Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture Thompson

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: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 16:35
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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Social History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E.P. THOMPSON
PATRICIANSOClElY, PLEBEIANCULWRE
The relationsbetween the gentryand the laboringpeople in eighteenth-

centuryEnglandareoften 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 economicdependencyandtheirsocialinsubordina-
tion. 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-disciplinedemandedof 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,

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
higherin the economic hierarchythan themselves.Their women little
"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
Glou-
cestershire, travelled to divers neighbouring towns with
horses ... laden with coals.... It was common to see such drifts of
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
darknights,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,
andpress;they appearstill, in the 1790s, in the pamphlet
agriculturalcountry surveys;
theycannot have been wholly a ruling-classinvention.
Thus the independence of labor (and small master)
from clientage was
fosteredon the one hand by the translationof non-monetary
"favors"into
payments; and on the other by the extension of trade and
industry on the
basisof 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
historianshave made many careful discriminationsbetween different
groups

SOCIEW,PLEBI CULTUE
PATRICIAN 387
of laborers.But thesearenot relevantto ourpresentenquiry.Norwerethese

commonlymadeby commentators
discriminations from amongthe gentry
whenthey consideredthe generalproblemof the "insubordination" of labor.
Rather,they sawbeyondthe parkgates,beyondthe railingsof the London
mansion,a blur of indiscipline-the"idle and disorderly,""the mob," the
"populace"-and theydeplored-
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.
It is, as always,an indiscriminatecomplaintagainstthe populaceas a whole.
Free labor had broughtwith it a weakeningof the old meansof social
discipline.So far froma confWldent society,the eighteenthcentury
patriarchal
seesthe old paternalism at a pointof crisis.
II
And yet one feels that "crisis"is too stronga term.If the complaint
continuesthroughoutthe centurythat the poorwereindisciplined, cnminal,
proneto tumultandriot,one neverfeels,beforethe FrenchRevolution,that
the rulers of Entand conceivedthat their whole social ordermight be
endangered. The insubordination of the poor was an inconvenience; it was
not a menace.The stylesof politicsandof architecture, the rhetoricof the
gentry and their decorativearts, all seem to proclaimstability, self-
confidence,a habitof managngallthreatsto theirhegemony.
Wemay of coursehaveoverstatedthe crisisof paternalism. In directing
attention to the parasitismof the State at the top, and the erosionof
traditionalrelationsby freelaboranda monetaryeconomyat the bottom,we
have overlookedintermediatelevels where the older economichousehold
controlsremainedstrong,andwe haveperhapsunderstated the scaleof the
"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.
Nevertheless, controlin the
the analysisallowsus to see thatruling-class
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.
Defoe'sfictionalcloth worker,calledbeforethe magistrate to accountfor
default,offersa clue:"notmyMaster,and'tpleaseyourWorship, I hopeI am
my own Master."The deferencewhichhe refusesto hisemployer,overflows
in the calculatedobsequiousness to "yourWorship."He wishesto struggle

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
kindinducesexactlysucha stateof mindin whichthe hegemony of this
of authorityandevenmodesof exploitationappearto be in established structures
of nature.Thisdoes not precluderesentmentor even the verycourse
protestor revenge;it doesprecludeaffirmative surreptitious actsof
rebellion.
The gentryin eighteenthcenturyEnglandexercisedthis kind
ony. Andthey exercisedit all the moreeffectivelysincethe of hegem-
to ruledwas very often not face-to-facebut indirect. relation of ruler
Absenteelandowners,
and the ever-presentmediationof bailiffs apart, the
emergenceof the
three-tiersystem of landowner,tenantfarmerand landless
that the rurallaborers,in the mass,didnot confrontthe gentry laborer,meant
nor were the gentryseen to be in any direct sense as employers
responsiblefor their
conditionsof life; for a son or daughterto be takeninto serviceat
housewasseento be, not a necessitybut a favor. the great
Andin otherwaysthey werewithdrawnfromthe polaritiesof
andsocialantagonism. economic
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
farmersand tradesmenfrom amongwhom the overseerscame. poor-rate paring
presentsthe idealizedpaternalist Langborne
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

at verylittle realoutlayin effort.The sameJ.P.who couldbe
maintained
closedparishaggravatedthe problemsof povertyelsewhere, in his own
by refusing
settlements
and by pullingdown the cottageson the common,could
sessions,by grantingthe occasionalappealagainstthe overseersat
quarter
of

other open parishes,or by callingto orderthe corruptworkhousemaster,

placehimselfabovethe linesof battle.
Wehavethe paradoxthatthe credibilityof the gentryas paternalists arose
fromthe highvisibilityof certainof theirfunctions,andthe low visibilityof
others.A greatpart of the gentry'sappropriation of the laborvalueof the
poorwasmediatDd by theirtenantry,by tradeor by taxation.Physicallythey
withdrewincreasingly fromface-to-facerelationswiththe peoplein villageor
town. Theragefor deerparksandthe threatof poachersled to the closureof
rightsof way acrosstheirparksandtheirencirclement with highpalingsor
walls;landscapegardening,with ornamentalwatersand fish ponds,menag-
eriesand 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.
But in performingsuch functionstheirvisibilitywas formidable, just as
their formidablemansionsimposedtheirpresence,apartfrom,but guarding
over, the villageor town. Their appearanceshave much of the studied
self-consciousnessof public theatre.The swordwas discarded,except for
ceremonialpurposes;but the elaborationof wig and powder,ornamented
clothingandcanes,andeventhe rehearsed patriciangesturesandthe hauteur
of bearingandexpression,all weredesignedto exhibitauthorityto the plebs
and to exact from them deference.And with this went certainsignificant
ritualappearances: the ritualof the hunt;the pompof assizes(andall the
theatricalstyle of the law courts);the segregated pews,the late entriesand
earlydepartures, at church.And fromtime to time therewereoccasionsfor
an enlarged ceremonial,which had wholly paternalistfunctions: the
celebrationof a marriage, a coming-of-age,a nationalfestival(coronationor
jubileeor navalvictory),the alms-givingto the poorat a funeral.
Wehaveherea studiedandelaboratehegemonicstyle, a theatricalrolein
whichthe greatwere schooledin infancyandwhichthey maintaineduntil
death.Andif we speakof it as theater,it is not to diminishits importance.A
greatpart of politics and law is alwaystheater;once a socialsystemhas
become"set,"it does not need to be endorseddailyby exhibitionsof power
(althoughoccasionalpunctuations of forcewill be madeto definethe limits
of the system'stolerance);whatmattersmoreis a continuingtheatricalstyle.
Whatone remarksof the eighteenthcenturyis elaborationof this style and
the self-consciousnesswithwhichit wasdeployed.
The gentryand (in mattersof socialintercourse)theirladiesjudgedto a
nicetythe kindsof conspicuousdisplayappropriate to eachrankandstation:
whatcoach,how manyfootmen,whattable,evenwhatproperreputationfor
"liberality."The show was so convincingthat it has evenmisledhistorians;
one notices an increasingnumberof referencesto the "paternalresponsi-
bilities"of the aristocracy,upon which"thewholesystemrested."But we

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.Responsi-
bility 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, eiteenth-
centuryclergyfulfilling,with dedication,paternalist
functions.Butwe know

SOCIETY,
PATRICIAN CULTURE
PLEBIAN 391
verywellthatthesearenot characteristic men.ParsonAdamsis drawn,not to

exemplifythe practicesof the clergy but to criticizethem;he maybe seen,
at once, as the Don Quixoteof ie eighteenth-century AnfiicanChurch.The
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
seventeenthcenturies,Puritanism hadset out to destroythe bondsof idolatry
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
centurywitnesseda greatrecessionin Puritanism, andthe diminutionin the
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
psychicdisciplineandmoralsupervision of priesthoodor of presbyters.
A pnesthood with active pastoralcare has usuadlyfound ways of
co-existingwith the paganor hereticalsuperstitions of its flock. However
deplorablesuch compromisesmay appearto ffieologians,the priestlearns
that manyof the beliefsand practicesof "folklore'areharmless; if attached
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
the priesthood.Whenso many priestsservedas temporalmagistrates and
ofElcered the sarnelaw as the gentry,they couldscarcelypresentthemselves
convincingly as the agentsof an alternativespintualauthority.Whenbishops
werepoliticalappointments, andwhenthe cousinsof the gentrywereplaced
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
term"leisure"is, of course,itself anachronistic. In ruralsocietywheresmall
farmlng and the commons economy persisted,and in large areas of
manufacturing industry,the organization of workwasso variedandirregulg

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,
courtshipandeverykindof socialintercourse flourished,andthehardshipof
life was obliterated.For the young, the sexualcycle of the yearturnedon
these festivals.Theseoccasionswere, in an importantsense,whatmen and
womenlivedfor;andif the Churchhadlittle signiElcant partin theirconduct,
thenit had, to iat degree, ceased to engage with the emotional calendarof
the poor.
Onecan see this in a literalsense.Whilethe old saintsdayswerescattered
liberallyacrossthe calendarthe Church's ritualcalendarconcentrated events
into the monthsof lightdemands upon labor, from the winter to the spring,
fromChristmas to Easter.Whilethe peoplestill owed tributeto the lasttwo
dates, which remainedas days of maximumcommunion)the eighteenth-
century 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
to the summersolstice. In about 1730, the antiquarian, ThomasHearne,
madea note of the feastdayof 132 villagesor townsin Oxfordshire or on its
borders.All fell betweenMayand December; 84 (or more than three-fifths)
fell in AugustandSeptember; no fewerthan43 (or almostone-third)fell in
the last week of Augustand the fslrstweek of September.Apartfrom a
significantgroupof sometwenty whichfell betweenthe endof Juneandthe
endof July,andwhichin a normalyearmightbe expectedto fallbetweenthe
endof the hayharvestandthecommencement of thecerealharvest,theweight
of the emotionalfestivecalendar fellin theweeks immediately aftertheharvest
wasgatheredin.
Or. Malcolmsonhas reconstructed a calendarof feastsfor Northampton-
shirein the latereighteenthcenturywhichshowsmuchthe sameincidence.
Alongwiththe secularization of the calendargoesa secularization of the style
and the functionof the occasions. If not pagan, then new secular functions
were added to old ritual;the publicans,huckstersand entertainersen-
couraged,with theirnumerousstalls,the feastswhen tileir customershad
uncustomary harvestearningsin theirpockets;the villagecharityandbenefit
clubs took over the old churchales of Whitsuntide.At BamptonWhit-
Monday'sclub feastincludeda processionwi drumandpiper(or fiddler),
morrisdarlcers,a clownwith a bladderwho carriedthe "treasury" (a money
box'forcontributions), a swordbearerwith a cake.Therewas,of course,no
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 obviousthings-
folk songs,tradesclubsand corn dollies.were madefrom below, but also
interpretationsof 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 Restorationis 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

lamented:"Thereneverwas suchworkin
is brokeloose." Halifaxabovefifty yearspast.Hell
Weare moreaccustomedto analyze
the
history,and to thinkof the declineof hell. age in termsof its intellectual
of a plebeianculturequitebeyond Butthe breaking looseof thishell
theircontrolwasthe wakingnightmare
the survivingPuntans.Paganfestivals of
which
calendarin the middleages (althoughwith the Churchhad attachedto its
purelysecularfestivitiesin the eighteenth incompletesuccess)revertedto
end;but the feastsof the following century.Wakenightscameto an
day
eachdecade.The ceremonyof strewing or weekbecamemorerobustwith
andthere;but the feastsof rush rushesin the churcheslingeredhere
NearHalifaxagain,the incumbent(a bearings went from strengthto strength.
thesefeasts in 1682, at which (he Reverend Witter)attemptedto prevent
provision complained)
of fleshandale,comefromallparts, the people make great
abarbarous ;'andeat anddrinkandrantin
heathenishmallner."Mr.
hewas abusedas a "cobbler."The Witter'sdoorswerebrokendownand
rush-bearing
districtfor at leasta further150 years.But, ceremonycontinuedin this
anysacredsignificance.The symbols as in most districts,it hadlost
bells on the richly-decorated cartsbecame
and paintedpots. The picturesque
dresses costumesof the menandthe white
and garlandsof the women appear
pageants pay a merepassingobeisanceto more and more pagan.The
Eve,St. Georgeandthe Dragon,theVirtues, Christian symbolism:Adamand
Marian, the Vices,RobinHoodandMaid
hobbyhorses,sweepson pigs, morrisdancers.
withbaitings,wrestling,dancingand The festivitiesended
the housesof the gentryand of drinking,andsometimeswith the tour
of
wealthyhouseholders for drink,food and
money. "I couldnot suppressthese
de
La Flechereof the Shropshire Bacchanals," wrote the Rev.JohnWilliam
Wakes:"theimpotentdykeI opposedonly
made the torrentswell and foam, without
peoplehad found patronsoutsidethe stoppingthe course.sMoreover)
the
against Church:if La Flecherepreached
drunkenness, showsandbullbaitingn
forgiveme. They think that to preach"thepublicansandmaltsterswill
not
their
pursestringsis the samething." againstdrunkenness and to cut
But the resurgence of this culturecannotbe put
fosteredby publicansalone.Thegentryhaddownto the commercial-
ization
Sessions,
to harrythemin theirlicensesif they means,throughQuarter
of
festivitiescan scarcelyhavetakenplace had wished. Thisefflorescence
the
partof manyof the gentry.In one without a permissive attitudeon
of
the times. The materialismof the sense,thiswasno morethanthe logic
of their Churchwere met by eighteenth-century
Erastiallism the
rich and the
meetingsof the richbecamethe poor's materialism
race of the poor.The
of the gentrywas solicitedby the popularholidays.Thepermissive
tolerance
still manytavernswhich-asinnsigns
proclaim-sought to put themselves under the
could make no convincingmissionarypatronage
gentry of the great.The
mannersandmoralsof the poorif they were expeditionsto reformthe
ostentatious
andpleasantvices. unwfllingto reformtheirown
Butas explanationthis is not finally
convincing. Onlya ruling
feels
itselfto be threatened is afraidto flaunta doublestandard. classwhich
Mandeville is

SOCIEItY,
PATRICIAN CULTURE
PLEBIAN
395
only unusualin pressingto the pointof satirethe argument thatprivatences
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
"liberality" was partof ie theaterof the great.In someareas(wagestheory,
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
inhibitionupon the use of force againstindisciplineand disturbance; a
caution(on the partof the nch) againsttakingmeasures whichwouldalienate
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
told that it is premature,in the eighteenthcentury,to speakof a ;'working
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
andmiddledasses,andthe substantial yeomallry7shouldhavebeen,relations
of dientageand dependencywere so strongthat, at least until the 1760s,
thesegoups appearto offer little deflectionof the essentialpolarities.Only
someonewho was "independent" of the needto deferto patronscouldbe
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
turnedbadkto allcientRomefor a modelof theirOWI1 sociologicalorder.But
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;

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 chauvinisticebullitionswhich
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

PATRICIAN PLEBIAN
SOCIETY, CULTURE 397
consciousnessmay inhibitis economicsolidaritiesbetweendifferentgroups

of producersas againsttheiremployers;butif we lay asidethisanachronistic
postulate, we will find among eighteenth-century workmenabundant
evidence of horizontalsolidaritiesand consciousness.In the scores of
occupationallists whichI haveexaminedof food rioters,turnpikerioters,
riots over libertarianissuesor enclosureof urbancommons,it is clearthat
solidaritieswerenot segregated by trade;in a regionwhereclothingworkers,
tinnersor colliersarepredominant, theseobviouslypredominate in the lists
of offenders,but not to the exclusionof otherworkingoccupations.I hope
to have shown,in anotherplace,that all these groups,duringfood riots,
shareda commonconsciousness-ideology andobjectives-aspettyconsumers
of the necessitiesof life. But these peoplewereconsumersalsoof cultural
values,of libertarian rhetoric,of patrioticprejudice; andon theseissuesthey
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
wealthylocalbrewer,to GrubStreetpamphleteers, andwhichembraced the
whole local "populace."When,in 1799, the magistrates attemptedto put
down Shrove Tuesdayfootball in the streets of Kingston,it was"the
populace"and "the mob" who assembledand triumphantlydefied their
orders.Themobmaynot havebeennotedfor animpeccableconsciousness of
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
practice,paternalism was as much theaterandgestureas effectiveresponsiw
bility;that so far froma warm,household,face-to-facerelationship we can
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
no longeracknowledged, except in perfunctoryways,the hegemonyof the
Church.
This plebeianculturewas not, to be sure, a revolutionary nor even a
proto-revolutionary culture(in the senseof fosteringulteriorobjectiveswhich
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

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
siTnilarlogc: it is only the short-sighted historianmrho hndsthe eruptionsof
the crowdto be "blind*" HereI wishto discussbrieflythreecharacteristics of

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.
I don't offer eighteenth-centuryEnglandas a theaterof dailyterror.That
wasreservedfor 3OhnBull'sOtherIsland.Buthistorians havescarcelybegun
to take the measureof the volumeof anonymous violence.Thenotorious
"Waltham BlackAct" of 1723 aroseout of exactly such a background of
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
Authonty,in whosepagesappeared the movementsof the Court,promotions
andcommissionsin the services,andofElcialnoticesof everykind,therealso
appearedadvertisements of rewardsandprofferedpardons.In pursuitof the
authorsof anonymousletters,theseletterswereoftenpublishedin full,with
theiroriginalorthography.
Whattheselettersshowis thateighteenth-century laboringmenwerequite
capable,in the securityof anonymity,of shatteringanyillusionof deference
and of regardingtheir rulersin a whollyunsentimental andunfilialway. A
writerfromWitney,in 1767,urgedthe recipient:"donot suffersuchdamned
wheesingfat guted Roguesto Starvethe Poor by such Hellishways on
purposethat they may followhuntinghorseracing&c andto maintaintheir
familysin Prideandextravagance." An inhabitantof Henleyon-Thames, who
had seen the volunteersin actionagainstthe crowd,addressedhimselfto
"you gentlemanas you are pleaseto call Yourselves-Altllothat is your
Mistakes-foryou area sett of the mostDamnable RougsthatEverExisted."
(An Odihamauthor,writingon a similarthemein l800, remarked "wedont
carea Damfor them fellowsthat CallThemselves GentlemenSoldiersButin
ouropinionthe Look moorelike Monkeysridingon Bears.")Sometimesthe
lack of properdeferencecomes throughmerelyas a brisk aside: "Lord
Buckingham," a handbillwriterin Norwichremarked in 1793,"whodiedthe
other day had ThirtyThousandPounds,yeerly For settinghis Arsein the
Houseof Lordsanddoingnothing."
Theselettersshow-andthey aredispersedovermost partsof England,as
well as partsof Wales-thatdeferencecouldbe verybrittleindeed,andmade
one partof dissimulation,
up of one partof self-interest, andonly one partof

400 journalof social historYf
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
threatandsedition.Fromthe time of WiLkes theaterof
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
withthe book. or disgust
But as we move backwardfrom 1760 we enter a world
of theatrical
symbolism whichis moredifflcultto interpret:popularpolitical
areexpressedin a cede quite differentfrom that of the sympathies
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
certainlysay that the plebson manyoccasionsemployedJacobite
successfuLly symbolism
as theater,knowingwell thatit wasthe scriptmostcalculated
enrageand alarmtheir Hanoverianrulers.In the 172Qs,when to
pressveils ratherthan illuminatespublicopinion,one detects a censored
moods in the vigorwithwhichrivalHanoverian underground
andStuartanniversaries were
celebrated.The Norwich Gazette reportedin May 1723 that Tuesday
beingthe birthdayof Kig Georgeawas observedin the city lastf
usual sCwith all the
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
tyranny5
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.
Manifestly
disloyalas this was not only to the Kingbut also
Manin his own countySit providedno handIeto the law to the Great
Crown. officersof the
Ihis was a war of nerves,now satirical,now menacing.
sometimes The arrows
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."
If someof the crowd'sactionscanbe seenas countertheater, thisis by no
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
eighteenth-century crowdwell understoodits capacitiesfor actior,,and its
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
them(evenaftertheyhadbeenfiredupon)fromtakinglife. which withheld
Of course,the crowdlost its headas often as the mapstrates
did.Butthe
interesting pointis that neithersidedidthisoften.So farfrom
thecrowdwas often disciplined,had clearobjectives7 being4'blind5
knewhow
withauthority and above all broughtits strengthswiftly to negotiate
to bear. The
authorities often felt themselvesto be faced literally,with an
multitude"Thesemen are all tinners,' a customsoff1cerwrote anonymous
Austellin 1766 of local smuggling from St.
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
ifthismomentpassedthey couldexpectto be abandoned. twenty-fourhours,
Otherfeaturesmightbe noted:but thesethree-theanonymous
countertheater; tradition;
and swift,evanescentdirectaction-seemof importance.All
directattentionto the unitarycontextof classrelationship.
inwhichrulersandcrowdneededeachother,watchedeach Thereis a sense
other,performed
theaterand countertheaterin each other's auditorium,
other's moderatedeach
politicalbehavior.Intolerantof the insubordination of free labor,
nevertheless the rulersof Englandshowedin practicea surprising
licence degreeof
towardsthe turbulenceof the crowd.Is theresomedeeply
"structural' embeddedn
reciprocityhere?
Contraryto cherishedlegends,Englandwas of coursenever
standing withouta
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
was,for example7seriousIyover-stretched force.It
andinadequate to the needsof the
situationduringthe riot year 1766. The permanentquartering of troopsin
populous districtswas alwaysimpolitic.Therewasalwaysdelay,andoften
delayof severaldays?betweenthe onsetof disturbance andthe arrival
The troops and equallytheirofficers(whosepowersto act of the
military.
against

PATRICIANSOCIEI*Y,PLEBIANCULTURE 403
civilianscould be challengedin the courts) found this servicesSodious.s

Jealousyof the Crown,secondedby the avariceof the aristocracy, hadled to
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.
Thusthe pricewhicharistocracy andgentrypaidfor a limitedmonarchy
anda weakStatewas,perforce,the licenceof the crowd.Thisis the central
structuradcontext of the reciprocityof relationsbetweenrulersandruled.
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
generationsof distinguishedhistoricalscholarshavebeenatpainsto show.
The tensions-betweencourt and country,money and land-ran deep.
Until 1750 or 1760 the term "gentry"is too undiscriminating for the
purposesof our analysis.Thereis a markeddivergence betweenthe WEigand
Tory traditionsof relationswith the crowd.The igs, in those decades
were neverconvincingpaternalists; but in the samedecadestheredeveloped
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,
whenwe thinkof paternalism, it is ToryratherthanWhigwhichwe tendto
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
paternaliststyle of the gentryas a whole.In timesof disturbance, in handling
the crowd,one may now forgetthe distinctionbetweenWhigandTory-at
any rateat the levelof the practicing J.P.-andone maysee the magistracy as
a wholeas actingwiiin an established tradition.To maintaina holdoverthe
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,
preferredto interveneby moralsuasionbeforesummoning force.
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

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

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.


Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture Thompson

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture Thompson

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

The relationsbetween the gentryand the laboringpeople in eighteenth-

Mr. Thompson is author of Ne Makingof the EngNishWorkingClass. He wishes to

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

They clung to the imageof the laboreras an unfreeman,a "servant:"a

The Lab'ringPoor, in spight of double Pay,

The most characteristic

Husbandmen are ruin'd, the Farmers disabled, Manufacturersand

In a Glut of Tradethey grow saucy, lazy, idle, and debauch'd. . . they

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

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

Thisis a largechangein the termsof relations:subordination is becoming

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

On occasion,one catchesa glimpseof the extinctionof a perquisiteor

He breakes old Customes. . . in Minuteand Smallmatters,which are of

In such ways economic rationalizationnibbled(and had long been

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

of laborers.But thesearenot relevantto ourpresentenquiry.Norwerethese

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

And,once again,at leasta ghostlyimageof paternalresponsibilities

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

other open parishes,or by callingto orderthe corruptworkhousemaster,

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

haveso farnotedgesturesandposturesratherthanactualresponsibilities. The

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

verywellthatthesearenot characteristic men.ParsonAdamsis drawn,not to

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

thatit is falseto makea sharpdistinctionbetween"work"and"leisure."On

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

class organization.But the politicalpresenceof the plebs, or"mob," or

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

consciousnessmay inhibitis economicsolidaritiesbetweendifferentgroups

Webin marchin'up and deown

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

And its O the brave Doodley boys

Some gotten sticks, some gotten steavs

We all ran down our pits

He called back the sojermen

It is easy to characterize this behavioras childlike. No doubt,if we insist

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

popularaction,andthen to returnonceagainto the contextof gentry-crowd

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

They broke into the Hutch and took out fifteen

Onceagain,one notes the senseof theaterevenin the full

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

civilianscould be challengedin the courts) found this servicesSodious.s

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

tennantsand followersonly," Lascelleshad met the riotersand "gallantly

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:35:57 PM

Você também pode gostar