Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture

Peter N. Stearns
Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture
Author(s): E. P. Thompson
Source: Journal of Social History, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1974), pp. 382-405
Published by: Peter N. Stearns
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463
Accessed: 15/05/2010 15:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://dv1litvip.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pns.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Peter N. Stearns is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Social
History.
http://dv1litvip.jstor.org
E.P. THOMPSON
PATRICIANSOClElY, PLEBEIANCULWRE
The relationsbetween the gentryand the laboringpeople in eighteenthcenturyEnglandareoften characterized
as "paternalist."
(Thisis, one should
note, a characterization
seen "fromabove.")If we enterthisdiscussionwith
an ill-definednotion of "popularculture"we will end up tradinginstances
againsteachother:this evidenceof paternalistcontrolhere,thatevidenceof
not or disturbancethere. It may be helpful,beforewe attemptto examine
"popularculture,"to attendto certainaspectsof whatis nor "culture."
Whatwere the institutions,in the eighteenthcentury,whichenabledthe
rulersto obtain,directlyor indirectly,a controloverthe whole life of the
laborer,as opposedto the purchase,seriatim,of his laborpower?
Themost substantialfact lieson the othersideof the question.Thisis the
centurywhich sees the erosionof half-freeformsof labor,the declineof
living-in,the finalextinctionof laborserarices
andthe advanceof free,mobile
wagelabor.Thiswasnot an easyor quicktransition.Hillhasremindedus of
the long resistancemadeby the free-bornEnglishman
againstthe pottageof
free wagelabor.One shouldnote equallythe long resistancemadeby their
mastersagainstsomeof its consequences.
Thesewisheddevoutlyto havethe
best of both the old worldand the new,withoutthe disadvantages
of either.
Mr. Thompson is author of Ne Makingof the EngNishWorkingClass. He wishes to
apologizefor ffie absenceof footnotes. This papercombinesmaterial,all of whichis in
active preparationfor publication. A study of anonymous letters will appear in a
collectivevolume on CEimeand Society in EnWandin the 18th Century(to be published
in 1974), edited by DouglasHay, PeterLinebaughand Mr.Thompson.Othermaterialon
anonymousagrarianprotestwill appearin his study of the originsof the "WalthamBlack
Act" of 1723, 9 GeorgeI. c. 22 (forthcoming);and the mainargumentof this paper,on
paternalismand deference, will be presentedin his forthcomingvolume of studiesin
eighteenth-centurysocialhistory,entitled Customs in Common.
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE
383
They clung to the imageof the laboreras an unfreeman,a "servant:"a
servantin husbandry,in the workshop,in the house. (They clungsimulZ
taneouslyto the imageof the free or masterlessmanas a Yagabond,
to be
disciplined,whipped and compelledto work.) But crops could not be
harvested,cloth couldnot be manufactured,
goodscouldnot be transported,
housescouldnot be builtand parksenlarged,withoutlaborreadilyavailable
andmobile,for whomit wouldbe inconvenientor impossibleto acceptthe
reciprocitiesof the master-servant
relationship.
The mastersdisclaimedtheir
paternalresponsibilities;
but they did not cease, for many decades,to
complainat the breachof the "greatlaw of subordination,"
the diminution
of deference,thatensuedupontheirdisclaimer:
The Lab'ringPoor, in spight of double Pay,
Are saucy, mutinous, and Beggarly.
The most characteristic
complaintthroughoutthe greaterpart of the
centurywas as to the indisciplineof workingpeople,theirirregularity
of
employment,theirlackof economicdependencyandtheirsocialinsubordination. Defoe, who was not a conventional"low wages"theorist,and who
could on occasionsee meritin higherwageswhichincreasedthe consuming
powerof "manufacturers"
or of "artificers,"
statedthe full casein his Great
Law of SubordinationConsider'd;or, the Insolence and Unsufferable
Behgriourof Serrantsin Englandduly enquir'dinto (1724). He arguedthat
throughthe insubordination
of servants:
Husbandmen are ruin'd, the Farmers disabled, Manufacturersand
Artificers plung'd, to the Destruction of Trade... and that no Men
who, in the Course of Business, employ Numbers of the Poor, can
depend upon any Contracts they make, or perform any thing they
undertake,havingno Law, no Power . . . to oblige the Poor to perform
honestly what they are hir'd to do.
Under a stop of Trade, and a general want of Work, then they are
clamorous and mutinous, run from their Families, load the Parishes
with their Wivesand Children. . . and . . . grow ripe for all mannerof
mischief, whetherpublick Insurrection,or privateplunder.
In a Glut of Tradethey grow saucy, lazy, idle, and debauch'd. . . they
will Workbut two or three Days in the Week.
Paternalistcontrol over the whole life of the laborerwas in fact being
eroded;wageassessment
fell into desuetude;the mobilityof laboris manifest;
the vigorof eighteenth-century
hiring-fairs,
"statutes"or "statties,"proclaim
the rightof the rural(as well as urban)laborerto claimif he so wished,a
changeof master.Moreover,thereis evidence(in the veryrefusalof laborers
384
journalof socialhistory
to submitto the work-discipline
demandedof them) of the growthof a
newly-wonpsychologyof the free laborer.In one of Defoe's moralistic
anecdotes,the J.P. summonsthe cloth workerupon a complaintfrom his
employerthathis 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.
Thisis a largechangein the termsof relations:subordination
is becoming
(althoughbetweengrosslyunequalparties)negotiation
The eighteenthcenturywitnesseda qualitativechangein laborrelations
whosenatureis obscuredif we see it onlyin termsof an increasein the scale
and volume of manufactureand trade. This occurred,of course.But it
occurredin such a way that a substantialproportionof the laborforce
actuallybecamemore free fromdisciplinein theirdailywork,morefree to
choosebetweenemployersand betweenworkandleisure,less situatedin a
positionof dependencein theirwholewayof life, thanffieyhadbeenbefore
or than they wereto be in the firstdecadesof the disciplineof the factory
andof the clock.
Thiswas a transitoryphase,with threeprominentfeatures.Firstwas the
loss of non-monetary
usagesor perquisites,or theirtranslationinto money
payments.Such usages were still extraordinarily
pervasivein the early
eighteenthcentury. They favored paternalsocial control because they
appearedsimultaneouslyas economicand as social relations,as relations
betweenmennot as paymentsfor servicesor things.Mostevidently,to eat at
onessemployer'sboard,to lodgein his barnor abovehis workshop,wasto
submit to his supervision.In the great house the servantswho were
dependentupon "vails"from visitors,the clothing of the mistress,the
clandestineperquisitesof the surplusof the larder, spent a lifetime
ingratiatingfavors. In the unenclosedvillage,access to common rights
dependedpartlyuponexpressedstatuswiiin the socialeconomy(whethera
copyholderor cottager),partly upon unexpressedor informalstatus-a
laborerwho had won the goodopinionof neighborsandwho wasllnlikelyto
fall on the poorrateswas morelikelyto get awaywith erectinga cottageat
the roadsideor grazingthe oddbeastwherehe hadno statutory"right."Even
the multiformperquisiteswithin industry increasinglybeingredefinedas
"theft," were more likely to starvive
wherethe workersacceptedthem as
favorsandsubmittedto a filialdependency.
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTUE
385
On occasion,one catchesa glimpseof the extinctionof a perquisiteor
servicewhich must have induceda shock to paternalcontrol out of all
proportionto the economicgainto the employer.ThuswhenSir Jonathan
Trelawney,as Bishopof Winchester,
was seekingto increasethe revenueof
his see, he employedas Stewardone Heron,a manstronglycommittedto
ruthless economic relationalization.Among accusationsbrought against
Heron,in 1707, by tenantsand subordinate
officialsof the Biffiop'sCourts
werethat:
He breakes old Customes. . . in Minuteand Smallmatters,which are of
Small value to your Lordshipp,... he has denyed to Allow five
Shillings at Walthamto the Jury att the Court... to drinke your
Lordshipps health, a Custome that has beene used time out of
Mind,. . . he has denyed your Lordshipp'sStewardand Officersa small
perquisite of haveing theire horses shoo'd att WalthamAccordingto an
Antient usage which never Exceeded above Six or Seven Shillings,.. .
he denied your Lordshipp'sTennantsTimberfor the repaireof Severall
Bridgesand Commonpounds.
'rOthisHeronreplied,somewhattestily:
I own, I affect sometimes to Intermitthose minute Customsas he calls
them because I observe that your Predecessor'sfavoursare prescribed
for againstyour Lordship& insisted on as Rights, & then your Lordship
is not thanked for them; Besides though they are Minute, yet many
MinuteExpences . . . amount to a Sume at the end.
In such ways economic rationalizationnibbled(and had long been
nibbling)throughthe bondsof paternalism.
Theotherleadingfeatureof this
transitionalperiod was of coursethe enlargementof that sector of the
economywhichwas independentof a subjectrelationship
to the gentry.Ihe
"subject"economyremainedhuge:not only the directretainersof the great
house,the chambermaids
andfootmen,coachmenandgroomsandgardeners,
the gamekeepersand laundresses,but the further concentricrings of
economicclientship-theequestrian
tradesandluxurytrades,the dressmakers
andpastrycooksandvintners,the coachmakers,the innkeepers
andostlers.
But the centurysaw a growingareaof independencewithinwhichthe
smallemployersandlaborersfelt theirclientrelationship
to the gentryvery
little or not at all. Thesewerethe peoplewhomthe gentrysawas "idleand
disorderly,"withdrawnfrom their social control;from amongthese-the
clothingworkers,urbanartisans,colliers5bargeesand porters,laborersand
petty dealersin the food trades-the social rebels,the food or turnpike
noters,werelikely to come.Theyretainedmanyof the attributescommonly
ascribedto "pre-industrial
labor." Workingoften in their own cottages,
owning or hiring their own tools, usuallyworkingfor small employers,
386
journalof socialhistory
frequently working irregularhours and at more than one
job, they had
escaped from the social controls of the manorialvillage
and were not yet
subjectto the disciplineof factory labor.
Many of their economic dealings might be with men and
women little
higherin the economic hierarchythan themselves.Their
"shopping"was not
done in emporiums but at market stalls; and the cottager
or small farmer's
wives would trudge in at dawn to the market town, and
set their baskets of
eggs, fruit and vegetables,butter and poultry, at the side
of the square.The
poor state of the roadsmade necessarya multitudeof local
markets,at which
exchanges of products between primaryproducersmight still
be unusually
direct.In the 1760s,
Hard-labouringcolliers, men and women of Somersetshireand
Gloucestershire, travelled to divers neighbouring towns with
drifts
of
horses ... laden with coals.... It was common to see such
collierslade
or fill a two bushel coal sack with articles of
provisions. . . of beef,
mutton, large half stript beef bones, stale loaves of bread,and
pieces of
cheese.
Such markets and, even more, the seasonal fairs
provided not only an
economicbut a culturalnexus.
In many regions, the people had not been shaken
altogether from some
sketchytenure of the land. Since much industrialgrowth
took the form, not
of concentrationinto large units of production, but of
the dispersalof petty
units and of by-employments (especially spinning)
there were additional
resourcesfor "independence." This independence was for
many never far
frommere subsistence:a bountiful harvestmight bnng
momentaryaffluence,
along wet seasonmight throw people onto the poor
rates. But it was possible
formany to knit together this subsistence,from the
common, from harvest
andoccasional manual earnings,from by-employments
in the cottage, from
daughters
in service, from poor rates or charity. And
undoubtedly some of
thepoor followed their own predatory economy, like
"the abundance of
loose,idle and disorderlypersons"who were alleged,in the
time of GeorgeII,
tolive on the marginsof Enfield Chase, and who
"infest the same, going in
dark
nights,with Axes, Saws, Bills, Cartsand Horses,and in going
and coming
Robhonest people of their sheep, lambs and
poultry...." Such persons
appear
again and again in criminalrecords,estate correspondence,
pamphlet
andpress;they appearstill, in the 1790s, in the
agriculturalcountry surveys;
theycannot have been wholly a ruling-classinvention.
Thus the independence of labor (and small master)
from clientage was
fostered
on the one hand by the translationof non-monetary
"favors"into
payments;
and on the other by the extension of trade and
industry on the
basis
of the multiplication of many small units of
production, with much
by-employment
(especially spinning) coincident with many continuingforms
ofpetty land tenure (or common right)and many casual
demarldsfor manual
labor.This is an indiscriminate picture, and
deliberately so. Economic
historians
have made many careful discriminationsbetween different
groups
PATRICIAN
SOCIEW,PLEBI CULTUE
387
of laborers.But thesearenot relevantto ourpresentenquiry.Norwerethese
from amongthe gentry
commonlymadeby commentators
discriminations
of labor.
whenthey consideredthe generalproblemof the "insubordination"
Rather,they sawbeyondthe parkgates,beyondthe railingsof the London
mansion,a blur of indiscipline-the"idle and disorderly,""the mob," the
theydeplored"populace"-and
their open scoffings at all discipline, religious as well as civil: their
contempt of all order, frequent menace to all justice, and extreme
promptitudeto tumultuousrisingsfrom the slightestmotives.
complaintagainstthe populaceas a whole.
It is, as always,an indiscriminate
Free labor had broughtwith it a weakeningof the old meansof social
society,the eighteenthcentury
patriarchal
discipline.So far froma confWldent
at a pointof crisis.
seesthe old paternalism
II
And yet one feels that "crisis"is too stronga term.If the complaint
cnminal,
continuesthroughoutthe centurythat the poorwereindisciplined,
proneto tumultandriot,one neverfeels,beforethe FrenchRevolution,that
the rulers of Entand conceivedthat their whole social ordermight be
it was
of the poor was an inconvenience;
endangered.
The insubordination
the rhetoricof the
not a menace.The stylesof politicsandof architecture,
gentry and their decorativearts, all seem to proclaimstability, selfconfidence,a habitof managngallthreatsto theirhegemony.
In directing
Wemay of coursehaveoverstatedthe crisisof paternalism.
attention to the parasitismof the State at the top, and the erosionof
traditional
relationsby freelaboranda monetaryeconomyat the bottom,we
have overlookedintermediatelevels where the older economichousehold
the scaleof the
controlsremainedstrong,andwe haveperhapsunderstated
"subject"or "client"areasof the economy.Thecontrolwhichmenof power
andmoneystillexercisedoverthe wholelife andexpectationsof thosebelow
them remainedenormous,and if paternalismwas in crisis,the industrial
revolutionwas to showthat crisismustbe takenseveralstagesfurther-asfar
asPeterlooandthe SwingRiots-beforeit lost all credibility.
controlin the
the analysisallowsus to see thatruling-class
Nevertheless,
eighteenthcenturywas locatedprimarilyin a culturalhegemony,and only
secondarily
in anexpressionof economicor physical(military)power.To say
that it was "cultural"is not to say that it was immaterial,too fragilefor
To definecontrolin termsof culturalhegemonyis not
analysis,insubstantial.
to gve up attemptsat analysis,but to preparefor analysisat the pointsat
whichit shouldbe made:into the imagesof powerandauthority,the popular
mentalitiesof subordination.
to accountfor
Defoe'sfictionalcloth worker,calledbeforethe magistrate
I hopeI am
default,offersa clue:"notmyMaster,and'tpleaseyourWorship,
my own Master."The deferencewhichhe refusesto hisemployer,overflows
to "yourWorship."He wishesto struggle
in the calculatedobsequiousness
388
journalof social history
free from the immediate,daily,humiliationsof dependency.
But
outlines of power, station in life, political authority appearthe larger
to be as
inevitableandirreversible
as the earthandtlle sky.Cultural
hegemony
of this
kindinducesexactlysucha stateof mindin whichthe
established
structures
of authorityandevenmodesof exploitationappearto be in
the verycourse
of nature.Thisdoes not precluderesentmentor even
surreptitious
actsof
protestor revenge;it doesprecludeaffirmative
rebellion.
The gentryin eighteenthcenturyEnglandexercisedthis kind
of hegemony. Andthey exercisedit all the moreeffectivelysincethe
relation
of ruler
to ruledwas very often not face-to-facebut indirect.
Absenteelandowners,
and the ever-presentmediationof bailiffs apart, the
emergenceof the
three-tiersystem of landowner,tenantfarmerand landless
laborer,meant
that the rurallaborers,in the mass,didnot confrontthe gentry
as employers
nor were the gentryseen to be in any direct sense
responsiblefor their
conditionsof life; for a son or daughterto be takeninto serviceat
the great
housewasseento be, not a necessitybut a favor.
Andin otherwaysthey werewithdrawnfromthe polaritiesof
economic
andsocialantagonism.
Whenthe priceof food rose,the popularragefeli not
on the landownersbut upon middlemen,forestallers,
millers.
mightprofitfromthe saleof wool, but they werenot seento The gentry
be in a direct
exploitiverelationto the clothingworkers.
In the growingindustrialareas,the gentryJ.P.frequently
livedwithdrawn
fromthe mainindustrialcenters,at his countryseat andhe
wasat painsto
preserve
some imageof himselfas arbitrator,
mediatoror evenprotectorof
thepoor.It wasa commonviewffiat"wherever
a tradesman
is madeajustice
atyrantis created."The poorlaws,if harsh,werenot
administered
directly
bythe gentry;wheretherewas blameit couldfalluponthe
poor-rate
paring
farmersand tradesmenfrom amongwhom the overseerscame.
Langborne
presents
the idealizedpaternalist
picture;exhortingthe countryjusticeto
bend the brow severe
On the sly, pilfering,cruel overseer;
The shufflingfarmer,faithful to no trust,
Ruthlessas rocks, insatiateas the dust.
Whenthe poor hind, with length of years decay'd,
Learlsfeebly on his once subduingspade,
Forgot the serviceof his ablerdays,
His profitabletoil, and honest praise,
Shallthis low wretch abridgehis scanty bread,
This slave,whose boardhis formerlaboursspread!
And,
once again,at leasta ghostlyimageof paternalresponsibilities
maintained
at verylittle realoutlayin effort.The sameJ.P.who couldbe
closedparishaggravatedthe problemsof povertyelsewhere, in his own
by refusing
settlements
and by pullingdown the cottageson the common,could
quarter
sessions,by grantingthe occasionalappealagainstthe overseersat
of
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE
389
other open parishes,or by callingto orderthe corruptworkhousemaster,
placehimselfabovethe linesof battle.
arose
Wehavethe paradoxthatthe credibilityof the gentryas paternalists
fromthe highvisibilityof certainof theirfunctions,andthe low visibilityof
of the laborvalueof the
others.A greatpart of the gentry'sappropriation
by theirtenantry,by tradeor by taxation.Physicallythey
poorwasmediatDd
fromface-to-facerelationswiththe peoplein villageor
withdrewincreasingly
town. Theragefor deerparksandthe threatof poachersled to the closureof
with highpalingsor
rightsof way acrosstheirparksandtheirencirclement
walls;landscapegardening,with ornamentalwatersand fish ponds,menageriesand valuablestatuary,accentuatedtheir secretionand the defensesof
theirgrounds,whichmightbe enteredonly throughthe highwroughtiron
gates,watchedover by the lodge. The greatgentryweredefendedby their
bailiffsfrom their tenants,and by their coachmenfromcasualencounters.
They met the lower sort of peoplemainlyon their own terms,and when
these were clients for their favors;in the formalitiesof the bench;or on
calculatedoccasionsof popularpatronage.
just as
But in performingsuch functionstheirvisibilitywas formidable,
their formidablemansionsimposedtheirpresence,apartfrom,but guarding
over, the villageor town. Their appearanceshave much of the studied
of public theatre.The swordwas discarded,except for
self-consciousness
ceremonialpurposes;but the elaborationof wig and powder,ornamented
patriciangesturesandthe hauteur
clothingandcanes,andeventhe rehearsed
of bearingandexpression,all weredesignedto exhibitauthorityto the plebs
and to exact from them deference.And with this went certainsignificant
the ritualof the hunt;the pompof assizes(andall the
ritualappearances:
pews,the late entriesand
theatricalstyle of the law courts);the segregated
at church.And fromtime to time therewereoccasionsfor
earlydepartures,
an enlarged ceremonial,which had wholly paternalistfunctions: the
a nationalfestival(coronationor
a coming-of-age,
celebrationof a marriage,
jubileeor navalvictory),the alms-givingto the poorat a funeral.
Wehaveherea studiedandelaboratehegemonicstyle, a theatricalrolein
whichthe greatwere schooledin infancyandwhichthey maintaineduntil
A
death.Andif we speakof it as theater,it is not to diminishits importance.
greatpart of politics and law is alwaystheater;once a socialsystemhas
become"set,"it does not need to be endorseddailyby exhibitionsof power
of forcewill be madeto definethe limits
(althoughoccasionalpunctuations
of the system'stolerance);whatmattersmoreis a continuingtheatricalstyle.
Whatone remarksof the eighteenthcenturyis elaborationof this style and
withwhichit wasdeployed.
the self-consciousness
The gentryand (in mattersof socialintercourse)theirladiesjudgedto a
to eachrankandstation:
nicetythe kindsof conspicuousdisplayappropriate
whatcoach,how manyfootmen,whattable,evenwhatproperreputationfor
"liberality."The show was so convincingthat it has evenmisledhistorians;
one notices an increasingnumberof referencesto the "paternalresponsibilities"of the aristocracy,upon which"thewholesystemrested."But we
390
journalof social history
haveso farnotedgesturesandposturesratherthanactualresponsibilities.
The
theaterof the greatdependednot upon constant,day-by-dayattentionto
responsibilities
(exceptin the supremeofficesof State)almosteveryfunction
of the eighteenth-century
aristocracy,
andmanyof thoseof thehighergentry
and clergy,was held as a quasi-sinecure
whose dutieswere farmedout to
subordinates)
but uponoccasionaldramaticinterventions:
the roastedox, the
prizesofferedfor someraceor sport,t:heliberaldonationto charityin time
of dearth,the applicationfor mercy,the proclamation
againstforestallers.
It
is as if the illusionof paternalismwas too fragileto be riskedto more
sustainedexposure.
The occasions of aristocraticand gentry patronagecertainlydeserve
attention:this sociallubncantof gesturescould only too easily makethe
mechanismsof power and exploitationrevolvemore sweetly. The poor,
habituatedto their irrevocablestation,have often been madeaccessories,
throughtheir own good nature,to their own oppression;a year of short
commonscanbe oompensated
for by a liberalChristmas
dole.
But such gestureswere calculatedto receiere
a returnin deferencequite
disproportionate
to the outlay andthey certainlydon'tmeritthe description
of "responsibilities.'Thesegreatagrarianbourgeoisennced little senseof
public,or even corporate,responsibility.The centuryis not noted for the
scaleof its publicbuildingsbut for that of its privatemansions;and is as
muchnoted for the misappropriation
of the charitiesof previouscenturiesas
forthe foundingof newones.
One public function the gentry assumedwholly as their own: the
administration
of the law,the maintenance,
at timesof crisisof publicorder.
At this point they becamemagisterially
andportentouslyvisible.Responsibility this certainlywas althoughit was a responsibility,
in the firstandin
the secondplace,to their own propertyand authority.Withregularityand
with awful solemnitythe limits of toleranceof the social system were
punctuatedby London'shangingdays;by the corpserottingon the gibbet
besidethe highway;by the processional
of Asslzes.Howeverundesirable
the
side-effects(the apprenticesand servantsplayingtruantfrom service,,the
festivalof pickpockets,the acclamationof the condemned)the ritualof
publicexecutionwasa necessaryconcomitantof a systemof socialdiscipline
wherea greatdealdependedupontheater.
III
If the greatwere wiffidrawnso much,withintheir parksand mansions,
from publicview,it followsthat the plebs,in manyof theiractivities,were
withdrawnalso from them. Effective paternalsway requiresnot only
temporalbut also spintualor psychicauthority.It is herethat we seemto
findthe systemsweakestliS.
It would not be difficultto find, in this parishor in that, ei«teenthcenturyclergyfulfilling,with dedication,paternalist
functions.Butwe know
CULTURE
PLEBIAN
SOCIETY,
PATRICIAN
391
men.ParsonAdamsis drawn,not to
verywellthatthesearenot characteristic
exemplifythe practicesof the clergy but to criticizethem;he maybe seen,
AnfiicanChurch.The
at once, as the Don Quixoteof ie eighteenth-century
Churchwas profoundlyErastian;had it performedan effective,a psycho
logicallycompellingpaternalistrole, the Methodtstmovementwouldhave
beenneithernecessarynorpossible.
All this couldno doubtbe qualified.Butwhatis centralto ourpurposeis
that the "magcal" commandof the Churchand of its ritualsover the
populace,while still present,was becomingveryweak.In the sixteenffiand
hadset out to destroythe bondsof idolatry
seventeenthcenturies,Puritanism
and superstition-thewaysideshrines,the gaudychurches,the localmiracle
cults, the superstitionpractices,the confessionalpriesthood-which,as one
may still see in Eire or in partsof southernEuropetoday, can hold th
commonpeoplein awe.The Restorationcouldnot restorea tissueof papist
idolatryforwhich,in anycase,Englandhadneverbeennotablydisposed.But
the Restorationdid loosenthe newbondsof disciplinewhichPuntanismhad
broughtin its place. There can be little doubt that the earlyeidlteenth
andthe diminutionin the
centurywitnesseda greatrecessionin Puritanism,
size of the popularPuritanfollowingevenln thoseartisancenterswhichhad
rlourishedthe Cinl War sects. In the result, there was an accessionof
freedom,aliough of a negativekind, to the poor-a freedomfrom the
of priesthoodor of presbyters.
psychicdisciplineandmoralsupervision
A pnesthood with active pastoralcare has usuadlyfound ways of
of its flock. However
co-existingwith the paganor hereticalsuperstitions
deplorablesuch compromisesmay appearto ffieologians,the priestlearns
if attached
that manyof the beliefsand practicesof "folklore'areharmless;
to the calendaryearof the Churchthey canbe to thatdegreeChristianized,
andcan serveto reinforcethe Church'sauthority.Whatmattersmostis that
the Churchshould in its rituals,commandthe ritesof passageof personal
life, andattachthe popularfestivalsto its owncalendar.
The AnglicanChurchof the eighteenthcentllrywasnot a creatureof this
kmd. It was servednot by priestsbut by parsons.It had,exceptin unusual
nstances,abandonedthe confessional.It recruitedfew sonsof the poorinto
and
the priesthood.Whenso many priestsservedas temporalmagistrates
the sarnelaw as the gentry,they couldscarcelypresentthemselves
ofElcered
spintualauthority.Whenbishops
as the agentsof an alternative
convincingly
andwhenthe cousinsof the gentrywereplaced
werepoliticalappointments,
in country livings,where they enlargedtheir viarages and adoptedthe
gentry'sstyle of life, it wasonly too evidentfromwhatsourcethe Church's
authoritywasderived.
Aboveall, the Churchlost commandoverthe "leisure"of the poor,their
feastsandfestivals,and,with this, overa largeareaof plebeianculture.The
In ruralsocietywheresmall
term"leisure"is, of course,itself anachronistic.
farmlng and the commons economy persisted,and in large areas of
of workwasso variedandirregulg
industry,the organization
manufacturing
392
journalof social history
thatit is falseto makea sharpdistinctionbetween"work"and"leisure."On
the one hand,socialoccasionswereintermixedwith labor-withmarketing,
sheepshearingand harvesting,fetchingand carryingthe materialsof work
and so on throughoutthe year. On the otherhand,enormousemotional
capitalwas invested,not piecemealin a successionof Saturdaynightsand
Sundaymornings,but in the specialfeastsandfestivaloccasions.Manyweeks
of heavylaborand scantydiet werecompensatedfor by the expectation(or
reminiscence)of these occasions,when food and drinkwere abundant,
flourished,andthehardshipof
courtshipandeverykindof socialintercourse
life was obliterated.For the young, the sexualcycle of the yearturnedon
these festivals.Theseoccasionswere, in an importantsense,whatmen and
partin theirconduct,
womenlivedfor;andif the Churchhadlittle signiElcant
calendarof
emotional
the
with
engage
to
ceased
degree,
thenit had, to iat
the poor.
Onecan see this in a literalsense.Whilethe old saintsdayswerescattered
events
ritualcalendarconcentrated
liberallyacrossthe calendarthe Church's
spring,
the
to
winter
the
from
labor,
upon
into the monthsof lightdemands
to Easter.Whilethe peoplestill owed tributeto the lasttwo
fromChristmas
dates, which remainedas days of maximumcommunion)the eighteenthcentury calendarof popularfestivity coincidesclosely with the agrarian
calendar.The villageand town feasts for the dedicationof churchesor
wakes-hadnot onlymovedfromthe saints'daysto the adjacentSunday,but
in most casesthey had also beenremoved(wherenecessary)fromthe winter
ThomasHearne,
to the summersolstice. In about 1730, the antiquarian,
or on its
madea note of the feastdayof 132 villagesor townsin Oxfordshire
three-fifths)
than
more
(or
84
borders.All fell betweenMayand December;
no fewerthan43 (or almostone-third)fell in
fell in AugustandSeptember;
the last week of Augustand the fslrstweek of September.Apartfrom a
significantgroupof sometwenty whichfell betweenthe endof Juneandthe
endof July,andwhichin a normalyearmightbe expectedto fallbetweenthe
of thecerealharvest,theweight
endof the hayharvestandthecommencement
aftertheharvest
immediately
weeks
the
in
fell
of the emotionalfestivecalendar
wasgatheredin.
a calendarof feastsfor NorthamptonOr. Malcolmsonhas reconstructed
shirein the latereighteenthcenturywhichshowsmuchthe sameincidence.
of the style
of the calendargoesa secularization
Alongwiththe secularization
functions
secular
new
then
pagan,
not
If
occasions.
and the functionof the
were added to old ritual;the publicans,huckstersand entertainersencouraged,with theirnumerousstalls,the feastswhen tileir customershad
harvestearningsin theirpockets;the villagecharityandbenefit
uncustomary
clubs took over the old churchales of Whitsuntide.At BamptonWhitMonday'sclub feastincludeda processionwi drumandpiper(or fiddler),
(a money
morrisdarlcers,a clownwith a bladderwho carriedthe "treasury"
a swordbearerwith a cake.Therewas,of course,no
box'forcontributions),
crucifix,no priest or nuns,no imagesof virginor saints:theirabsenceis
PATRICIAN
SOCIETY,
PLEBIAN
CULTURE
393
perhapstoo little noticed.Not one of the 17 songsor melodiesrecordedhad
the leastreligiousassociation:
Oh, my Billy, my constant Billy,
Whenshall I see my Billy again?
Whenthe fishes fly over ie mountain,
Then you'll see your Billy again.
Bampton,that livingmuseumof folklore,wasnot anisolatedruralvillage,
but a sturdycenterof the leatherindustry;
justas the MiddletonandAshton
of Bamford'sboyhoodwerecentersof domesticindustry.Whatis manifest,
in many such districts,and in many ruralregionsalso in the eighteenth
century,is that one could neverfor a momentsustainthe viewwhich(for
example)PaulBoisis ableto assertof the eighteenthZcentury
Frenchpeasant
of the West,that "c'etaitl'eglisea l'ormbrede laquellese nouaienttoutesles
relations."Of course,the religiousandthe secular(or pagan)hadcoexisted
uneasily,or conflicted,for centuries:the Puritanswere concernedto keep
mornsdancersout of the church,andhuckster'sstallsout of the church-yard.
They complainedthat churchales were defiledby anmal baiting,dancing,
andall mannerof 4'lewdness."
Butthereremainsa sensein whichthe Church
was the hub aroundwhichthe spokesof this populartraditionturned;and
the StuartBookof Sportssoughtto confirmthisrelationship
againstPuritar
attack.In the eighteenthcentury,the agrarian
seasonalcalendarwasthe hub
andthe Churchprovidednone of the movingforce.It is a difficultchangeto
definebutwithoutdoubtit wasa largeone.
The dual experienceof the Reformationand of the declinein Puritan
presenceleft a remarkable
dissociationbetweenthe politeandthe plebeian
culture in post-RestorationEngland.Nor should we underestimatethe
creativeculture-forming
processfrom below. Not only the obviousthingsfolk songs,tradesclubsand corn dollies.were madefrom below, but also
interpretations
of life satisfactionsand ceremonials.The wife sale, in its
crudeand perhapsexotic way, performeda functionof ritualdivorceboth
more availableand more cinlized than anythingthe polite culturecould
offer.The ntualsof roughmusic,cruelas they mightsometimesbe, wereno
more vengefuland really no more exotic than the ritualsof a Special
Commission
of OyerandTerminer.
Thelegendof the revivalof "merryEngland"
afterthe Restoration
is one
whichhistonanshaveperhapsbeen too impatientto examine.Evenif some
of the moresensationalclaimsare discounted(Defoe,as a goodaccountant
assuresus that 6325 maypoleswere erectedin the five years after the
Restoration)there is no doubt that there was a generaland sometimes
exuberantrevivalof popularsportsSwakes,rushbearingsandrituals."Help,
Lord!" exclaimedthe Rev. OliverHeywood,the tected minister,when
recountingthe cockfighting,horse racingand stooluballendemicin the
Halifax district in the 1680s: 'SOh,what oaths sworn!at wickedness
committed!' And recountingthe May Day celebrationsof 1680 he had
394
journalof social history
lamented:"Thereneverwas suchworkin
Halifaxabovefifty yearspast.Hell
is brokeloose."
Weare moreaccustomedto analyze
the
history,and to thinkof the declineof hell. age in termsof its intellectual
Butthe breaking
looseof thishell
of a plebeianculturequitebeyond
theircontrolwasthe wakingnightmare
the survivingPuntans.Paganfestivals
of
which
calendarin the middleages (althoughwith the Churchhad attachedto its
purelysecularfestivitiesin the eighteenth incompletesuccess)revertedto
century.Wakenightscameto an
end;but the feastsof the following
day
eachdecade.The ceremonyof strewing or weekbecamemorerobustwith
rushesin the churcheslingeredhere
andthere;but the feastsof rush
bearings
went from strengthto strength.
NearHalifaxagain,the incumbent(a
Reverend
Witter)attemptedto prevent
thesefeasts in 1682, at which (he
complained)
the people make great
provision
of fleshandale,comefromallparts,
;'andeat anddrinkandrantin
abarbarous
heathenishmallner."Mr.
hewas abusedas a "cobbler."The Witter'sdoorswerebrokendownand
rush-bearing
district
for at leasta further150 years.But, ceremonycontinuedin this
as in most districts,it hadlost
anysacredsignificance.The symbols
on
the
richly-decorated
cartsbecame
bells
and paintedpots. The picturesque
costumesof the menandthe white
dresses
and garlandsof the women appear
more and more pagan.The
pageants
pay a merepassingobeisanceto
Christian
symbolism:Adamand
Eve,
St. Georgeandthe Dragon,theVirtues,
the
Vices,
RobinHoodandMaid
Marian,
hobbyhorses,sweepson pigs, morrisdancers.
The festivitiesended
with
baitings,wrestling,dancingand
of
the housesof the gentryand of drinking,andsometimeswith the tour
wealthyhouseholders
for drink,food and
money.
"I couldnot suppressthese
Bacchanals,"
wrote
the
Rev.JohnWilliam
de
La Flechereof the Shropshire
Wakes:"theimpotentdykeI opposedonly
made
the torrentswell and foam, without
the
peoplehad found patronsoutsidethe stoppingthe course.sMoreover)
Church:if La Flecherepreached
against
drunkenness,
showsandbullbaitingn
not
forgiveme. They think that to preach"thepublicansandmaltsterswill
againstdrunkenness
and to cut
their
pursestringsis the samething."
But the resurgence
of this culturecannotbe put
ization
fosteredby publicansalone.Thegentryhaddownto the commercialmeans,throughQuarter
Sessions,
to harrythemin theirlicensesif they
had
wished.
Thisefflorescence
of
festivitiescan scarcelyhavetakenplace
without
a
permissive
attitudeon
the
partof manyof the gentry.In one
sense,thiswasno morethanthe logic
of
the times. The materialismof the
rich and the
Erastiallism
of their Churchwere met by eighteenth-century
the
of the poor.The
race
meetingsof the richbecamethe poor's materialism
tolerance
of the gentrywas solicitedby the popularholidays.Thepermissive
manytavernswhich-asinnsigns
still
proclaim-sought
to put themselves
under
the
of the great.The
gentry
could make no convincingmissionarypatronage
manners
andmoralsof the poorif they were expeditionsto reformthe
unwfllingto reformtheirown
ostentatious
andpleasantvices.
Butas explanationthis is not finally
convincing.
Onlya ruling
feels
itselfto be threatened
is afraidto flaunta doublestandard. classwhich
Mandeville
is
CULTURE
PLEBIAN
SOCIEItY,
PATRICIAN
395
thatprivatences
only unusualin pressingto the pointof satirethe argument
were publicbenefits.In more softenedform the sameargument,as to the
valuablefunctionof luxuryin providingemploymentandspectaclefor the
poor,waspartof ie economiccantof the time.
Indeed, we have seen that the conspicuousdisplay of luxury and
was partof ie theaterof the great.In someareas(wagestheory,
"liberality"
the poor laws, the crlminalcode), the materialismof the rich consorted
without difficulty with a disciplinarycontrol of the poor. But ln other
areas-ie permissiveattitudeto the robust,unchristimpopularculture,a
certaincautionandevendelicacyin the handlingof populardisturbanceeven
a certainflatteryextendedto the pooras to theirlibertiesandrights-inthese
areaswe arepresentedwitha problemwhichdemandsmoresubtleanalysis.It
suggestssome reciprocityin the relationsbetween rich and poor; an
a
inhibitionupon the use of force againstindisciplineand disturbance;
whichwouldalienate
caution(on the partof the nch) againsttakingmeasures
the poor too far, and (on the partof that sectionof the poorwhichfrom
timeto time ralliedbehindthe cry of 'ChurehandKing>)a sensethat there
were tangibleadvantagesto be gainedby solicitingthe favorof the rich.
Thereis some mutualityof relationshiphere whidhit is difficultnot to
analyzeat the level of classrelationship.And yet, havewe not beenoften
in the eighteenthcentury,to speakof a ;'working
told that it is premature,
class?"
Of course, no one in the eighteenthcenturywould have thoughtof
describingtheir own as a "one-classsociety."Therewerethe rulersandthe
ruled,ffie highandthe low people,personsof substanceandof independent
estateand the loose anddisorderlysort.In between,wherethe professionK
shouldhavebeen,relations
yeomallry7
andmiddledasses,andthe substantial
of dientageand dependencywere so strongthat, at least until the 1760s,
thesegoups appearto offer little deflectionof the essentialpolarities.Only
of the needto deferto patronscouldbe
someonewho was "independent"
thoughtof as havillgfilll politicalidentity:so muchis a pointin favorof the
"one-class"view. But classdoes not defineitself in politicalidentityalone.
For Fieldingsthe evidentdivison betweenthe highandthe low people,the
peopleof fashionandof no fashion,lay likea culturalfissureacrossthe land:
whilst the people of fashion seized severalplaces to their own use, such
as courts, assemblies, operas, balls, &c., the people of no fashion,
besides one royal place, called his Majesty'sBear-Garden,have been in
constant possessionof all hops, fairs,revels, &c.... So far from looking
on each other as brethrenin the Christianlanguage,they seem scarceto
regardeach other as of the same species.
This is a worldof patriciansand of plebs;it is no accidentthat the rulers
sociologicalorder.But
turnedbadkto allcientRomefor a modelof theirOWI1
sucha polanzationof classrelationsdoesn'ttherebydeprivethe plebsof all
politicalexistence.They are at one side of the necessaryequationof the
respublica.
A plebsis not, perhaps,a workingclass.Theplebsmaylacka consistency
clarityof objectives;the structurlngof
of self-definition,in consciousness;
396
journalof social history
class organization.But the politicalpresenceof the plebs, or"mob," or
"crowd,"is manifest;it hasbeenchronicled,
for London,by GeorgeRude;it
impingeduponhighpoliticsat a scoreof criticaloccasions-Sacheverell
riots,
excise agitation,CiderTax, the patrioticand chauvinistic
ebullitionswhich
supportedthe careerof the elderPitt) and on to Wilkesandbeyond.Even
whenthe beastseemedto be sleeping,the tetchysensibilities
of a libertarian
crowddefined,in the largestsense,the limitsof whatwaspoliticallypossible
Thereis a sensein whichrulersand crowdneededeachother7watchedeach
other, performedtheaterand countertheater
to each other'sauditorium,
moderatedeachother'spoliticalbehavior.Thisis a moreactiveandreciprocal
relationshipthan the one normallybroughtto mind underthe formula
"paternalism
anddeference.'
It is necessaryalso to go beyondthe view that laboringpeople,at this
time, were confined within the fraternalloyalties and the "vertical"
consciousnessof particulartrades;and that this inhibitedwidersolidarities
and"horizontal"consciousness
of class.Thereis somethingin this,certainly.
Theurbancraftsman
retainedsomethingof a guildoutlook;eachtradehadits
songs(with the implementsof the trademinutelydescribed),its chapbooks
and legends;some trades, like the blacksmithsand the wool combers,
maintainedtheir ritual saint's days and processions.So the shoemaker's
apprenticemight be given by his master 7she Delightful, Princely and
EntertainingHistoryof the Gentle-Craft,andthereread:
neveryet did any know
A shooemakera Begginggo.
Kindthey are one to another,
Usingeach Strangeras his Brother.
He readthis in 1725, andhe wouldhavereadmuchthe samein the timeof
Dekker.At timesthe distinctionsof tradeswerecarriedoverinto festivaland
sociallife. Bristol,in the earlyeighteenthcentury,sawan annualpugilistic
combat on Ash Wednesdaybetween the blacksmiths,and the coopers,
carpentersand sailors,with the weaverssometimesjoiningin on the side of
the smiths.And in more substantialways, when definingtheir economic
interestsas producers craftsmenand workers-Thames-side
coal heavers,
Londonporters,Spitalfieldssilk weavers,west of Englandclothingworkers,
Lancashirecotton weavers-organized
themselvestightlywithintheirtrades,
and petitionedthe Stateor corporateauthoritiesfor theirfadingpaternalist
favors.
Indeed,thereis substantial
evidenceon thisside;andthe degreeto whicha
guild or "trade" outlook and even vestigialcontinuityof organization
contributedto the earlytradeunionswasunderstated
by the Webbs.Butto
suppose that such trade fraternitywas necessarilyat odds with larger
objectivesor solidaritiesis quite false. The tradeconsciousness
of London
craftsmenin the 1640sdidnot inhibitsupportfor JohnLilburne.Whattrade
PLEBIAN
CULTURE
PATRICIAN
SOCIETY,
397
consciousnessmay inhibitis economicsolidaritiesbetweendifferentgroups
of producersas againsttheiremployers;butif we lay asidethisanachronistic
workmenabundant
postulate, we will find among eighteenth-century
evidence of horizontalsolidaritiesand consciousness.In the scores of
occupationallists whichI haveexaminedof food rioters,turnpikerioters,
riots over libertarianissuesor enclosureof urbancommons,it is clearthat
by trade;in a regionwhereclothingworkers,
solidaritieswerenot segregated
in the lists
theseobviouslypredominate
tinnersor colliersarepredominant,
of offenders,but not to the exclusionof otherworkingoccupations.I hope
to have shown,in anotherplace,that all these groups,duringfood riots,
andobjectives-aspettyconsumers
shareda commonconsciousness-ideology
of the necessitiesof life. But these peoplewereconsumersalsoof cultural
andon theseissuesthey
rhetoric,of patrioticprejudice;
values,of libertarian
could exhibitsolidantiesas well. When,in the quiet 1750s,PrincessAmelia
tried to close all access to RichmondNew Park,she was opposedby a
vigoroushorizontalconsciousnesswhich stretchedfrom John Lewis, a
the
andwhichembraced
wealthylocalbrewer,to GrubStreetpamphleteers,
attemptedto put
whole local "populace."When,in 1799, the magistrates
down Shrove Tuesdayfootball in the streets of Kingston,it was"the
populace"and "the mob" who assembledand triumphantlydefied their
of
orders.Themobmaynot havebeennotedfor animpeccableconsciousness
class;but the rulersof Englandwerein no doubtat all thatit wasa horizontal
sortof beast.
Let us take stock of the argumentto this point. It is suggestedthat, in
was as much theaterandgestureas effectiveresponsiw
practice,paternalism
we can
bility;that so far froma warm,household,face-to-facerelationship
observea studied techniqueof rule. Whilethere was no novelty in the
existenceof a distinctplebeianculture,with its own rituals,festivals,and
superstitions,
we have suggestedthat in the eighteenthcenturythis culture
wasremarkably
robust,greatlydistancedfromthe polite culture,andthatit
except in perfunctoryways,the hegemonyof the
no longeracknowledged,
Church.
nor even a
This plebeianculturewas not, to be sure, a revolutionary
culture(in the senseof fosteringulteriorobjectiveswhich
proto-revolutionary
called in questionthe social order);but one shouldnot describeit as a
deferentialcultureeither.It bredriotsbut not rebellions:directactionsbut
not democraticorganizationsOne notices the swiftnessof the crowd's
changesin mood,frompassivityto mutinyto cowedobedience.Wehavethis
in the satiricalballadof the "BraveDudleyBoys":
Webin marchin'up and deown
Woboys, wo
Fur to pull the Housen deown
journalof socialhistory
398
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 reachesAsappointedlimit,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 thenceto the reassertion
of 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 characterize
this behavioras childlike. No doubt,if we insist
upon looking at the eighteenthcentury only throughthe lense of the
mneteenth-century
LaborMovement,we will see only the immature,the
pre-politicalthe infancyof class.And fromone aspect this is not untrue:
repeatedlyone sees pre*figurements
of nineteenth-century
classattitudesand
organization;fleeting expressionsof solidarities,in riots, in strikes)even
before the gallows;it is temptingto see eighteenth-century
workersas an
immanentworkingclass,whoseevolutionis retardedby a senseof the futility
of transcending
its situation.But the '4to-frolackeying'of the crowditselfa
historyof greatantiquity:e ;4primitive
rebels"of one age mightbe seen
from an earlierage, to be the decadentinherltorsof yet more primitive
axlcestors.
Too muchhistoricalhindsightdistractsus fromseeingthe crowdas
it was, sui generis, with its own objectives,
operatingwithinthe complexand
delicatepolarityof forcesof its own context.
I haveattemptedelsewhereto reconstruct
thesecrowdobjectives,andthe
logicof the crowd'sbehaviorin one particular
case:the food riot. I believe
that all othermajortypesof crowdacfionwS afterpatientanalysis,reveala
siTnilar
logc: it is only the short-sighted
historianmrho
hndsthe eruptionsof
the crowdto be "blind*"
HereI wishto discussbrieflythreecharacteristics
of
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE
399
popularaction,andthen to returnonceagainto the contextof gentry-crowd
relationsin whichall took place.
First is the anonymoustradition.The anonymousthreat,or even the
individualterronstact, is often found in a society of total clientageand
dependency,on the other side of the medalof simulateddeference.It is
exactlyin a ruralsociety,whereany open,identifiedresistanceto the ruling
powermay resultin instantretaliation-lossof home,employment,tenancy,
if not victimizationat law-that one tendsto find the acts of darkness:the
anonymousletter, arsonof the stackor outhouse,houghingof cattle, the
shot or bnck throughthe window,the gateoff its hinges,the orchardfelled,
the fish-pondsluicesopenedat night.Thesamemanwho toucheshis forelock
to the squireby day-and who goes down to history as an exampleof
deference-maykill his sheep,snarehis pheasantsor poisonhis dogsat night.
Englandas a theaterof dailyterror.That
I don't offer eighteenth-century
havescarcelybegun
wasreservedfor 3OhnBull'sOtherIsland.Buthistorians
Thenotorious
violence.
to take the measureof the volumeof anonymous
of
BlackAct" of 1723 aroseout of exactly such a background
"Waltham
unusuallyorganizedactions in the forests of Hampshireand Berkshire.
Successivecapitalstatutes,spacedacrossthe century,were in responseto
similarlocal outbreaks.And a bizarrerecordof the marchof literacyis to be
found in the columnsof the LondonGazette.This publicationof August
the movementsof the Court,promotions
Authonty,in whosepagesappeared
andcommissionsin the services,andofElcialnoticesof everykind,therealso
of rewardsandprofferedpardons.In pursuitof the
appearedadvertisements
authorsof anonymousletters,theseletterswereoftenpublishedin full,with
theiroriginalorthography.
laboringmenwerequite
Whattheselettersshowis thateighteenth-century
anyillusionof deference
capable,in the securityof anonymity,of shattering
andunfilialway. A
and of regardingtheir rulersin a whollyunsentimental
writerfromWitney,in 1767,urgedthe recipient:"donot suffersuchdamned
wheesingfat guted Roguesto Starvethe Poor by such Hellishways on
purposethat they may followhuntinghorseracing&c andto maintaintheir
who
An inhabitantof Henleyon-Thames,
familysin Prideandextravagance."
had seen the volunteersin actionagainstthe crowd,addressedhimselfto
"you gentlemanas you are pleaseto call Yourselves-Altllothat is your
RougsthatEverExisted."
Mistakes-foryou area sett of the mostDamnable
"wedont
(An Odihamauthor,writingon a similarthemein l800, remarked
GentlemenSoldiersButin
carea Damfor them fellowsthat CallThemselves
ouropinionthe Look moorelike Monkeysridingon Bears.")Sometimesthe
lack of properdeferencecomes throughmerelyas a brisk aside: "Lord
in 1793,"whodiedthe
a handbillwriterin Norwichremarked
Buckingham,"
other day had ThirtyThousandPounds,yeerly For settinghis Arsein the
Houseof Lordsanddoingnothing."
Theselettersshow-andthey aredispersedovermost partsof England,as
well as partsof Wales-thatdeferencecouldbe verybrittleindeed,andmade
andonly one partof
one partof dissimulation,
up of one partof self-interest,
journalof social historYf
400
the awe of authority.Theywerepartof the countertheater
of the poor.They
wereintendedto chillthe spineof gentryandmagistrates
andmayorsrecall
themto theirduties,enforcefromthemcharityin timesof
dearth.
This takesus to a secondcharacteristic
of popularaction whichI have
describedas countertheater.
Justas the rulersassertedtlleirhegemorlyby a
studiedtheatricalstyle, so the plebsassertedtheirpresenceby a
theaterof
threatandsedition.Fromthe time of WiLkes
forwardthe languageof crowd
symbolismis comparatively
;'modern"andeasy to read:effigyburning;the
hangng of a boot from a gallows;the illuminationof
windows(or the
breakingof those withoutillumination);
the untilingof a house which,as
RudEnotes,had an almostritualisticsignificance.
In Londonthe
minister,the popularpoliticianneededthe aid of no pollstersto unpopular
ratingwitk the crowd;they mightbe pelted with obscenities knowtheir
or
triumphthroughthe streets.Not only the condemnedtrod thechairedin
Tyburn:the audiencealso proclaimedvociferouslytheir assent stage at
or disgust
withthe book.
But as we move backwardfrom 1760 we enter a world
of theatrical
symbolism
whichis moredifflcultto interpret:popularpolitical
sympathies
areexpressedin a cede quite differentfrom that of the
1640s or of the
1790s.It is a languageof ribbonsof bonfslresn
of oathsandof the refusalof
oaths,of toasts,of seditiousriddlesar3dancientprophecies,
of
ofmaypoles,of balladswitha politicaldouble-entendre,even oakleavesand
of airswhistled
inthe street.Wedont yet know enoughaboutpopular
Jacobitism
howmuch of it was sentiment,how much was substancer to assess
but we can
certainly
say that the plebson manyoccasionsemployedJacobite
symbolism
successfuLly
as theater,knowingwell thatit wasthe scriptmostcalculated
to
enrageand alarmtheir Hanoverianrulers.In the 172Qs,when
a
censored
pressveils ratherthan illuminatespublicopinion,one detects
underground
moods
in the vigorwithwhichrivalHanoverian
andStuartanniversaries
were
celebrated.
The Norwich Gazette reportedin May 1723 that Tuesday
lastf
being
the birthdayof Kig Georgeawas observedin the city
sCwith
all
the
usual
demonstrations
of joy andloyalty':
And Wednesdaybeing the Anniversaryof the Happy
Restaurationof
King CharlesII, and with him of the royal family, after a
too long and
successful usurpation of sanctified
it was celebrated in this
city in an extraordinarymarlner;for besides ringingof
bells, fwing of
guns, and bonfiressthe streetswere strownwith seggs,
oaken boughs set
up at the doors, arldin some streets garlandsand pictures
hung out, and
variety of antick and comick dances . . . (with) bumpersto
the Giorious
Memoryof CharlesII.
tyranny5
Manifestly
disloyalas this was not only to the Kingbut also
Man
in his own countySit providedno handIeto the law to the Great
officersof the
Crown.
Ihis was a war of nerves,now satirical,now menacing.
The arrows
sometimes
found theirmark.In 1724 the King'sministerswereporlng
over
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE
401
depositionsfrom Harwichwhere the loyal Hanoveriancaucushad been
insultedby a mostunsavoryroughmusic:
while the Mayorand other Membersof the Corporationwere assembled
in the Town Hall to commemorateHis Majesty'sMost happy accession
to the Throne by drinkingHis Majesty'sand other most Loyal Healths,
he this Deponent . . . did see from a Window. . . a person dressedup
with horns on his head attended by a mob.
This "said InfamousPerson,"John Hart,a fisherman,was beingchaired
about the town by one of two hundredothersof equalinfamy.Theywere
"drumminga ridiculousTune of RoundheadedCuckolds&c, and [Hart]
cameto the MayorssandthisDeponent'sdoorandmadesignswithhishands
intimatingthatWemightkisshis Arse."
thisis by no
If someof the crowd'sactionscanbe seenas countertheater,
of popularactionwasthe crowd's
meanstrue of all. Fora thirdcharacteristic
capacityfor swift directaction.To be one of a crowd,or a mob,wasanother
way of being anonymous,whereas to be a member of a continuing
organizationwas boundto expose one to detectionandvictimization.The
crowdwell understoodits capacitiesfor actior,,and its
eighteenth-century
own artof the possible.Its successesmustbe immediate,or not at all. It must
destroythese machines,intimidatetheseemployersor dealers,damagethat
mill,enforcefromtheirmastersa subsidyof bread,untilethathouse,before
troopscameon the scene.Themodeis so familiarthatI needonlyrecallit to
mindwithone or two citationsfromthe statepapers.At Coventry,1772:
On Tuesday evening. . . a great Mob 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 principal Ribbon Manufacturers.... They declaredtheir intention
to . . . pull down his House, & to demolishhim, if they could meet with
him .... Every gentle Meanswas made use of ... to dispersethem, but
without Effect, and by throwing Stones and breaking his Windows,
they began to carrytheir Purposeinto Execution.
phaseof a food riot:
in 1740,duringthe triumphant
In Newcastle-on-Tyne
About two on Thursday morning a great number of Colliers and
Waggoners,Smiths and other common workmen [the horizontal beast
again] came along the Bridge,released the prisoners,and proceededin
great Order through 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 Guild Hall
and scarce knew what to do.
In the resultthey panicked,scuffledwith the crowdon the GuildHallsteps,
andfireda volleyinto it killingmorethanone. In retaliation:
Stones flew in among us . . . throughthe windows like cannon shot . . .
at length the mob broke in upon us in the most terribleoutrage.They
spared our lives indeed but obliged us to quit the place, then fell to
402
journS of social history
plunderingand destroyinga11about 'em. The severalbenches of
justices
were immediatelyand entirely demolishedSthe Town
Clerk'sOfflce was
broke open, and all the books, deeds, and records of the
town and its
courts thrown out of the window.
They broke into the Hutch and took out fifteen
hundred poundss
they... broke down everything that was ornamental, two
very fine
capital Picturesof KingCharlessecond andJames second .
they tore,
all but the faces . . . and afterwardsconducted the
Magistratesto their
own houses in a kind of Mock Triumph.
Onceagain,one notes the senseof theaterevenin the full
flushof
symbolicdestructionof the benchesof justice,the Clerkssbooks, rage:the
the Tory
corporation's
Stuartportraits,the mocktriumphto the magistrates;
andyet,
with this, the orderof theirprocessionsand the restraint
which
withheld
them(evenaftertheyhadbeenfiredupon)fromtakinglife.
Of course,the crowdlost its headas often as the mapstrates
did.Butthe
interesting
pointis that neithersidedidthisoften.So farfrom
being4'blind5
thecrowdwas often disciplined,had clearobjectives7
knewhow
withauthority and above all broughtits strengthswiftly to negotiate
to bear. The
authorities
often felt themselvesto be faced literally,with an
anonymous
multitude"Thesemen are all tinners,' a customsoff1cerwrote
from St.
Austellin 1766 of local smuggling
gangs?"seldomseen abovegrollndin the
daytime,and are underno apprehensions
of beingknownby us.' Where
"ringleaders"
were detected) it was often impossibleto secure sworn
depositions.
But solidarityrarelywent furtherthanthiseIf
ofthe crowdmighthope for animmediaterescue)within taken the leaders
twenty-fourhours,
ifthismomentpassedthey couldexpectto be abandoned.
Otherfeaturesmightbe noted:but thesethree-theanonymous
tradition;
countertheater;
and swift,evanescentdirectaction-seemof importance.All
direct
attentionto the unitarycontextof classrelationship.
inwhichrulersandcrowdneededeachother,watchedeach Thereis a sense
other,performed
theaterand countertheaterin each other's auditorium,
moderatedeach
other's
politicalbehavior.Intolerantof the insubordination
of free labor,
nevertheless
the rulersof Englandshowedin practicea surprising
degreeof
licence
towardsthe turbulenceof the crowd.Is theresomedeeply
embeddedn
"structural'
reciprocityhere?
Contraryto cherishedlegends,Englandwas of coursenever
withouta
standing
armyin the eighteenthcentury.The maintenance
of this armyfin
Walpole's
years was a particularcause of the Hanoverian
Whigs.Bwtfor
purposes
of internalcontrolthis was often a smallandemergency
force.It
was,
for example7seriousIyover-stretched
andinadequate
to the needsof the
situation
duringthe riot year 1766. The permanentquartering
of troopsin
populous
districtswas alwaysimpolitic.Therewasalwaysdelay,andoften
delay
of severaldays?betweenthe onsetof disturbance
andthe arrival
military.
The troops and equallytheirofficers(whosepowersto act of the
against
PATRICIANSOCIEI*Y,PLEBIANCULTURE
403
civilianscould be challengedin the courts) found this servicesSodious.s
hadled to
Jealousyof the Crown,secondedby the avariceof the aristocracy,
the weaknessof all the effectilreorgansfor the enforcementof order.The
weaknessof the Statewas expressedin an incapacityto use forceswiftly,in
an ideologicaltendernesstowardsthe libertiesof ie subject,andin a sketchy
bureaucracyso nddled with sinecurism,parasitismand clientagethat it
scarcelyofferedanindependentpresence.
andgentrypaidfor a limitedmonarchy
Thusthe pricewhicharistocracy
anda weakStatewas,perforce,the licenceof the crowd.Thisis the central
context of the reciprocityof relationsbetweenrulersandruled.
structurad
The rulerswere,of course,reluctmtto paythisprice.Butit wouldhavebeen
possibleto disciplinethe crowdonly if therehad beena uniEled,coherent
rulingclass,contentto dinde the spoilsof poweramicablyamongthemselves,
and to governby meansof theirimmensecommandoverthe meansof life.
Such cohesion did not, at any time before the 1790s, exist, as several
historicalscholarshavebeenatpainsto show.
of distinguished
generations
The tensions-betweencourt and country,money and land-ran deep.
for the
Until 1750 or 1760 the term "gentry"is too undiscriminating
betweenthe WEigand
purposesof our analysis.Thereis a markeddivergence
Tory traditionsof relationswith the crowd.The igs, in those decades
but in the samedecadestheredeveloped
were neverconvincingpaternalists;
betweensomeTortesand the crowda moreactive,consentingalliance.Many
smallgentry,the victimsof land tax and the losersin the consolidationof
greatestatesagainstffie small,hatedthe courtiersandthe moneyedinterest
as aldentlyas did the plebs.And fromthis we see the consolidationof the
specifictraditionsof Tory paternalism-forevenin the nineteenthcentury,
it is ToryratherthanWhigwhichwe tendto
whenwe thinkof paternalism,
couplewith it. At its zenith,duringthe reignsof the firsttwo Georges,this
allianceachievedan ideologicalexpressionin the theatricaleffectsof popular
Jacobitism.
By the fiffiesthis momentis passing,andwiffithe accessionof GeorgeIII
we passinto a differentclimate.Certainkindsof conflictbetweenCourtand
countryhad so far softenedthat it is possibleto talk of the calcallated
in handling
paternaliststyle of the gentryas a whole.In timesof disturbance,
the crowd,one may now forgetthe distinctionbetweenWhigandTory-at
as
J.P.-andone maysee the magistracy
any rateat the levelof the practicing
tradition.To maintaina holdoverthe
a wholeas actingwiiin an established
poor they must show themselvesto be neitherpapistsnor puritarls.They
must,at least in gestures,offer themselvesas mediatorsDuringepisodesof
riot, most J.P.s of whateverpersuasion,hung back from confrontation,
force.
to interveneby moralsuasionbeforesummoning
preferred
Thisstanceflowedsometimesfromanelementof activesympathyfor the
crowd, especiallywhere the gentry felt themselvesto be aggnevedat the
profit which middlemenwere makingout of their own and their tenants'
corn. A riot in Tauntonin 1753 (Newcastlewas informed)had been
provokedby "one Burcherwho has the town mills,& who insteadof corn
404
journalof socialhistory
grindsthe poor,in shorthe is generallythoughtto deservepunishment,
in a
legal wayn for malpracticesof this kind.. .' Earl PoulettSthe Lord
Lieutenantof Somerset,clearlyfound men like Burcherto be a damned
nuisance.Theymadeworkfor him and for the bench;and,of eourse,order
must be maintainedA general"risingS'or state of riot broughtother ill
consequencesm its train-the crowd became unmannerlythe locus for
disloyalspeechesandseditiousthoughts,4'fortheywillall followone another
soonerthan listen to gentlemenwhenthey areonce risen.>Indeed,on this
occasion"at last someof themcameto talka levellinglanguage,viz.they did
not see whey some should be rich and others poor.' (Therewere even
obscalre
murmunngs
aboutad fromFrance.)
Butthe maintenance
of orderwasnot a simplematter:
The Impunity of those Rioters erlcouraged... subsequent ones
Gentlemenin the Commissionhere are affraid to act, nor is it safe for
them as their are no troops at Tauntc)n,Ilminster &c & only a grass
guard... at Crewkerne without any officer. But it seems to be in
generalthe disposition of those towns & of these gentlemen to let the
spirit subside& not to prosoke them for fear of the consequences.
The consequencesfearedwere immediateones: more damageto propertya
more disorder,perhapsphysicalthreatsto the magistracy.
EarlPoulettwas
clearlyin two mindson the matterhimself.He would,if so advisedby your
Grace '4get some of the principleRing leaders convicted,"but "t;he
dispositionof the town &neighbouring
gentIemen
(was)againstit." Thereis
in any case,neitherherenorin hundredsof si!milar
exchangesin 1740, 1753,
1756, the 1760s and later,any sense that the social orderas a wholewas
endangered:
what was fearedwas local ;'anarchy,"the loss of prestigeand
hegemonyin the localitynrelaxingsocialdiscipline.It is usuallyassumedthat
the matter will, in the end, subside,and the degree of severityto be
shown-whethera victim or two should or should not swing from the
gallows-wasa matterof calculatedexampleand effect. We are back in a
theateronce more.Poulettapologizedto Newcastlefor troublinghim with
these "little disturbances."A Harwichfishermangivinga lewd Jacobite
gesturehad worriedthe King'sministersmorethanmanyhundredsof men
andwomenmarchingaboutthe countrythirtyyearslaterSdemolishing
mills
arldseizlnggrain.
In suchsituationstherewas a practicedtechniqueof crowdappeasement.
Themob,Poulettwrote,
was appeased. . . by gentlemengoing out & desiringto know what they
wanted & what they wd have, apprisingthem of the consequencess&
promising them the millers & bakers shd be prosecuted, that they wd
buy up the corn & bringit to marketthemselves& that they shd have it
in small quantitysas they wanted it.
But wherethe crowdoffereda moredirectthreatto the gentrythemselrresS
then the reactionwas morefirm.In the sameyear 1753,WestYorkshire
was
disturbedby turnpikeriots. HenryPelhamwrote to his brotherthat Mr.
Lascellesandhis turnpikehadbeendirectlyattacked,;'atthe headof his own
PATRICIANSOCIETY,PLEBIANCULTURE
405
tennantsand followersonly," Lascelleshad met the riotersand "gallantly
thrashedthem & took 10 prisoners,"The Recorderof Leeds had been
threatened,"andallthe activepartof the magistrates
with pullingdowntheir
houses, and even taking away their lives." Againstthis, nothing but a
maximumdisplayof rulingclasssolidaritywouldsuffice:
I have endeavouredto persuadethe few gentlemen that I have seen to
be themselves more active....
Ihis affair seems to me of such
consequence that I am persuadednothing can entirely get the better of
it but the Esrstpersonsin the country takingan active part in defence of
the laws; for if these people see themselves only overpowered by
troops, and Ilot convincedthat their behaviouris repugnantto the sense
of the Elrstpeople of this country, when the troops are gone, hostilitys
will retum.
It is a text worthexamination.
In the filrstplace,it is difElcult
to recallthat
it is the Pnme Ministerof Englandwho is writing,and to the "Home
Secretary."Whatis beingdiscussedappearsto be the requisitestyleof private
men of greatpropertyin dealingwith an offenseto theirorder:the Prime
Ministeris endeavonngto persuade"the few gentlementhat I haveseen"to
be more "active."In the secondplace,the incidentillustratessuperblythe
supremacyof culturalover physicalhegemony.Troopsaffordless security
thanthe reassertionof paternalistauthority.Aboveall,the credibilityof the
gentryandmagistracymustbe maintained.At an earlystagein disturbance,
the plebsshouldbe persuaded
above all to abandonan insubordinate
posture,
to couchtheirdemandsin legitimateanddeferentialterms:they shouldlearn
that they werelikelyto get morefroma loyalpetitionthanfroma riot.But
if the authoritiesfailedto persuadethe crowdto droptheirbludgeonsand
await redress,then they were willingon occasionto negotiatewith them
underduress;but in suchcasesit becamefarmoreprobablethatthe fulland
terribletheaterof the Law would later performits ghastlymatineesin the
troubleddistrict.Punitiveexamplesmust be made,in orderto re-establish
the credibilityof order. Then, once again,the culturalhegemonyof the
gentrywouldresume.