Democracy and the Poor

Various things I have read and observed this month have led me to think again about democracy and attitudes towards the poor, both in the past and today. In this month's blogpost I share some of these reflections.

One task I have completed this month is to write a review for the journal History of Political Thought of the excellent monograph Anti-Democracy in England 1570-1642 written by Cesare Cuttica. Though the book's main focus is the arguments put forward by opponents of democracy, Cuttica convincingly challenges the still persistent view that representative democracy was an invention of the age of Revolution in the late eighteenth century. There are some good reasons for this view, not least the fact that the term 'representative democracy' was not coined until the 1770s - Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, and the Marquis de Condorcet all being early adopters. Yet, as I have argued previously in this blog, James Harrington had already developed a sophisticated theory of representative democracy more than a century earlier. Markku Peltonen has since demonstrated that democracy was being positively advocated in England in the period of the commonwealth and free state (1649-1653) (Markku Peltonen, The Political Thought of the English Free State, 1649-1653. Cambridge, 2023) and Anti-Democracy in England reveals that as early as the 1640s a distinction was already being drawn between direct and representative democracy, with the former viewed entirely negatively, but the latter gaining some sympathy and support.

More broadly Cuttica argues that anti-democracy was a dominant discourse in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries; and that this was closely associated with fear of 'the mob', of 'the lower orders'. He usefully unpicks just why democracy was viewed so negatively; one crucial reason being that it was seen as worse than tyranny because it blurred the important distinction between rulers and ruled.

The other reading I have been doing this month has focused on the late eighteenth century. Hostility to democracy remained common then too - for largely similar reasons. There is also evidence that the concept of representative government underwent further exploration at this time. In Britain, particular attention was paid to what was required for representation to work effectively. In The Freemens' Magazine (1774), a text that offers a forensic examination of national and local political issues from the perspective of the freemen of Newcastle upon Tyne, the local minister and political activist Rev James Murray insisted that MPs ought to follow the instructions of their electors rather than making their own judgements on key political issues. In another text, Give us Our Rights! (1782), the leading reformer John Cartwright argued that, without annual parliaments and universal male suffrage, representative government would remain flawed.

John Cartwright by Georg Siegmund Facius, after John Hoppner, 1789. National Portrait Gallery: NPG D19015. Reproduced under a creative commons licence.

Cartwright's commitment to universal male suffrage is particularly striking in the light of Cesare Cuttica's comments about the ubiquity in the seventeenth century of the view that the poor should not have a political voice. Cartwright was explicit - and adamant - that the poor deserved to be properly represented in Parliament: 'Since the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another, the poor man has an equal right, but more need, to have a representative in parliament than a rich one' (John Cartwright, Give us our Rights! London, 1782. p. 8). While Cartwright's view was by no means that of the majority at the time, it is striking that he was allowed to express it publicly in print. Moreover, as the quote implies, he and other reformers optimistically believed that granting universal male suffrage would, in and of itself, improve the lot of the poor. Writing in the early nineteenth century, the radical author and printer Richard Carlile reinforced this view, declaring: 'The great mass of the People of this country are not only deprived of even the least shadow of liberty, but are deprived of the necessaries of life', the means of correcting this, he argued, was 'the necessary controul of the democratic part of the Government over the other part' (Richard Carlile, The Republican, I:2, Friday 10 September 1819, pp. 34-35).

Sadly the optimism of these reformers proved unfounded in that the introduction of universal suffrage has not eradicated poverty. The franchise was extended to an increasingly wider proportion of the male population in 1832, 1867 and 1884 and to women in 1918 and 1928 - and yet the negative attitude towards the poor remained. As Cesare Cuttica notes, even Thomas Babington Macaulay, who supported the Reform Act of 1832, maintained a strong disdain for ordinary people, describing the multitude as 'endangered by its own ungovernable passions' and insisting that only those with 'property' and those endowed with 'intelligence' should be allowed to govern (Cesare Cuttica, Anti-Democracy in England 1570-1642. Oxford, 2022, p. 244). Even among those who acknowledged the need for a wider franchise, then, there remained a hostile attitude to the poor, a conviction that the poor should not be given a political voice, and an unwavering belief in the need to maintain the distinction between rulers and ruled.

Poster for the stage version of ‘I, Daniel Blake’ at Northern Stage in Newcastle. Image by Rachel Hammersley.

As recent events have proven yet again, many among the political elite continue to view the poor with disdain. The lives of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society also continue to worsen, after having improved somewhat in the second half of the twentieth century. A recent BBC feature on the opening of a stage version of 'I, Daniel Blake', at Newcastle's Northern Stage theatre, suggested that since the launch of Ken Loach's film in 2016 the demands on food banks in Newcastle have increased considerably. Moreover, there have been repeated incidents suggesting that many MPs think different rules apply to them than to the rest of the population. These include: the expenses scandal; the failure of some Government ministers to adhere to Covid restrictions during the pandemic; and the suggestion that the Home Secretary's traffic offence ought to be handled differently from the standard rules that apply to anyone else who is caught speeding. Furthermore, while universal suffrage is not generally challenged, continued attempts are made to silence the political voice of the poorest and most vulnerable. The new rules on voter identification introduced at May's local elections undoubtedly create more of an obstacle for the poor, who are less likely to be in possession of a passport or driving licence, than the rich.

Cesare Cuttica is right to highlight both the importance of anti-democratic thought in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and to pinpoint the opening up of a cleavage between direct and representative democracy occurring as far back as the 1640s. But it is also the case that the very idea of representation has subsequently been used to reinforce the assumption that political participation is, or should be, restricted to the middle and upper classes, and by these means to turn down - even silence - the political voices of the poor. We need to overcome the lingering effects of political prejudices that date back at least to early modern times.

British Republicans 3: Richard Carlile 2 - Methods of Engagement

April's blogpost introduced Richard Carlile, setting him in the context of a long tradition of English republican thought as well as noting the important ways in which he departed from that tradition. This month's blogpost will extend discussion of him by considering the means by which he communicated his republican ideas. There are links here with the practices of earlier British republicans as discussed in my series of blogposts entitled 'Experiencing Political Texts'.

Title page of Carlile’s edition of Paine’s works. Reproduced from Wikimedia Commons.

In the first place, Carlile continued the tradition of seeking wide dissemination of political knowledge. Following in the footsteps of editors like John Toland and Thomas Hollis, and booksellers like John Darby and Daniel Isaac Eaton, Carlile took it upon himself to print and sell key texts written by republican authors. In 1819 Carlile published a two volume edition of the Political and Miscellaneous Works of Thomas Paine in octavo format, to which he added a Life of Thomas Paine, which he had written himself. The previous year he had printed and published Paine's controversial deist text The Age of Reason as well as a collection of The Theological Works of Thomas Paine. Printing and selling The Age of Reason resulted in Carlile's imprisonment the following year.

Carlile did not simply print and publish key political texts but also co-ordinated their dissemination. In his periodical The Republican, he described the 'arbitrary and illegal' treatment of one James Tucker by the authorities in Exeter. He explained how Tucker, who was out of work, had called on him asking to be made an agent for the circulation of his political publications in the vicinity of Exeter. Carlile agreed, noting that having been a resident of that city himself he knew 'that political information had not made that progress in Exeter and Devonshire in general, as it had in the northern counties' (The Republican, No. 4, Friday 17 September). Soon after Tucker began work on Carlile's behalf, he was arrested by the authorities and imprisoned in Exeter prison for selling political pamphlets. Carlile publicised Tucker's case and worked hard to bring about his release.

The Republican was itself a key component of Carlile's political information campaign. Following in the spirit of periodicals like Thomas Spence's One Pennyworth of Pigs Meat and Eaton's Politics for the People, The Republican was a weekly publication that directly addressed current affairs and sought to educate the public on political matters. Just like Spence and Eaton, Carlile was keen to keep the price low to ensure as wide a circulation as possible. Spence and Eaton had deliberately charged just one penny per issue for their periodicals. By 1819 the state had intervened to control - even curb - such publications. In his address 'To the Readers of the Republican' which prefaced the first volume, Carlile commented explicitly on this:

Richard Carlile, The Republican, Volumes 1 and 2. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Johnson e. 3662. Photograph by Alex Plane. Reproduced courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries.

As the price and size of pamphlets, touching on political subjects, and commenting on the proceedings of the day, are to be regulated by a statute, a few words may not be improper as to the continuation of this publication. I have resolved to adopt the smallest size and the least price the statute will allow ... the first volume will be closed with the last twopenny sheet, and the second commence with the new series.

Moreover he went on:

The Editor hopes that the extended size and price will not restrict the number of his readers, although he is fully aware it must restrict the number of the pamphlets sold. Small reading societies, consisting of three or four families, are now more essential than ever: our enemies are straining every nerve to stop the reading that is now going on, for they well know that "knowledge is power" (Richard Carlile, The Republican, from Radical Periodicals of Great Britain. Westport Connecticut, 1970, pp. xv-xvi).

A page from The Republican which includes a letter from a female reader - complete with her name and address. The Republican, Volumes 1 and 2. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Johnson e. 3662. Photograph by Alex Plane. Reproduced courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries.

Carlile was keen not merely to present political news and texts to his readers, but also to encourage their thought and engagement with what they were reading. He did this partly by accompanying his account of recent events with commentary directing his readers how to interpret the actions of those involved. He also encouraged a two-way engagement with his readers. He invited readers to write in asking questions or expressing their own views. Significantly, he insisted that when doing so they had to provide their real name and address; contrary to common practice at the time, no anonymous correspondence or essays would be included within the publication. He acknowledged that this would put some readers off writing, but insisted that 'the necessity of every man making a frank and candid avowal of his principles and sentiments at the present moment, far exceeds any other feelings that may be put in competition with it' (The Republican, No. 1, Friday 27 August, 1819). Despite the requirement, readers did write to The Republican. Some wrote letters praising Carlile and his publications - particularly after his imprisonment; others contributed short articles prompted by things Carlile had said; a few even disagreed with Carlile - or with other readers. The fourth issue included a letter by J. A. Parry. Prompted by Carlile's comment about the role of the executive within the constitution, Parry criticised the House of Lords both in terms of its new members (who, he claimed, tended to be appointed for their servility to existing rulers) and the disruption to the balance of the constitution resulting from its subordination to the Crown. In a footnote to the letter, Carlile expressed his sympathy for the sentiment, but went further than Parry. He insisted that he was opposed to all titles believing the knowledge of having done one's duty and the private esteem of fellow citizens should be sufficient reward for virtuous action. Parry's article also prompted Thomas Dobson of 22 Ossulston Street, Somers Town, to offer his own reflections on hereditary titles, which he strongly condemned as injurious and insulting. Another correspondent, H. Cousins of Hackney also took issue with Parry's letter, exploring the question of whether private property should be secured or equalised. Parry himself then responded in the subsequent issue.

A page from The Republican (details as above) including the names of subscribers and the amounts they subscribed.

As well as encouraging his readers to engage with key issues, Carlile also sought to prompt them into action. This could involve signing one's name - or even pledging money - for a cause. Signatures and pledges of money were, of course, requested in support of Carlile himself after his imprisonment. Initially the names of supporters were printed in the paper, but so many came in that it was decided to print them on separate sheets and to append them to the report of the Trial itself that readers could purchase for 2d. Subscriptions could be made for other projects too. In the seventh issue Carlile described a statue of Thomas Paine that was being prepared. It presented  Paine within a 'Temple of Reason' holding a scroll in his hand, which was inscribed: 'To reason with Despots is throwing reason away'. The statue included reference to Paine's works as well as displaying a liberty cap and the words LIBERTAS. Readers could purchase a model of the statue from the artist.

A slightly different sort of 'action' was proposed by Joseph Tucker, the disseminator of Carlile's political pamphlets who had fallen foul of the Exeter authorities. While in prison Tucker made the suggestion that reformers abstain from exciseable goods (such as alcohol) so as to deplete the coffers of the government. He proposed that books be opened so that those wishing to support the measure could make a declaration of their intent. The total number who had signed would also be communicated to the press and announced weekly. As Carlile noted, this public declaration 'would be a powerful stimulus' to the signatories 'to fulfil their engagement'. Moreover, reporting the numbers would serve two purposes: 'the friends of Reform would be animated, and anxiously look forward to the result, whilst fresh numbers would be eager to encrease their list' (The Republican, Issue 4, Friday 17 September, 1819).

Encouraging political action on the part of citizens was - and remains - crucial for advocates of republican government - indeed they believe that an 'engaged citizenry' that takes its political responsibilities seriously will make for a better society under any form of government. The Experiencing Political Texts network that launches next month (and which will be the focus of my July blogpost) provides an opportunity to explore both how early modern authors sought to inspire engagement and action through their texts, and what lessons we might learn from their tactics today.

British Republicans 2: Richard Carlile

The first volume of Richard Carlile’s periodical The Republican. Bodleian Library: Johnson e.3662 Photograph by Alex Plane, courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries.

On Friday 27 August, 1819, there appeared the first issue of a journal entitled The Republican edited by Richard Carlile. Its publication was a direct response to the Peterloo Massacre that had occurred just under two weeks before. Despite the header declaring it to be 'No. 1. Vol. I.', this was not, in fact, an entirely new journal but, as the editorial explained, the continuation of Sherwin's Weekly Political Register, which had been appearing for several years.

The change of title was, however, deliberate. Carlile was publicly identifying as a 'republican'. In his address to readers that prefaced the first volume he took pains to explain his understanding of the term. Noting that 'it has been the practice of ignorant or evil-minded persons' to associate republicanism purely with 'the horrors of the French Revolution' he urged his readers to look more closely at the etymology of the word. A republican government, he explained, is one 'which consults the public interest - the interest of the whole people' (The Republican, I, 'To the Readers of the Republican'). This, as I have argued in a previous blogpost, accorded with the traditional understanding of the term dating right back to ancient times. Yet, because Carlile was writing in the early nineteenth century, he was well aware of the additional connection that had been forged between republicanism and anti-monarchism. He engaged directly with this point, arguing rather cleverly that: 'Although in almost all instances where governments have been denominated Republican, monarchy has been practically abolished; yet it does not argue the necessity of abolishing monarchy to establish a Republican government.' In truth, Carlile believed that securing government in the public interest required a proper system of representation and that if this were to be introduced the abolition of monarchy was likely to follow. Nevertheless, his understanding of the double meaning of 'republican', and his emphasis on establishing government in the public interest rather than simply abolishing the monarchy, indicates continuity with the longer history of English republican thought.

Thomas Paine by Laurent Dubos, c. 1791. National Portrait Gallery. NPG 6805. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Carlile also associated his ideas more directly with those of earlier English republicans. He was a committed disciple of Thomas Paine and was responsible for printing and disseminating Paine's works. He was also an admirer of Thomas Spence, declaring that Spence's Land Plan was 'the most simple and most equitable system of society and government that can be imagined' and that it was 'a subject' about which it was 'worth thinking, worth talking, worth writing, worth printing' (Richard Carlile, Operative, 3 March 1839 as cited in Malcolm Chase, '"The Real Rights of Man": Thomas Spence, Paine and Chartism', in Rogers and Sippel (eds), Thomas Spence and His Legacy: Bicentennial Perspectives, special issue of Miranda 13 2016, pp. 3-4). Spence was himself a disciple of the seventeenth-century English republican James Harrington, and Carlile too made frequent reference in his writings back to the period of the Stuarts. He implied that the tyranny enacted by his own government at Peterloo and in its aftermath was similar to that performed by Charles I and his sons. In an open letter to the Prince Regent, which appeared in the second issue of The Republican, he warned the Prince that if he failed to deal justly with the perpetrators of the Peterloo massacre then 'the fate of Charles or James, is inevitably yours. And justly so.' (The Republican, No. 2 Vol. 1. 3 September 1819). Carlile also celebrated the heroic martyrs of the period, including John Hampden and Algernon Sidney.

Carlile repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to act as a martyr to liberty and to sacrifice his own personal freedom in the greater cause by stoically enduring repeated prison sentences. He was imprisoned for his role in publishing Paine’s works in 1819 soon after launching The Republican. This image was produced to celebrate his release six years later. ‘On his liberation after six years of imprisonment’ (Richard Carlile) by an unknown artist, 1825. National Portrait Gallery. NPG D8083. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence.

More substantively, The Republican echoed earlier English republican works in celebrating both civil and religious liberty, and in emphasising the interrelationship between the two. In the very first issue, Carlile explicitly declared his willingness to submit to martyrdom 'in the cause of liberty' and in the second issue he accused the despots of Europe of seeking to: 'abridge and destroy the liberties of their subjects, and to make their own authority absolute' (The Republican, No. 1 Vol. 1, 27 August 1819 and No. 2 Vol 1, 3 September 1819). Of particular importance to Carlile were the liberties of free speech and freedom of association. What was particularly galling about the Peterloo Massacre was that the individuals who had been killed had simply been enacting their right, under the British constitution, 'to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances as well as on the legal and constitutional means of obtaining redress' (The Republican, No. 5 Vol. 1, 24 September 1819). Such actions were necessary in Carlile's eyes because, like earlier British commonwealthmen, he believed that the British constitution had become corrupt and its balance disturbed. Echoing the late seventeenth-century thinker Henry Neville, Carlile argued that the balance of the constitution lay too much with the monarch and that too little power was wielded by the House of Commons. It had once dominated the other branches 'but that controul is quite destroyed, and through the influence of Boroughmongering, they are become the base and contemptible tools of every vicious faction that can get into power' (The Republican, No. 4 Vol. 1, 17 September 1819).

Richard Carlile, by an unknown artist. National Portrait Gallery, NPG 1435. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Again like earlier English republican authors, Carlile was adamant that citizens should enjoy religious as well as political liberty. Echoing John Milton and other so-called 'godly republicans' of the mid-seventeenth century, he insisted on a clear and complete separation between church and state: 'I maintain on this head, that no government should legislate as to what shall or shall not be the religion of its subjects; or what differences should exist in their creeds' 'an established priesthood, of whatever tenets, is incompatible with civil liberty' (The Republican, I 'To the Readers of the Republican'). Yet in terms of his own personal religious convictions, Carlile had less in common with the 'godly republicans', instead taking the path previously developed by John Toland and his associates at the turn of the eighteenth century, whereby rabid anti-clericalism morphed into deism and even atheism. All forms of religion, Carlile declared, are 'an imposture and fraud practised by base and designing men on the credulous part of mankind' (The Republican, No. 2 Vol. 1, 3 September 1819). By publishing the controversial theological works of Paine, Carlile hoped to be able to emancipate minds from the slavish fears associated with Christianity (The Republican, No. 6 Vol. 1, 1 October 1819). Carlile's readers expressed similar views. In a letter that appeared in the second issue, Joseph Fitch of Old Road Academy, Stepney, praised Carlile for the patriotic firmness with which he faced tyranny after being charged with sedition for publishing the theological works of Paine. He urged those who saw the views voiced by Carlile as a threat to the state to stop being 'the voluntary dupes of priestcraft and corruption' and he ended by urging support for the cause of 'civil and religious liberty' (The Republican, No. 2 Vol. 1, 3 September 1819).

While the continuities between Carlile's understanding of republicanism and that of his predecessors are striking, he also introduced new elements. He was more critical than most earlier English republicans (with the exception of Spence) of the unjust inequalities between rich and poor. In issue six he attacked the 'Prince and Ministers, Sinecurists and Pensioners, Borough-mongers and Fundholders, Bishops and Parsons, Judges and Lawyers' for attacking the lower orders and seeking to keep them down (The Republican, No. 6, Vol. 1, 1 October 1819). He also championed the rights of other marginal groups within society, even asserting that women ought to be accorded political rights (The Republican, No. 5. Vol. 1, 24 September 1819).

Carlile's writings, and the continuity of his arguments with earlier English republicans, challenge the common assumption that the English have no sustained republican tradition. In fact, there is a rich and vibrant vein of republican thinking in this country, one that has been flexible enough to adapt to a variety of different circumstances and issues. The optimism and energy of Carlile's writings stemmed from his firm conviction that the unjust political system of his own day could be completely overturned if only the franchise were extended and the poor were given the vote. On this point history has proved Carlile wrong, which poses challenging questions for democratic republicans today.