Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2014
Shortened from the Latin phrase mobile vulgus (the movable or excitable crowd), “the mob” was first used to denote rioters in London during the Exclusion Crisis (1678–81). The term gradually entered the language Londoners used to describe disorder over the next few decades; justices of the peace did not commonly use it to refer to riots in the Quarter Sessions court records until the first decade of the eighteenth century. By 1721, 44 percent of the rioters who were bound over by recognizance to appear at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions were accused of raising, or participating in, a mob. Concurrently, the total number of recognizances for riot in urban Middlesex increased 520 percent between the 1660s and the early 1720s (table 1). These changes in the frequency and the language of London rioting recorded in the Middlesex court records around the turn of the eighteenth century raise several questions. Did the fundamental character of rioting in London also change? How (and when) did rioting become such a common occurrence on London's streets? What was the relation between riots prosecuted at Quarter Sessions and the larger, primarily political disturbances of the period that were first studied by George Rudé? How does urban rioting as a social phenomenon compare with rural riots such as food riots, riots against enclosures, and ridings, which have also been the subject of considerable recent research? What are the implications of the existence of widespread collective disorder for our understanding of social relations in London during a time of rapid population growth and socioeconomic change?
2 Rudé, George, “The London ‘Mob’ in the Eighteenth Century,” Historical Journal 2 (1959): 1–18Google Scholar. See also Rudé's, GeorgeParis and London in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1970)Google Scholar; and the following more recent works: Harris, T. J. G., “The Politics of the London Crowd in the Reign of Charles II” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1984)Google Scholar, and “The Bawdy House Riots of 1668,” Historical Journal 29 (1986): 537–56Google Scholar; Rogers, Nicholas, “Popular Protest in Early Hanoverian London,” Past and Present, no. 79 (1978), pp. 70–100Google Scholar; DeKrey, G. S., A Fractured Society: The Politics of London in the First Age of Party, 1688–1715 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Holmes, G. S., “The Sacheverell Riots: The Crowd and the Church in Early Eighteenth-Century London,” Past and Present, no. 72 (1976), pp. 55–85Google Scholar.
5 Although prosecutions for riot were also filed at King's Bench and occasionally at Gaol Delivery Sessions, the vast majority of prosecutions were initiated at Quarter Sessions. In 1720, there were no prosecutions for riot at the Gaol Delivery Sessions for the City of London and Middlesex.
6 Finlay, Roger and Shearer, Beatrice, “Population Growth and Suburban Expansion,” London, 1500–1700: The Making of the Metropolis, ed. Beier, A. L. and Finlay, Roger (London, 1986), p. 42Google Scholar.
7 Greater London Record Office (RO), sessions rolls 2339–56, January–December 1720. This total does not include recognizances for riot from the February sessions roll, which is currently “unfit” for consultation. Recognizance numbers are hereafter abbreviated as “R,” indictments as “Ind.,” and jail (gaol) delivery recognizances as “GDR.” Since recognizances were normally issued for only one defendant, more than one recognizance was often issued for the same riot. In such cases, the recognizances have been counted as a single riot, although it was not possible to identify all such multiple recognizances. Consequently, the number of separate riots actually prosecuted by recognizance is somewhat inflated in these figures. Approximately 25 percent of the defendants bound over by recognizance at Quarter Sessions were also indicted, and 62 percent of indicted defendants were also bound over by recognizance (Shoemaker, Robert B., “Crime, Courts and Community: The Prosecution of Misdemeanors in Middlesex County, 1663–1723” [Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1986], pp. 126, 185)Google Scholar.
8 Corporation of London RO, sessions rolls, January-December 1720; Public Record Office (PRO), King's Bench (KB) 10/17. Perhaps because of the superior efficiency of its ward system of local government, there was far less disorder in the City of London (Pearl, Valerie, “Change and Stability in Seventeenth-Century London,” London Journal 5 : 15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
9 Curtis, T. C., “Some Aspects of the History of Crime in Seventeenth-Century England, with Special Reference to Cheshire and Middlesex” (Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester, 1973), table 7, p. 86Google Scholar. Curtis appears to have added recognizances and indictments together in this table.
10 For estimates of the population of Middlesex, see Finlay and Shearer, p. 42.
12 Linebaugh, Peter, “Tyburn: A Study of Crime and the Laboring Poor in London during the First Half of the Eighteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., University of Warwick, 1975), graph 2, p. 46Google Scholar.
13 See Sec. VII below.
14 For riots at taverns, etc., see, e.g., Greater London RO, sessions rolls 1294, R 69, October 1663; 1291, R 20, 22, August 1663; and 1895, R 66, September 1697; Clark, Peter, The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200–1830 (London, 1983), p. 147Google Scholar. For property riots, see, e.g., PRO, KB 1/1, deposition dated February 3, 1720/1; Greater London RO, sessions rolls 2361, R 1–12, Ind. 28, February 1721; and 2373, R 66, Westminster Sessions, October 1721.
15 Shoemaker, pp. 36–38.
16 Isaacs, T. B., “Moral Crime, Moral Reform, and the State in Eighteenth-Century England: A Study of Piety and Politics” (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1979), p. 259Google Scholar. See also Curtis, T. C. and Speck, W. A., “The Societies for the Reformation of Manners: A Case Study in the Theory and Practice of Moral Reform,” Literature and History 3 (1976): 45–64Google Scholar; Shoemaker, pp. 325–46.
18 Davis, Dorothy, Fairs, Shops and Supermarkets: A History of English Shopping (Toronto, 1966), p. 99Google Scholar; Leadley, Avril D., “Some Villains of the Eighteenth-Century Market Place,” Outside the Law: Studies in Crime and Order, 1650–1850, ed. Rule, J., University of Exeter Papers in Economic History, no. 15 (Exeter, 1982), pp. 21–34Google Scholar.
19 Greater London RO, sessions roll 2325, R 20, Westminster Sessions, April 1719. See also Greater London RO, sessions rolls 2369, R 201, July 1721; 2343, R 99, Westminster Sessions, April 1720; and 2396, R 34, 35, 78, Westminster Sessions, January 1723.
20 In fact, Murphy was unable to produce the note (Greater London RO, sessions roll 2353, calendar of prisoners no. 23, Westminster Sessions, October 1720).
21 Kellett, J. R., “The Breakdown of Gild and Corporation Control over the Handicraft and Retail Trades in London,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 10 (1958): 388Google Scholar; Unwin, George, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford, 1904), pp. 198–201, 225–26Google Scholar; Dobson, C. R., Masters and Journeymen: A Pre-history of Industrial Relations, 1717–1800 (London, 1980), pp. 38–40, 47–49, 60–63Google Scholar; Rule, James, The Experience of Labor in Eighteenth-Century Industry (London, 1981), p. 33Google Scholar.
22 Dunn, Richard, “The London Weavers' Riot of 1675,” Guildhall Studies in London History 1 (1973): 13–23Google Scholar; Unwin, pp. 221, 250–51; Henson, Gravener, A History of the Framework Knitters (1831; reprint, New York, 1970), pp. 95–96Google Scholar; Greater London RO, sessions roll 2353, R 51, Ind. 18, and House of Correction calendar, Westminster Sessions, October 1720; Dobson, pp. 38–39, 62.
23 Thompson, E. M., ed., Correspondence of the Family Hatton, Camden Society, 2d ser., vol. 23 (Westminster, 1878), 2:138–39Google Scholar; Greater London RO, sessions roll 1746, calendar of prisoners, Westminster Sessions, August 1689; Plummer, Alfred, The London Weavers' Company (Boston, 1972), pp. 293–94Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Portland, 5:452, 454Google Scholar.
24 Beloff, Max, Public Order and Popular Disturbances, 1660–1714 (Oxford, 1938), pp. 85–86Google Scholar.
25 The best secondary account of these riots is Plummer, pp. 292–314.
26 In contrast to the legal definition of a riot, which occurred when three or more persons gathered together with the intent of committing an unlawful act and then set out and committed it, a rout occurred when the said group “moved forward to the execution of any such act” but did not actually commit the crime (Dalton [n. 3 above], p. 191).
27 These estimates, which were made by contemporary observers, must be treated skeptically. Greater London RO, sessions roll 2361, R 1–11, February 1721; February 3, Greater London RO, sessions roll indictment of Maccave and seven others, dated December 21, 1721, Gaol Delivery Sessions, February 1722; Dunn, p. 18; Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (1857; reprint, Farnborough, 1969), 4:199–200Google Scholar; Original Weekly Journal (June 13, 1719).
28 Original Weekly Journal (June 27, 1719). See also Dunn, p. 17; PRO, State Papers (SP) 35/16/116.
29 PRO, KB 1/2, Hillary 8 Geo. 1, deposition no. 27, and Easter 8 Geo. 1, deposition no. 42.
30 Davis (n. 18 above), p. 110; Ashton, John, Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne (London, 1882), 2: 158–60Google Scholar.
31 Latham, Robert and Matthews, William, eds., The Diary of Samuel Pepys (London, 1971), 4:118, April 29/30, 1663Google Scholar.
32 Houghton, John, A Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade (March 15, 1700), in Seventeenth-Century Economic Documents, ed. Thirsk, J. and Cooper, J. P. (Oxford, 1972), pp. 428–29Google Scholar.
33 North, Roger, Examen: or an Enquiry into the Credit and Veracity of an Intended Complete History (London, 1740), 3:574Google Scholar, quoted by the OED, 6:559. See also Smith, William, The Charge Given by Sir William Smith, Baronet, At the Quarter Sessions of the Peace held for the County of Middlesex (London, 1682), p. 4Google Scholar.
35 The Proceedings on the King's Commission of the Peace and Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery … in the Old Bailey (London, 1722), January, pp. 7–8Google Scholar, and February and March, p. 6 (hereafter cited as Old Bailey Proceedings); An Account of the Endeavours that have been used to Suppress Gaming Houses (London, 1722), pp. 22–26Google Scholar.
36 Rudé, , “The London ‘Mob’ in the Eighteenth Century” (n. 2 above), pp. 4–5Google Scholar. Though there is not much evidence on this issue, it appears that Rudé's assertion that rioters acted near their homes also applies to the riots under discussion.
37 Shoemaker (n. 7 above), table 24, p. 263.
38 Sureties provided a financial guarantee that defendants bound over by recognizance would appear in court—if the defendant failed to appear, the surety would be obliged to pay the sum pledged on the recognizance (typically from £10 to £40, depending on the severity of the crime). Although defendants normally pledged twice the sum pledged by their sureties, 17 percent of the male defendants at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions (33 percent of the defendants accused of riot) did not pledge any money. Presumably, these male defendants did not have sufficient wealth to pledge (Shoemaker, pp. 151–52). Some of these defendants may have been youths, especially apprentices, who played a prominent role in disorder during this period (Thomas, Keith, “Age and Authority in Early Modem England,” Proceedings of the British Academy 62 : 219Google Scholar).
39 For women in political riots, see Harris, , “The Politics of the London Crowd in the Reign of Charles II” (n. 2 above), p. 301Google Scholar. On the other hand, women played a major role in petitioning Parliament in the 1640s (Higgens, Patricia, “The Reactions of Women, with Special Reference to Women Petitioners,” in Politics, Religion, and the English Civil War, ed. Manning, Brian [London, 1973]Google Scholar).
40 For riots at shops, see Sec. II above. For women in rural food and enclosure riots, see Thompson, E. P., “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, no. 50 (1971), pp. 115–17Google Scholar; Clark, Peter, “Popular Protest and Disturbance in Kent, 1558–1640,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 29 (1976): 376–77Google Scholar. For women in the seventeenth-century weavers' riots, see Harris, , “The Politics of the London Crowd in the Reign of Charles II,” pp. 232–33Google Scholar; Journals of the House of Commons (CJ), 11:683, January 29, 1696/1697Google Scholar (I am indebted to Tim Keim for this reference). Perhaps because women were the principal victims of the 1719–20 weavers' riots against persons wearing calico clothing, few women participated in the riots.
41 Walter, John, “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes towards the Law,” in An Ungovernable People, ed. Brewer, J. and Styles, J. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980), p. 64Google Scholar.
43 Ingram, M. J., “Ridings, Rough Music and the ‘Reform of Popular Culture’ in Early Modem England,” Past and Present, no. 105 (1984), pp. 79–113, esp. p. 102Google Scholar; Underdown, David, “The Taming of the Scold: The Enforcement of Patriarchal Authority in Early Modem England,” in Fletcher, and Stevenson, , eds. (n. 4 above), p. 133Google Scholar.
44 Beattie, John, “The Criminality of Women in Eighteenth-Century England,” Journal of Social History 8 (1975): 97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is not possible to analyze the social composition of female rioters because their social status or occupation was very rarely identified on the Quarter Sessions rolls.
45 Bond, John, A Complete Guide for Justices of the Peace, 3d ed. (London, 1707), pp. 44–45, 153Google Scholar; Dalton (n. 3 above), pp. 56–57, 256–57.
46 London Journal (February 10, 1722).
47 Greater London RO, sessions papers, April 1690, no. 25.
48 For court-ordered punishments, see Shoemaker (n. 7 above), pp. 225–27.
49 London Journal (July 16, 1720). See also Drawcansir, Alexander [Fielding, Henry],Covent Garden Journal 47 (June 13, 1752)Google Scholar.
50 Defoe, Daniel, Moll Flanders (1722) (Harmondsworth, 1980), p. 206Google Scholar. A man accused by a crowd of picking pockets in an incident described in The Nightwalker, however, desired the rioters to bring him before a magistrate, and they did ([Dunton, John], The Night Walker: or, Evening Rambles in Search After Lewd Women [September 1696], p. 21)Google Scholar. This was a prudent course of action since at least one pickpocket was killed by a mob (London Journal [February 24, 1722]).
51 Greater London RO, sessions papers, May 1720, no. 10; London Newsletter, no. 7 (May 11–13, 1696); Greater London RO, sessions rolls 1276, R 59, October 1663; 1286, R 40a, 118, April 1664; and 1820, R 20, September 1693. See also Defoe, pp. 235–37.
53 PRO, SP 35/21/57.
54 For the “trained bands,” see Lindley, K. J., “Riot Prevention and Control in Early-Stuart London,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 33 (1983): 122–23Google Scholar; Allen, D. F., “The Political Role of the London Trained Bands in the Exclusion Crisis, 1678–81,” English Historical Review 87 (1972): 293–95, 301–2Google Scholar.
56 Burke, Peter, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (San Francisco, 1978), pp. 187–190, 199–204Google Scholar; Davis, Natalie, “The Reasons of Misrule,” in Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, Calif., 1975), p. 100Google Scholar; Bushaway, Robert W., “Ceremony, Custom and Ritual: Some Observations on Social Conflict in the Rural Community. 1750–1850.” in Reactions to Social and Economic Chanee. 1750–1939. ed. Minchinton, W., University of Exeter Papers in Economic History, no. 12 (Exeter, 1979), pp. 9–29Google Scholar.
57 Peter, Burke, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London,” in Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry, Reay (London, 1985), pp. 35–38Google Scholar.
58 Lindley, pp. 109–11.
59 Greater London RO, sessions roll 1428, Ind. 6, R 2, 52, 105, May 1672 (reprinted in Jeaffreson, J. C., ed., Middlesex County Records [London, 1882], 4:34–35Google Scholar). In a similar incident, four apprentices attacked a disorderly alehouse on the day before Trinity in 1664 (Greater London RO, sessions roll 1289, R 115–18, July 1664).
63 Greater London RO, sessions rolls 2175, R 108, 113, 114, September 1711; and 2368, R 72, Westminster Sessions, July 1721; The Country Journal: or, The Craftsman, no. 563 (April 16, 1737); Shoemaker (n. 7 above), pp. 481–82. In contrast, David Underdown has recently suggested that ridings were more “elaborate and theatrical in urban areas” (Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 [Oxford, 1985], pp. 100–103Google Scholar). See also N. Davis (n. 56 above), pp. 109–10.
64 Greater London RO, sessions roll 1289, R 43, July 1664.
67 Unwin (n. 21 above), pp. 220–21.
68 Plummer (n. 23 above), p. 297; Old Bailey Proceedings (n. 35 above), July 1719, p. 7Google Scholar.
69 For political riots incorporating behavior found in ridings, see Rogers (n. 2 above), p. 87; Furley, O. W., “The Pope-burning Processions of the Late Seventeenth Century,” History 44 (1959): 20Google Scholar; Williams, Sheila, “The Pope-burning Processions of 1679, 1680, and 1681,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21 (1958): 109, 113Google Scholar.
70 For their legitimating function, see Burke, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London” (n. 57 above), p. 45; Bergeron, D. M., English Civic Pageantry, 1558–1642 (London, 1971), pp. 299–305Google Scholar; Schwoerer, Lois G., “The Glorious Revolution as Spectacle: A New Perspective,” in England's Rise to Greatness, ed. Baxter, S. B. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), pp. 109–49Google Scholar.
71 Corporation of London RO, sessions roll, December 4, 1693, R 111, 112, 115, 118.
74 DeKrey, p. 253.
75 Thomas, P. J., Mercantilism and the East India Trade (London, 1926), p. 145Google Scholar (citing the Flying Post [August 8, 1719]).
76 Greater London RO, sessions roll 2331, R 98, 99, July 1719; Corporation of London RO, sessions roll, July 1719, R 107; Plummer, pp. 296–97; P. J. Thomas, pp. 143–47; Weekly Journal; or, British Gazeteer (June 20, 1719); Guildhall Library, London, collection of pamphlet literature related to the riots, shelfmark A.1.3, no. 64.
77 Any gathering of three or more people who intentionally disturbed the peace could be defined as a riot (Dalton [n. 3 above], pp. 191–96). Although the incidents under discussion were largely nonviolent, the participants usually disturbed the peace by shouting threatening words, jostling the victim, or damaging some property.
78 Defoe (n. 50 above), p. 206.
80 It is not certain that even these riots were politically motivated. Both involved abusive attacks on “the king's soldiers” (Greater London RO, sessions rolls 1291, R 127, August 1664; and 1651, R 17, September 1684).
81 Twenty-eight of the rioters were prosecuted at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions or at a Gaol Delivery Sessions at the Old Bailey; two were prosecuted at the City of London Sessions; two were committed to the house of correction in the City (Bethlem Hospital, minutes of the Court of Governors of Bridewell and Bethlem, July 24, 1719); and three were tried at the Surrey Assizes. In addition, many weavers were apparently apprehended by press gangs (Original Weekly Journal [June 20, 1719]).
82 Old Bailey Proceedings (n. 35 above), July 1719, p. 7Google Scholar; Greater London RO, sessions roll 2327, Ind. dated June 12, 1719, Gaol Delivery Sessions, April and July, 1719.
83 Old Bailey Proceedings, July 1720, p. 6Google Scholar; Greater London RO, sessions roll 2350, Ind. 20, Gaol Delivery Sessions, July 1720.
84 Eight of the rioters were indicted; one was only bound over by recognizance; and two more were arrested but not prosecuted (Greater London RO, sessions rolls 2378–83, January–March 1722). These figures do not include the two constables and a soldier who were indicted for murdering one of the rioters (Greater London RO, sessions roll 2380, Ind. of Edward Vaughan and two others for the murder of Henry Bowes, Gaol Delivery Sessions, January 1722).
85 The conviction rate for other offenders against the peace is based on a 20 percent sample of the Middlesex indictments between April 1720 and March 1722.
86 Greater London RO, sessions rolls 2327, Ind. dated June 12, 1719, Gaol Delivery Sessions, April and July 1719; and 2382, Ind. dated December 21, 1721, Gaol Delivery Sessions, February 1722; Old Bailey Proceedings, July 1719, p. 7Google Scholar, January 1722, p. 7, and February and March 1722, p. 6.
87 On the other hand, according to a sample of indictments from 1720 to 1722, assaults were more likely to be prosecuted by indictment than by recognizance (Shoemaker [n. 7 above], table 24, p. 263).
88 Ibid., table 6, p. 131.
89 Chamberlayne (n. 34 above), p. 458.
90 PRO, SP 35/16/114; Original Weekly Journal (June 20, 1719); Harris, , “The Bawdy House Riots of 1668” (n. 2 above), p. 539Google Scholar.
91 See, e.g., PRO, SP 35/16/115, 122, June 13, 1719. Prosecutions under the Riot Act were extremely rare. Henry Fielding remarked in 1749 that he knew of only two riots that had led to prosecutions under the act since it had become law in 1715 (A True State of the Case of Bosavern Penlez [London, 1749], p. 27)Google Scholar.
92 For the cost of prosecuting, see Shoemaker, pp. 137–38, 198–202.
93 CSPD, 1667–68, p. 310.
95 The “Advice of the Master Weavers to the Journeymen of their Trade,” dated July 1, 1719, was published in the Daily Courant on July 19 and in Rey, pp. 45–47. Two days after the riots began, the company issued an order, which I have been unable to locate, that apparently did not address the riots or the calico issue directly but instead, in order to increase the employment prospects for legitimate journeymen, condemned masters who employed unlawful journeymen (those who had not performed a proper apprenticeship) (Weekly Journal; or, Saturday's Post [June 20, 1719]; see also A Further Examination of the Weavers' Pretences [London, 1719]; pp. 28, 39)Google Scholar.
96 See, e.g., the condemnations of the riots in A Further Examination of the Weavers' Pretences; and letters to the editor in the Weekly Journal; or, Saturday's Post (June 27, August 15, and September 5, 1719).
97 Orphan Revived, or Powell's Weekly Journal (September 5–12, 1719). See also the Daily Post (May 14, 1720). In a different context, Defoe complained that the legitimacy accorded to the practice of crowds punishing prostitutes led to abuses: “Under this pretence many honest women are mobb'd, and oftentimes robb'd in the very face of the world” (Moreton, Andrew [Defoe, Daniel], Parochial Tyranny [London, 1727], p. 21)Google Scholar.
98 Harris, , “The Politics of the London Crowd in the Reign of Charles II” (n. 2 above), pp. 233, 238Google Scholar; Dunn (n. 22 above), p. 18. See also Lindley (n. 54 above), p. 126.
99 Greater London RO, sessions papers, August 1721, no. 5.
100 North (n. 33 above), 1:571. See also Defoe, Daniel, More Reformation. A Satyr upon Himself (London, 1703)Google Scholar, preface. But Beattie (Crime and the Courts in England [n. 11 above], pp. 133–35) suggests that crowd violence was common and widely tolerated during this period.
102 London Journal (August 13, 1720). See also London Journal (August 20, 1720).
103 Weekly Journal; or, Saturday's Post (June 18, 1720). See also Original Weekly Journal (January 12 and 19, 1723).
104 Greater London RO, sessions roll 2382, Ind. dated December 21, 1721, Gaol Delivery Sessions, February 1722.
105 Dunn, pp. 21–22 (some of the 1675 rioters were subsequently pardoned); Greater London RO, sessions roll 2327, Ind. dated June 12, 1719, Gaol Delivery Sessions, April and July 1719; Old Bailey Proceedings (n. 35 above), July 1719, p. 7Google Scholar.
106 For attitudes toward prostitution, see Thomas, “The Double Standard” (n. 17 above); Wrightson, Keith, English Society, 1580–1680 (London, 1982), pp. 99–100Google Scholar; Dunton (n. 50 above), pp. 10–11.
107 Greater London RO, sessions roll 2016, R 123, September 1703.
108 Weekly Journal; or, British Gazeteer (June 27, 1719).
109 See, e.g., Corporation of London RO, sessions rolls, October 1693, Ind. dated August 26 for a riotous assault on James Jenkins; and January 1720, R 34.
110 A Looking Glass for Informing Constables; Represented in the Tryals … for the Murder of Mr. John Dent, 3d ed. (London, 1733)Google Scholar; Woodward, Josiah, A Sermon Preached at the Parish Church of St. James Westminster … At the Funeral of Mr. John Cooper (London, 1702)Google Scholar; Greater London RO, sessions papers, July 1702, nos. 50–54, and sessions book no. 595, May 1702, p. 35.
111 CJ, 11:683.
112 Greater London RO, sessions papers, May 1720, no. 10.
113 Weekly Journal; or, Saturday's Post (August 15, 1719; see also June 27, 1719).
114 Weekly Journal; or, Saturday's Post (June 27, 1719).
115 Similarly, historians have recently noted that political riots in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries supported opposing views (Harris, , “The Politics of the London Crowd in the Reign of Charles II” [n. 2 above], pp. 258, 298–99Google Scholar; DeKrey [n. 2 above], p. 258).
116 Thompson, , “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century” (n. 40 above), p. 78Google Scholar.
117 Stevenson (n. 73 above), pp. 309–16; Sharpe, J. A., Crime in Early Modern England, 1550–1750 (New York, 1984), p. 139Google Scholar; Jones, Philip D., “The Bristol Bridge Riot and Its Antecedents: Eighteenth-Century Perceptions of the Crowd,” Journal of British Studies 19 (Spring 1980): 79–81Google Scholar; Ingram (n. 43 above), pp. 109–13; Sharp, Buchanan, “Popular Protest in Seventeenth-Century England,” in Fletcher, and Stevenson, , eds. (n. 4 above), pp. 294, 303Google Scholar.
118 Sharp, Buchanan, In Contempt of All Authority (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980), pp. 33–36Google Scholar; Genovese, Elizabeth Fox, “The Many Faces of the Moral Economy: A Contribution to a Debate,” Past and Present, no. 58 (1973), p. 167Google Scholar; Stevenson, John, “The ‘Moral Economy’ of the English Crowd: Myth and Reality,” in Fletcher, and Stevenson, , eds., pp. 236–38Google Scholar.
119 Underdown, , Revel, Riot and Rebellion (n. 63 above), pp. 72, 104–5, 226Google Scholar; Wrightson (n. 106 above), pp. 55–56.
121 On subcultures, see Burke, , “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London” (n. 57 above), pp. 33–34Google Scholar.
122 For disorder occasioned by party conflict, see Stevenson, , Popular Disturbances in England, pp. 19–23Google Scholar; DeKrey, pp. 39–42 and passim.
123 Holmes (n. 2 above), pp. 78–82; Fitts (n. 79 above).
124 DeKrey, pp. 119–20, 248–58; Rogers (n. 2 above), p. 100; Rudé, , “The London ‘Mob’ in the Eighteenth Century” (n. 2 above), pp. 13–16Google Scholar.
125 Rogers, pp. 91–100.
127 Pearl (n. 8 above), p. 5; in his analysis of the “December Days” of 1641, however, Brian Manning suggests that the “mob” was not controlled by political leaders (The English People and the English Revolution, 1640–1649 [London, 1976], pp. 71–98Google Scholar). Stevenson, , Popular Disturbances in England, p. 84Google Scholar.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.