet with

him .... EverygentleMeanswasmade use of ... to disperse hem,but

without Effect, and by throwing Stones and breakinghis Windows,

they began to carrytheirPurpose nto Execution.In Newcastle-on-Tynen 1740, during hetriumphanthaseof a food riot:About two on Thursday morning a great number of Colliers and

Waggoners,Smiths and other common workmen [the horizontalbeast

again] came along the Bridge,releasedthe prisoners,andproceeded n

great Orderthrough the Town with Bagpipesplaying, Drum beating,

and Dirty Clothes fixed upon sticks by way of Colours flying. They

then increased to some thousands and were in possession of the

principal Streets of the Town. The Magistratesmet at the GuildHall

and scarce knewwhat to do.

In the result heypanicked,cuffledwiththe crowdon the GuildHallsteps,and ireda volley nto it killingmore hanone. In retaliation:

Stones flew in amongus . . . throughthe windowslike cannonshot . . .

at length the mob broke in upon us in the most terribleoutrage.They

sparedour lives indeed but obliged us to quit the place, then fell to



402 journS of socialhistory

plunderingand destroyinga11 bout 'em.The severalbenchesof justiceswereimmediatelyandentirelydemolishedShe TownClerk'sOfflce wasbroke open, and all the books,

deeds, and recordsof the town and itscourtsthrownout of the window.

They broke into the Hutch and took out fifteen hundred poundssthey... broke down everythingthat was ornamental,two very finecapitalPicturesof KingCharles econdandJamessecond . they tore,all but the faces . . . and afterwardsconducted the Magistrateso theirown housesin a kindof MockTriumph.

Onceagain,one notesthe senseof theater ven n the full flushof rage: he

symbolicdestruction f the benchesof justice, he Clerkssooks,the Torycorporation'stuartportraits,he mocktriumpho themagistrates;ndyet,withthis, the orderof theirprocessionsndthe restraintwhichwithheldthemevenafter heyhadbeen iredupon) rom akingife.Of course, he crowd ost its headasoftenasthemapstrates id.Butthe

interestingointis thatneither idedidthisoften.Sofarfrombeing4'blind5thecrowdwasoftendisciplined,adclearobjectives7newhowto negotiatewithauthority and above all brought ts strength wiftly to bear.Theauthoritiesften felt themselveso be faced literally,with an anonymousmultitude"Thesemen are all tinners,'a customsoff1cer

wrotefromSt.Austelln 1766of localsmugglingangs?seldom eenabovegrollndn thedaytime,nd are underno apprehensionsf beingknownby us.' Where"ringleaders"ere detected)it was often impossibleto secure sworndepositions.utsolidarityarelywentfurtherhan hise f takentheleadersof he crowdmighthopeforanimmediateescue)within wenty-fourours,ifhismomentpassedtheycouldexpect o beabandoned.

Other eaturesmightbe noted:butthese hree-theanonymousradition;countertheater;ndswift,evanescent irectaction-seemof importance. lldirectttention o the unitary ontextof classrelationship. here s a senseinwhichrulers ndcrowd

needed achother,watched achother,performedtheaternd countertheatern each other'sauditorium,moderated achother'soliticalbehavior. ntolerant f the insubordinationf free labor,neverthelesshe rulersof Englandhowedn practice surprisingegreeoflicenceowardsheturbulencef thecrowd. sthere omedeeplyembeddedn"structural'eciprocityere?Contraryo cherishedegends,Englandwasof courseneverwithoutastandingrmy n the eighteenth entury.Themaintenancef thisarmyfnWalpole'sears was a particularauseof the HanoverianWhigs.Bwtfor

purposesf internal ontrolthis wasoftena smallandemergencyorce.It

was,orexample7eriousIyver-stretchednd nadequateo theneedsof thesituationuring he riot year 1766.Thepermanentuarteringf troops npopulousistrictswasalways mpolitic.Therewasalwaysdelay,andoftendelayf several ays? etween he onsetof disturbancend hearrivalf themilitary.hetroops andequally heirofficers whosepowers o actagainst



PATRICIANSOCIEI*Y,LEBIANCULTURE 403

civilianscould be challengedn the courts)found this servicesSodious.s

Jealousy f the Crown, econded y theavaricef thearistocracy,ad ed tothe weakness f all the effectilre rgans or the enforcementf order.Theweakness f the Statewasexpressedn an incapacityo use forceswiftly, nanideologicalendernessowardshe liberties f ie subject, nd n asketchybureaucracyo nddled with sinecurism, arasitism nd clientage hat itscarcely fferedanindependentresence.

Thus he pricewhicharistocracyndgentrypaidfora limitedmonarchyanda weakStatewas, perforce,he licenceof the crowd.This s thecentralstructuradontextof the reciprocity f relationsbetweenrulers nd ruled.Therulerswere,of course, eluctmt o paythisprice.But t wouldhavebeen

possible o disciplinehe crowdonly if therehad beena uniEled,oherentruling lass,content o dindethespoilsof poweramicablymonghemselves,andto governby meansof their mmense ommandverthe meansof life.Such cohesiondid not, at any time beforethe 1790s, exist, as severalgenerationsf distinguishedistoricalcholarsavebeenat painso show.

The tensions-betweencourtand country,moneyand land-randeep.Until 1750 or 1760 the term "gentry" s too undiscriminatingor thepurposes f our analysis.Theres a marked ivergenceetweenhe WEigndTorytraditionsof relationswith the crowd.The igs, in those decadeswereneverconvincingaternalists;ut in the samedecadesheredeveloped

between omeTortesandthe crowdamoreactive, onsentinglliance.Manysmallgentry, he victimsof landtax andthe losers n the consolidationfgreatestatesagainstfiesmall,hatedthe courtiers ndthe moneyednterestas aldentlyas did the plebs.Andfromthis we see the consolidationf thespecific raditions f Torypaternalism-forven n thenineteenth entury,whenwe thinkof paternalism,t is ToryratherhanWhigwhichwe tendtocouplewithit. At its zenith,duringhe reigns f the firsttwo Georges,hisalliance chieved n ideologicalxpressionn thetheatricalffectsof popularJacobitism.

By the fiffies thismoments passing,ndwiffi heaccessionf GeorgeIIwe pass nto a different limate.Certain indsof conflictbetweenCourtandcountryhad so far softenedthat it is possible o talk of the calcallatedpaternalisttyle of the gentryasa whole. n timesof disturbance,n handling

the crowd,one may nowforget he distinction etweenWhig nd Tory-atany rateat the levelof thepracticing.P.-andone maysee the magistracysa wholeas actingwiiin an establishedradition. o maintain hold over hepoor they mustshow themselveso be neitherpapistsnorpuritarls. heymust,at least in gestures, ffer themselvessmediatorsDuring pisodesofriot, most J.P.s of whateverpersuasion, ung back from confrontation,

preferredo intervene ymoral uasion efore ummoningorce.Thisstance lowedsometimesromanelement f active ympathyor the

crowd,especiallywherethe gentryfelt themselveso be aggneved t theprofitwhichmiddlemenweremakingout of their own andtheir tenants'corn. A riot in Taunton n 1753 (Newcastlewas informed)had beenprovoked y "one Burcherwho has the townmills,& who insteadof corn




grinds he poor, n shorthe is generallyhought o deserve unishment,n alegal wayn for malpractices f this kind.. .' Earl PoulettS he Lord

Lieutenant f Somerset, learlyfound men like Burcher o be a damnednuisance.They madeworkfor him and for the bench;and,of eourse, rdermust be maintainedA general"risingS' r state of riot broughtother illconsequencesm its train-the crowd became unmannerly he locus fordisloyal peeches ndseditious houghts, 'for heywill all followone anothersooner han listen to gentlemenwhen they areonce risen.> ndeed,on thisoccasion"at last someof themcame o talka levellinganguage,iz.they didnot see whey some should be rich and others poor.' (Therewere evenobscalremurmunngsboutad fromFrance.)

Butthe maintenancef orderwasnot a simplematter:The Impunity of those Rioters erlcouraged... subsequent ones

Gentlemen n the Commissionhere are affraid to act, nor is it safe forthem as their are no troops at Tauntc)n,Ilminster &c & only a grassguard... at Crewkerne without any officer. But it seems to be ingeneral the disposition of those towns & of these gentlemen to let the

spirit subside & not to prosoke them for fear of the consequences.

The consequencesearedwere immediate nes: more damage o propertyamore disorder, erhapsphysical hreats o the magistracy. arlPoulettwasclearly n two mindson the matterhimself.He would, f so advised y your

Grace '4get some of the principleRing leaders convicted,"but "t;hedisposition f the town &neighbouringentIemenwas)againstt." There sin any case,neitherherenor n hundreds f si!milarxchangesn 1740, 1753,1756, the 1760s and later, any sense that the social orderas a wholewasendangered: hat was fearedwas local ;'anarchy,"he loss of prestige ndhegemonyn the localityn elaxing ocialdiscipline.t is usually ssumedhatthe matter will, in the end, subside, and the degree of severity o beshown-whethera victim or two should or should not swing from thegallows-wasa matterof calculated xampleand effect. We are back in atheateronce more. Poulettapologized o Newcastle or troubling im with

these "little disturbances." Harwich isherman ivinga lewd Jacobitegesturehad worried he King'sministersmorethanmanyhundreds f menandwomenmarching boutthe country hirtyyears aterS emolishing illsarld eizlng rain.

In suchsituations herewas a practiced echnique f crowd ppeasement.Themob,Poulettwrote,

was appeased . . by gentlemengoing out & desiring o know what they

wanted & what they wd have, apprising hem of the consequencess&promising them the millers & bakers shd be prosecuted, that they wd

buy up the corn & bring t to marketthemselves& that they shd have itin small quantitys as they wanted it.

But where he crowdoffereda moredirect hreat o the gentry hemselrresSthen the reactionwas more irm. n the sameyear 1753,WestYorkshire asdisturbedby turnpikeriots. HenryPelhamwrote to his brother hat Mr.Lascelles ndhis turnpike adbeendirectly ttacked,'at he headof his own




tennantsand followersonly," Lascelles ad met the riotersand "gallantly

thrashed hem & took 10 prisoners,"The Recorderof Leeds had beenthreatened, andall the activepartof the magistrates ith pulling own heirhouses, and even taking away their lives." Againstthis, nothing but amaximum isplay f rulingclass olidaritywouldsuffice:

I have endeavoured o persuadethe few gentlemen that I have seen tobe themselves more active.... Ihis affair seems to me of such

consequence that I am persuadednothing can entirely get the better ofit but the Esrst ersons n the country taking an active part in defence ofthe laws; for if these people see themselves only overpowered by

troops, and Ilot convinced that their behaviour s repugnant o the sense

of the Elrstpeople of this country, when the troops are gone, hostilityswill retum.

It is a text worthexamination.n the filrst lace, t is difElculto recall hatit is the Pnme Ministerof Englandwho is writing,and to the "HomeSecretary."Whats beingdiscussed ppearso be the requisite tyleof privatemen of greatproperty n dealingwith an offenseto theirorder: he PrimeMinisters endeavonngo persuade the few gentlemen hat I haveseen" obe more "active." n the secondplace, he incident llustratesuperbly hesupremacy f cultural ver physicalhegemony.Troopsafford ess securitythan the reassertion f paternalist uthority.Aboveall, the credibility f the

gentryand magistracymust be maintained. t an earlystage n disturbance,the plebsshouldbe persuadedbove all to abandon n insubordinateosture,to couchtheirdemandsn legitimate nddeferentialerms: hey should earnthat they were ikely to get morefrom a loyalpetition han roma riot. Butif the authorities ailed to persuadehe crowd o droptheirbludgeons ndawait redress, hen they were willingon occasion o negotiatewith themunderduress; ut in suchcases t became armoreprobablehat the full andterrible heaterof the Law would later performts ghastlymatinees n thetroubleddistrict.Punitive xamplesmust be made, n order o re-establish

the credibilityof order. Then, once again,the culturalhegemonyof thegentrywouldresume.

thompson patrician society

Documents