What was the extent of political participation in eighteenth-century England?

Another assumption made about the electorate in the period is that they were ignorant of national issues and unconcerned about major political issues, and that they only voted on local matters.   Dickinson concedes that this is in large part accurate; most voters were affected much more directly by local issues rather than great affairs of state.  Issues that were important included the improvement of roads, street lighting, and the building of town amenities or provision of charity for the poor.  It was important therefore that the MPs listened to the views of their constituents in these matters or they could face an electoral revolt.   The people were not totally ignorant of national issues, however, particularly when, as was often the case, contested elections became straight party contests between a Tory and a Whig candidate.  Some voters still followed the political lead of their patron, of course, but many held their own opinions, influenced by the political propaganda emanating from the press and the pulpit.  Crowds at elections could become rowdy and boisterous.  Disturbances were common and could lead to attacks on a particular candidate’s supporters.  The election at Coventry in 1722 had to be declared void because of the severity of the disturbance; over 2000 men violently attacked their political opponents, shouting anti-Whig slogans.  Dickinson emphasises that these were not hired thugs; they were people expressing real opinions, principles and prejudices.  However, it has been estimated that the electorate of the eighteenth-century included a meagre 3.1 per cent of England’s population.  Even if this is correct, those eligible to vote were by no means the only ones able to participate in politics, as evidenced by the crowd activity detailed above.

It was during the Exclusion Crisis that the term “mob” was first used, which was short for mobile vulgus, Latin for movable or excitable crowd.  Dickinson argues that crowd demonstrations and riots can be seen as the most common and effective form of plebeian politics in the period, not least because it allowed all members of society to participate in informal politics, not just the males eligible to vote.  The actions of crowds took a number of different forms; they included the celebration with bonfires of events such as the anniversaries of the Gunpowder Plot and the accession of Queen Elizabeth I on November 17th, or the burning or hanging of effigies, quite often of the Pope, to looting and violence, the victims of which were usually Catholics.  For example, the printing house of Henry Hill, the King’s printer, who had published several works in support of Catholicism, was destroyed with his printing equipment and several hundred reams of paper.

Crowd politics could be effective in alarming the authorities.  William Sachse wrote that, while he does not believe the mob had an affect on the outcome of the Glorious Revolution as they were not well led or organised enough, without the rioting and mobbing, it may have taken longer to convince the peers and the magistrates of London to support William as a provisional governor.  He quotes one Londoner from December 13th: “All the Lords and city have invited the Prince of Orange, which we all pray may come quickly that a stop may be put to the fury of the rabble who have done great mischief”.  The importance of the mob and crowd politics is that one did not need to be eligible to vote in order to take part.  Informal political participation in our period was therefore spread throughout all of society.

Sir John Plumb asserts that the proliferation of electioneering pamphlets in the eighteenth century shows the importance of the participation of the electorate in this period.  But ‘print culture’ was in its own right a significant mechanism of informal political participation which could involve members of all social strata, not just the electors.  For Kathleen Wilson, the press was both the cause and consequence of the increasing political awareness of ordinary people.  It was a “pre-eminent instrument of politicization” which disseminated not only information but also political attitudes and ideological perspectives.  The proliferation of printed materials is undeniable; there were 381 printers and booksellers working in 174 English towns by the mid 1740s, and electioneering pamphlets were “given away in bulk … to be distributed to taverns, coffee houses and voters of local standing and importance”.  This shows that not only voters but also the customers of coffee houses and taverns would have participated in the “politics of print” – this participation, then, was pervasive throughout society and, indeed, throughout the country.  The London tri-weekly newspapers were printed on the days on which the post left the capital, so that they could reach the widest possible audience.   The rise of literacy in our period described by such historians as Lawrence Stone certainly had a role to play, but it is important to remember that even the illiterate could “take advantage of the market in information and mechanisms of persuasion”, not only in that they could be read to, but also in the way that publishing prolonged the life of oral traditions such as ballad-singing, stories and fairy tales, through which political messages could be broadcasted.  The “culture of print”, then, encouraged “the change to a more aspiring, socially complex and politically informed world.”

Another aspect of political participation which has begun to receive attention is the extent to which women could be involved.  Politics has often been seen, in our period as well as in the historiography, as a sphere in which men dominate exclusively while women are confined to the domestic arena.  This view has been challenged, however.  Wilson avows the inclusion of women in the “microcosm of … political culture” which was ‘print culture’ as not only consumers but as producers and distributors as well, and describes other various ways in which women of all social ranks participated in politics, from influencing their fathers and husbands, to forming societies and participating in riots, demonstrations and processions.   Elaine Chalus has also affirmed the ability of women to participate in politics in this period, focussing particularly on women in the eighteenth-century’s ability to participate in the politics of patronage.  Patronage was the economy of obligation and favour, through which “interest” and “influence” could be sought or exchanged through or for alliances and ‘connexions’. Women often sought favours or preferment for themselves and their families, but, crucially, for other men and women, which “demonstrate[s] that women’s involvement in patronage extended beyond the narrow boundaries of their immediate families.”   It was an important way for them to participate in political life, according to Chalus, because it took place in the realm of personal relations, bridging the gap between the political and social arenas through which women found they were able easily to navigate.  Women in our period were able to fully participate in a kind of politics which was at once both formal and informal.

        

We have seen, then, that the range of ways in which the people of eighteenth-century England could take an active role in politics, whether formal or informal, direct or indirect, or local or national, was significantly varied.  Despite the fact that the right to direct electoral participation was restricted to male freeholders of above 40 shillings, the door to political participation was closed to no man or woman. Virtually all social strata could participate informally, through publishing or reading political ideas in print, using social contacts to secure patronage or airing their grievances in crowds on the street; that is, voting with their feet.

Bibliography

• Atherton, H.M., ‘The “Mob” in Eighteenth-Century English Caricature’, Eighteenth Century Studies, 12, 1, (1978) pp. 47-58
• Chalus, E., ‘”To Serve my friends”: Women and Political Patronage in Eighteenth-Century England”, in A. Vickery (ed.), Women, Privilege and Power: British Politics, 1750 to the Present, (Stanford, 2001)
• Dickinson, H.T., The Politics of the People in Eighteenth-Century Britain, (London, 1995)
• Phillips, J.A., ‘Popular Politics in Unreformed England’, Journal of Modern History, 52, 4 (1980), pp. 599-625
• Plumb, ‘The Growth of the Electorate in England from 1600-1715’, Past and Present, 45, (1969), pp. 90-116
• Sachse, W., ‘The Mob and the Revolution of 1688’, Journal of British Studies, 4, 1 (1964), pp. 23-40
• Stone, L., ‘Literacy and Education in England, 1640-1660’, Past and Present, 42 (1969), pp. 101-135
• Wilson, K., The Sense of the People: Politics, culture and imperialism in England, 1715-1785, (New York, 1995)

---