Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:40:31.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. The Loyalist Association Movement of 1792–93 and British Public Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

Donald E. Ginter
Donald E. Ginter
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In November 1792 John Reeves, with the explicit approval and active sup-port of both the government and the Windhamite Whigs, and with the countenance of the duke of Portland and his friends, instituted a movement of loyalist associations which quickly spread throughout the country. The movement was founded in reaction to an enthusiastic resurgence of British radical activity which followed the defeat of the combined armies under the duke of Brunswick, and it rallied a now militant conservative sentiment in favour of detecting and suppressing by intimidation and public prosecution all allegedly seditious activities. This crisis in public opinion, which was at once the parent and the offspring of the loyalist association movement, was not the first to have occurred in 1792. An earlier crisis occurred in favour of the political left during the late spring of 1792 and was followed by a relatively mild reaction to the right. It seems clear that, during the earlier months of 1792 at least, there were considerable bodies of both conservative and liberal opinion of various shades in the country. But by the beginning of the following year the complexity and ferment of the political scene had become so great that it is not at all clear to what extent or how rapidly liberal opinion had been supplanted in the country by conservative sentiment. The purpose of this paper is to reassess the nature, effect and significance of the loyalist association movement by undertaking a more careful examination of the phraseology of many of its addresses and declarations as well as of the proceedings and circumstances peculiar to the meetings in which they were approved.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 1966 , pp. 179 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mitchell, Austin, ‘The Association Movement of 1792-3’, Historical Journal, IV (1961), 56–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar , which is based upon his unpublished M.A. thesis, ‘Radicalism and Repression in the North of England, 1791-1797’, University of Manchester, 1958Google Scholar.

2 Black, Eugene Charlton, The Association: British Extra-parliamentary Political Organization, 1769-1793 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), ch. VII.Google Scholar

8 Morning Chronicle, 29 Nov., 1 and 6 Dec. 1792. Cf. Mitchell, op. cit. p. 60, who places the meeting in Grocers’ Hall.

4 Morning Chronicle, 6 Dec. 1792.

5 For evidence that the meeting was independent of Reeves and his associates, see S. Bosanquet to J. Reeves, 3 Dec. 1792, Add. MSS. 16,920, fos. 62-3; H. A. Hardy to J. Reeves, Phoenix Fire Office, 4 Dec. 1792, Add. MSS. 16,920, fos. 90-1.

6 George Tierney to Charles Grey, 4 Nov. 1792, Grey MSS (Durham), published in Black, op. cit. pp. 289-91.

7 The Morning Chronicle adopted this line in the closing months of 1792, and heartily endorsed the proceedings at Merchant Taylors’ Hall. In its issue of 6 December it described the Declaration adopted by that meeting as ‘wisely calculated to obtain the sanction of those, who, though among the best wishers to Government, will never lose sight of the necessity of a Reform’, while in its issue of 10 December it proclaimed it as ‘a model for that of all independent men. The secret history of it, also, is complete triumph to the friends of Reform. A very different address was canvassed for, and all the tribe of privileged men, of corporate bodies, of ci-devant, and of expectant contractors, exerted themselves to procure a more thorough-paced Declaration; but the calm, firm, and temperate voice of the enlightened merchants of England was not to be stifled, nor their judgments to be misled.—They took the true constitutional ground, and it is a memorable fact, that the words they have used about the Constitution are taken verbatim from Mr FOX'S speech in the House of Commons, on Mr GREY'S motion for a Reform.’ See also the letter signed ‘X ‘in ibid. 24 Dec. 1792, and the recommendation of the Durham declaration as ‘worthy the adoption of those who are sincerely attached to the principles of our Constitution’ (ibid. 11 Jan. 1793).

8 See the advertisement and lengthy article concerning the Glasgow meeting of 14 Dec. (ibid. 10 Jan. 1793).

9 Mitchell, op. cit. pp. 57, 62-3.

10 A number of boroughs did in fact produce two declarations or even rival associations representing different points of view. See, for example, the case of Yarmouth, Morning Chronicle, 22 (advertisement) and 24 (letter signed ‘X’) Dec. 1792. Durham and Liverpool were not the only instances, Mitchell, op. cit. pp. 62—3. On Liverpool, a narration differing in some important respects from that given by Mitchell is to be found in Morning Chronicle, 25 Dec. 1792. Cf. a declaration by ‘several inhabitants’ of Warwick, ibid. 4 Jan. 1793; and the Dundee and Montrose dissents to their county address and declaration, ibid. 8, 17 Jan., 1 Feb. 1793.

11 The Morning Chronicle (1 Jan. 1793) defends Fox's consistency thus: ‘…Mr FOX is reported in the MORNING CHRONICLE [parliamentary debates], to have “expressed his doubts of the legality of the Associations and Subscriptions for criminal prosecutions—not of those for aiding the Civil Magistrate in suppressing riot or insurrection. Of one of this sort he should be ready to become a Member, and to assist the Magistrates in person, if necessary; for it was the duty of every man to do so.” —The Meeting which Mr FOX attended, and the declaration which he signed, were precisely of this description.’

12 The Morning Chronicle, 19, 21 Dec. 1792. The committee also included such Whigs as William Baker, Lord John Russell and Lord William Russell. Heneage Legge, who with Windham was a member of the committee of the highly conservative Westminster St Albans Tavern Association, was also on the committee for St George's. For an example of the innocuous albeit’ loyal’ sort of activity in which the St George's committee engaged see ibid. 19 Jan. 1793. By late December Fox had apparently clashed violently with more conservative members of this association (see John Moore to Lord Auckland, Bath, 3 Jan. 1793, The Journal and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland, ed. Bishop of Bath and Wells, London, 1861-1862, 11, 479).Google Scholar It would be incorrect to give the impression that Reeves, Windham or even Burke seriously objected to the insertion of clauses stating a qualified support for constitutional re-form in principle. Such a clause, if sufficiently vague, might imply no more than economical reform. Burke himself was on the committee of the Beaconsfield Association, whose Declaration read in part: ‘… a Constitution… which contains in itself a Power and Energy to correct those Defects, which from the incidental Imperfection of all human Institutions may be found in the best regulated States.’ The significance of these clauses, which this paper wishes to emphasize, is the use which could have been and was made of them by reformers, and the caution which historians must therefore exercise in interpreting the significance of associations incorporating such clauses.

13 Morning Chronicle, 26, 27, 28 Dec. 1792. Cf. for the county of Aberdeen, ibid. 1 Jan. 1793, with an impressive list of signers, ibid. 8 Jan. 1793.

14 Ibid. 28 Dec. 1792.

15 Ibid. 26 Dec. 1792. For loyal declarations by the Scottish burgh and county reform movements, see ibid. 1 and 4 Jan. 1793. For the assurances of the Friends of the People, see ibid. 11 and 17 Dec. 1792.

16 Ibid. 28 Dec. 1792. The Reeves Papers in the British Museum contain no correspondence from this association, nor from the St George's.

17 For example Chas. Edwards to J. Reeves, Chard, 24 Jan. 1793, Add. MSS. 16,924, fos. 134—5, passim. There appears to have been disunity in the Ipswich Association, the secretary of the association apparently conspiring to go beyond the sentiments of his more moderate committee, J. Ford (secretary of the committee) to J. Reeves, 19 Dec. [1792], Add. MSS. 16,922, fos. 202-3.

18 For example John Walter to J. Reeves, 7 Jan. 1793, Add. MSS. 16,924, fos. 51-2; Thos. Callis to J. Reeves, 12 Jan. 1793, Add. MSS. 16,924, fos. 80-1.

19 Ibid. 27 May 1793. Pressures could be more than social and judicial. For an example of a boycott upon a merchant, see Black, op. cit. p. 257 n.

20 Morning Chronicle, 21 Jan., 22 Feb., 11 March, 22 Apr., 17 June 1793.

21 , Mitchell, op. cit. pp. 57, 62, 67.Google Scholar