RELIGIOUS LOYALISM: THE ANGLICAN CHURCH AND THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT OF 1792-3

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History University of Regina

by Greg Koabel Regina, Saskatchewan March 2009

Copyright 2009: Greg Koabel Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your We Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-55019-9 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-55019-9

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Nnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

••• Canada UNIVERSITY OF REGINA

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH

SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gregory Vaughan Koabel, candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in History, has presented a thesis titled, Religious Loyalism: The Anglican Church and the Conservative Movement of 1792-3, in an oral examination held on March 23, 2009. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material.

External Examiner: Dr. Jeanne Shami, Department of English

Co-Supervisor: Dr. Robin Ganev, Department of History

Co-Supervisor: Dr. Ian Germani, Department of History

Committee Member: Dr. Yvonne Petry, Department of History

Committee Member: Dr. Thomas Bredohl, Department of History

Chair of Defense: Dr. Catherine Tite, Luther College ABSTRACT

In the wake of the French Revolution, the early 1790s proved to be a riotous period in British social and political history. Radicals, seeking to implement many of the reforms being established in France, challenged conservatives, seeking to maintain the status quo. Since that time historians have been similarly divided on the issues of the early 1790s, particularly in terms of the political legacy of the period. However, the one element largely missing from these interpretations is how religion served to complement, and at times trump, these political and class interpretations of events. A large reason for this exclusion has been the perception that the Anglican Church of this period was weakened by political sycophancy and its clergy unable to express, or elicit, any degree of religious enthusiasm. This thesis will explore the role Anglican clergymen had in expressing and exploiting religious sentiment during 1792-3, and attempt to make the events of the early 1790s more coherent by placing them in the context of religious attitudes.

The details of Anglican clerical perspective had on the political, social and religious events surrounding them in 1792-3 can be gleaned from several different sources. The sermons delivered by Anglican churchmen that relate to reform, radicalism and the state of religion in Britain, as well as their involvement in local politics, are examined in the thesis in order to demonstrate that clergymen saw affairs in a particularly religious context. Similarly, the thesis investigates the clergy's role in popular expressions of loyalism, at times resulting in loyalist riots. Through a precise examination of specific popular disturbances

i in Oxford and Cambridge, I demonstrate that religious tensions between

Anglicans and Dissenters, exploited by conservative Anglican clergymen, provided the primary impetus for these riots.

This thesis presents the case that evaluations of Anglican clergymen in the early 1790s, and religious tensions as a whole in British society, need to be reconsidered. Historical debates about the 1790s have been largely centred upon narratives of political or social conflict. By failing to treat the religious concerns of British society equally in the discussion of the crisis years of the

1790s, historians have simplified our understanding of the period. While an elevation of the religious element in the social history of the 1790s should not displace the political or class elements, it can more effectively explain certain events that do not fit into a strictly political interpretation of the period.

II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to convey my deepest appreciation to my co-supervisors, Dr.

Robin Ganev and Dr. Ian Germani, for all their assistance, both in researching and writing this thesis. Dr. Ganev's deep knowledge and passion for eighteenth century social history certainly impacted my work.

I would also like to thank Dr. Thomas Bredohl and Dr. Yvonne Petry for their assistance in completing this thesis and for taking part in the panel committee.

In addition, I wish to thank Dr. Robin Swales for introducing me to the absorbing world of early modern Britain, and instilling in me the passion necessary to complete this project.

Financial support was provided by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and

Research at the University of Regina, and by the Social Sciences and Research

Council of Canada. Without their backing this would not have been possible.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER

1: Politics from the Pulpit: The Myth of the Secular Sermon 7

2: Organized Religion: Clerical Participation in Loyalist Associations 35

3: Religious Loyalism in Action: Clerical Involvement in Anti-Radical

Disturbances and Repression 67

CONCLUSION 98

BIBLIOGRAPHY 102

iv INTRODUCTION

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice stands as a remarkable, and still amusing, portrayal of the social hierarchy of early nineteenth-century England. One of the most comic figures in the novel is Mr. Collins, an ironically irreligious man of the Church, whose ambitions exist purely in the material world. His main concerns appear to be toadying to his social superiors, securing his financial station in life and being largely ignorant of theological matters, so long as they do not bring him social gain. Austen's initial description of Collins captures this image of a clergyman seeing his Church position as being important only so far as it identified his social superiors and inferiors. A fortunate chance had recommended him to Lady Catherine de Bourgh when the living of Hunsford was vacant; and the respect which he felt for her high rank and his veneration for her as his patroness, mingling with a very good opinion of himself, of his authority as a clergyman, and his rights as a rector, made him altogether a mixture of pride and obsequiousness, self-importance and humility.1

Mr. Collins stands as a somewhat familiar figure to historians of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He is an Anglican clergyman hopelessly devoted to his master, whose primary goal in life appears to be the furthering of his worldly life through sycophancy and advantageous marriage, and whose understanding of theological concerns is at best limited. Although Austen did not implicate Collins in any conservative political repression, his general sycophancy represents the popular perception of Anglican clergymen to this day. Unfortunately, while Mr. Collins makes for an entertaining character in Pride and Prejudice, many historians have been all too willing to view Austen's portrayal of the Anglican clergy as typical.

There is perhaps no more unfairly maligned figure in the history of the late

1Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993), 47-48.

1 2 eighteenth century than the Anglican clergyman. Alternately accused of laziness, sycophancy, political opportunism and corruption, the parish vicar has been seen as an almost wholly secular figure, existing merely to further the cause of the authoritarian state. The interpretation of the clergyman as secular figure is especially true of the politically divisive 1790s, where traditional histories have portrayed clergymen as motivated purely by a desire to further their own careers. These interpretations usually take the form of generalizations, such as John Dinwiddy's that the sermons of the 1790s were merely the stale arguments of those seeking "the most likely road to preferment."2 E.P. Thompson has similarly dismissed the eighteenth-century Church as a corrupt, secular institution.3 When conventional histories have turned their attention to individual clergymen, the result is frequently a passing reference to their hypocritical vices,4 or their "curious combination of ambition and laziness,"5 in books devoted to the reforming men they helped repress.

A corollary to this interpretation of clergymen as unimaginative tools of government repression has been a de-emphasis on the influence of ministers over their communities. According to Dinwiddy, the clergymen's "stale" arguments against the doctrine of equality failed to convince the masses, while the morally lax clergymen similarly failed to inspire devotion. Despite the obvious tensions between Dissenters and Anglicans which played out in loyalist riots, some historians have downplayed to a level bordering on insignificant the role of

2John Dinwiddy, "Interpretations of Anti-Jacobinism," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 45-46. 3William Gibson, The Achievement of the Anglican Church: 1689-1800, The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995), 30. "Frida Knight, The Strange Case of Thomas Walker, (London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd., 1957)122-124. 5Frida Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend, 1757-1841, (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1971), 109. 3 religion in motivating the masses.6 Even historians more sympathetic to the Anglican Church have termed sermons a declining tool of social influence in the latter eighteenth century.7 Recent scholarship has begun the task of rehabilitating the image of the Anglican clergyman, as historians such as Robert Hole and H.T. Dickinson have pointed out their energetic activities in preaching the gospel of conservatism and their active leadership in local manifestations of conservatism. The wealth of source material, (the early 1790s were a period of feverishly produced propaganda material), as well as the active participation of the masses in several large loyalist disturbances, make 1792-3 an illuminating period in this regard. The vigour with which many clergymen pursued the conservative cause, and the sophistication of the arguments they used, reveal a group of men involved deeply in the community around them, and not at all the secular careerists envisioned by traditional histories. This happy mixture of voluminous source material and frantic public activity finds itself most concentrated in the period between the summers of 1792 and 1793. Political and social turmoil in both France and Britain sped up considerably as the Revolution, three years on, finally began to have a profound impact on British politics. Radical political societies, which had sprung up in London nearly simultaneous to the Revolution, were now beginning to spread outside the capital. In reaction to the growing challenge the government put forth two proclamations, in May and December of 1792, calling for the suppression of seditious publications and warning of the danger of domestic insurrection

6Roger Wells, "English Society and Revolutionary Politics in the 1790s: The Case for Insurrection," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 197. 7R.Greaves, "Religion in the University, 1715-1800," in The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. V, ed. L.S. Sutherland, L.G. Mitchell, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986), 46. 4 respectively. Mere weeks before the December proclamation, John Reeves, a former government official acting independently but at the very least with the tacit approval of the government, established the Association for the Preservation of Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers in London, a body intended to counteract the growing number of radical societies.8 Almost immediately Reeves' society was copied by citizens throughout England, who came together in groups popularly known as Loyalist Associations. The name itself was a testament to the success of the movement. Conservative activists were able to adopt the label of "loyal" thereby relegating any reformer, no matter how moderate, to the status of disloyal citizen. The connection between domestic and foreign affairs was cemented in February 1793 as Britain was finally drawn into the continental war against Revolutionary France. The crisis months of 1792-3 have long been identified as crucial to British history in general and the Anglican clergy specifically. Austin Mitchell has seen the crisis of potential domestic uprising and eventual war with France as a catalyst for instilling "Tory" sentiment throughout the nation. While other historians, such as Donald Ginter, disagree, citing the superficiality of political conservatism in the 1790s, Ginter still sees the months of late 1792 and early 1793 as seminal for popular British attitudes towards radicalism well into the nineteenth century.9 Perhaps most relevant of all to this thesis, religious historians have noted the critical aspects of 1792-3. Robert Hole's extensive study of Anglican clergymen and the French Revolution is almost wholly confined to 1792-3. The period holds a central position in his over-arching vision of the progression of clerical arguments and attitudes. To the winter of 1792-3, Hole

8Eugene Charlton Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 238. 9Donald E. Ginter, "The Loyalist Association Movement of 1792-93 and British Public Opinion," The Historical Journal, 1966, Vol. 9, No. 2, 180. 5 ascribes the dominance of the secular and political in clerical arguments as compared to the more personal evangelical arguments against reform in the later 1790s.10 Thus although Hole holds a far more sympathetic view of the Anglican clergyman than Dinwiddy or Thompson, he shares with them the idea of the fundamental secularization of the Anglican minister in 1792-3. This secularization of the Anglican clergy is symptomatic of a larger trend towards removing religion entirely from the debate of historical forces in the 1790s. The most contentious historical discussions have centred upon the political allegiances of the masses, mostly consisting of scholars such as H.T. Dickinson or Linda Colley challenging the Marxist interpretations of earlier historians regarding the lower classes' lack of loyalty to the conservative order.11 While this discussion has been informative and crucial to the shaping of our understanding of how the French Revolution affected British society, it has, for the most part, dealt with religion only in so far as it can be related to a class or nationalist-based interpretation of society. Dickinson has focused on refuting the notion that radicalism dominated the lower classes in the 1790s, mostly by pointing out that elites did not hold a monopoly on conservatism, that conservative propaganda widely dispersed among the masses, and that a radical insurrection failed to materialize.12 Although Dickinson notes the usefulness of the Anglican clergy in this propaganda campaign, he is silent on the tensions between Anglicans and Dissenters which may have done far more to incite loyalist disturbances than purely political conservatism. Meanwhile Colley frames her criticism of previous historical work in terms of the growing nationalist

10Robert Hole, "British Counter-Revolutionary Popular Propaganda in the 1790s," in Britain and Revolutionary France: Conflict, Subversion and Propaganda, ed. Colin James, (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1983), 63-64. 11Dinwiddy, "Interpretations of anti-Jacobinism," 38. 12H.T. Dickinson, "Popular Consevatism and Militant Loyalism 1789-1815" in Britain and the French Revolution 1789-1815, ed. H.T. Dickinson, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1989), 104-105. 6 sentiment in British culture. While this interpretation clearly touches on the national Church, Colley de-emphasizes religious issues in favour of examining the fierce xenophobia of the 1790s, particularly as directed at the French.13 This thesis will attempt to place the proper emphasis on religion in the professional lives of late eighteenth-century clergymen, and portray clergymen more accurately as distinctly religious figures, making impassioned pleas to the religious sensibilities of their communities.

For the citizens of towns which saw loyalist disturbances in the 1790s, such as the university towns of Oxford and Cambridge among many others, there may have been more immediate and day-to-day concerns than the political ideology of neighbours, or the possibility of French conquest, though of course those anxieties should not be neglected. Divisions along religious lines, Anglicans, Dissenters, Methodists and Unitarians, would have been far more visible, with a stronger history than new debates on reforming the legislative system. It is significant that the first shot fired in the reform movement of the 1790s was the campaign to Repeal the Test Acts, begun in 1790. The strongest response came from Anglican clergymen, who formed associations to counteract the popularity of the reformist movement, and acted as a useful precursor to the Loyalist Associations founded two years later. From the very beginning of the radical movement, it was nearly impossible to separate religious tension from the ideological politics of reform. Clerical leadership in the associations supporting the preservation of the Test Acts was a role many clergymen adopted eagerly and effectively. It was to be a role Anglican clergymen, and indeed the Anglican- Dissenter divide itself, would reprise again and again in the crisis months of 1792-3.

13Linda Colley, "The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation 1760- 1820," Past and Present, No. 102, Feb. 1984, 128. CHAPTER 1 POLITICS FROM THE PULPIT: THE MYTH OF THE SECULAR SERMON In seeking to establish the role of religion in early 1790s conservative popular culture, the sermons of Anglican clergymen seem an obvious starting point. Due to the wealth of surviving material, the Anglican clergyman of the early 1790s provides an excellent opportunity to explore the religious element in conservative thought. The period of 1792-3 in particular produced a wide array of sermons dedicated to the topic of loyalty to the political and social status quo in Britain. These can be read as expressions of the clerical perception of events, both in terms of what they saw as the driving forces behind the political and social crisis, and also how they sought to restore order. Not surprisingly the clergyman as public proponent of conservatism is a familiar character in the history of the late eighteenth-century. However, Robert Hole, the leading historian of late eighteenth century clergy, has severely questioned the nature of the pulpit as a venue for religious sentiment, at least in 1792-3. His work consists of studies on the public voice of clergymen, whether in sermons or published pamphlets, and their attitudes towards revolution and reform. Hole has analyzed the gradual changes in form, tone and methodology of the Church, with a particular emphasis on the critical months of 1792-3.1 However in Hole's interpretation, religious arguments took a backseat to pragmatic questions of social harmony and economic prosperity and merely acted as a "fine-meshed net to catch those who had eluded the looser weave of the secular arguments."2 According to Hole, religion only gained prominence in later conservative

Robert Hole, "English Sermons and Tracts as Media of Debate on the French Revolution 1789-1799" in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 25. 2Robert Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 101. 7 8 propaganda that embraced the message of personal reform inherent in evangelicalism. However, the sermons Hole chooses to analyze tend to unduly marginalize religious sentiment. There exists a significant group of sermons, under-represented in Hole's work that employed strong religious rhetoric, played on the religious intolerance of the British citizenry and de-emphasized the logical secular arguments present in the sermons examined by Hole. In no small part a consequence of this emphasis on religious rhetoric, these sermons tended to be more provocative and called upon congregations to be more active in their resistance to radicalism than more secular sermons which merely pointed out the abstract flaws of theories of republicanism or equality. Not only were these sermons more widespread than Hole recognizes -- geographically they extended from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Durham in the north, the university towns of Oxford and Cambridge -- they were also more numerous, in places such as Durham becoming the majority voice of the Church. Even more importantly, they had a deeper influence on the nation, being associated with popular displays of loyalty, most directly in Oxford where Rev. Edward Tatham sparked rioting, but also in Cambridge and Manchester. This chapter will attempt to lend these more provocative religious sermons a degree of legitimacy and clarity that has been heretofore been under-represented.

In the larger sense, religion has been oddly absent from most historical discussions of the crisis months of 1792-3. This holds true, not only for the historical scholarship of British politics in general, but also, surprisingly enough, for the study of Anglican clergymen. Traditional histories have downplayed religious motivations among the masses in their many public displays of loyalty in the period in favour of analyses pointing to socio-economic stresses or class struggle. Similarly, the Anglican clergyman has been portrayed as a remarkably 9 secular instrument of the state in the government's campaign of repression. While recent historians have engaged in a lengthy and informative debate about the relative strength of conservatism among the masses, and the intellectual rigour and honesty of the clergy, little has been done to insert religion into the equation. The work of Robert Hole has established the eighteenth-century Anglican clergyman as a more nuanced and complete figure that one merely motivated by base political sycophancy. However he has failed, particularly in his analysis of 1792-3, to restore religion to its proper place in understanding churchmen.

Since the emergence in the 1980s of H.T. Dickinson's challenge to the notion of the lack of conservative sentiment among the masses,3 a vigorous debate has ensued between historians pointing to elements of conservatism among the lower classes, and those holding the traditional vision of a fundamentally radical lower class, held in check by a repressive state.4 The result has been an active, and at times heated discussion, which has often been more marked by ideology than historical evidence.5 Not surprisingly Anglican clergymen have been brought into this historical debate, but not for their religious attitudes. In fact, some historians have dismissed the religious motivations of clergymen entirely and have instead seen their conservative sermons as stale and unconvincing arguments expounded by men looking for the "most likely road to preferment."6 Even aside from such dismissals, the debate has focused

3 H.T. Dickinson, "Popular Conservatism and Militant Loyalism 1789-1815," in Britain and the French Revolution 1789-1815 ed. H.T. Dickinson, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1989), 105- 121. 4 John Dinwiddy, "Interpretations of Anti-Jacobinism," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 45-46.Clive Emsley, Britain and the French Revolution, (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2000), 31-35.Mark Philp, "Introduction," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 13. Ian Christie, "Conservatism and Stability in British Society," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 169. Dinwiddy, "Interpretations of Anti-Jacobinism," 45-46. 10 largely on how convincing clerical arguments were to the masses. Due to the lack of sources which can positively indicate how the lower classes felt about the conservative message, and the wealth of secondary source material on the subject, this chapter will not venture into the already voluminous discussion. A less contentious and perhaps more relevant method of examining conservative arguments, considering the availability of sources, is to look at the specific work of Anglican clergymen and determine what they felt were the crucial, and most effective, aspects of the conservative message. A re-examination of the sermons of 1792-3, and a closer examination of those sermons which were intended to be the most provocative, can act to both clarify the themes recognized by Hole and restore religion to its rightful place in Anglican pulpits of the period. By their very nature sermons were not a dialogue between minister and congregation, but categorically one-sided affairs presented to captive audiences by those in a position of. authority. However, certain limited inferences about parishioners, and what they expected out of the sermons presented to them, can be drawn from the particular content and structure of the sermons of 1792-3. The tone, and in some cases the very content, of sermons in this period make it very clear that clergymen were extremely conscious of the congregations they were addressing their exhortations to. Among many of the loyalty sermons of 1792-3 there was a distinct atmosphere of self-consciousness on the part of the clergy. During this period those delivering sermons exhibited an awareness of their audiences, and the necessity of molding their talking points to suit the sentiments of the congregation. Many sermons were prefaced by self-conscious apologies for speaking on political issues.7 Also typical was an affected bashfulness on the topic of political matters, despite the inherent political nature

William Agutter, Christian politics; or the origin of power, and the grounds of subordination, London, 1792,4. 11 of most sermons. One such example, by Andrew Burnaby vicar of Greenwich in November 1792, though modest and reasonable by itself, is almost comically ironic considering the political diatribe which it preceded. It is not my province, nor indeed would it become me, to search for political reasons that may seem to have contributed to, and in part to have occasioned, so aweful and astonishing a phenomenon. These I shall leave to be investigated in proper places, and by persons better qualified than myself for so arduous an undertaking.8 While Anglican clergymen continuously engaged in political discussions from the pulpit in 1792-3, there is ample evidence to back up William Gibson's claim that clergymen hesitated to introduce politics into their sermons.9 Perhaps the largest contributing factor to this hesitancy was not any personal ethical concern, but possible backlash from the congregation against overt attempts at ideological indoctrination from religious leaders. Such concerns were voiced in correspondence between Loyalist Associations, local groups of conservatives organized to combat their counterparts among radicals, by at least one clergyman, who warned against the possibility of popular backlash against a too obvious defence of the status quo. The clergy should not take an ostensible part as Chairman [of local Loyalist Associations] who will be looked upon by the people as enforcing the payment of tythes.10 Although the letter was in reference to clerical involvement in Loyalist Associations, it points to an uneasy attitude towards public expression of political views when speaking as religious leaders of their communities. This interpretation implies at least some degree of interactivity between clergymen and their congregations, and perhaps more importantly, a vision of clergymen, not as tools of the repressive central government, but as individuals deeply

o Andrew Burnaby, A sermon preached at Greenwich Church, London, 1793, 4. 9William Gibson, The Achievement of the Anglican Church 1689-1800: The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995), 33. 10Bennet Allen to John Reeves, December 28th, 1792. British Library MSS ADD 16923, Vol. 5. 12 rooted in their communities, making decisions based on local relationships rather than servitude to the conservative order. For this reason sermons may be worth examining, at the very least to determine how clergymen understood the audiences they addressed, and what place particularly religious arguments held in the minds of both clergyman and their congregations. In order to analyze the place of religious argument in the sermons of 1792-3, it is necessary to categorize loyalist sermons according to their intended messages. Although it is not apparent that ministers themselves made such a clear distinction, it is helpful to separate arguments intended merely to convince congregations of the merits of conservatism over reform, from arguments meant to encourage audiences to stamp out radicalism by emphasizing the danger it posed. This process also helps reveal the weakness of Hole's argument as most of the sermons he examines fall in the former category of the more inherently secular sermons. However, the latter type of sermon, under-represented in Hole's work, employed drastically different tactics and stands as a collection of related sermons which can be grouped together to form a loosely uniform "subset" of the larger body of conservative sermons. Of the roughly fifty surviving sermons from the period of 1792-3 that can be termed "loyalist" or "conservative," at least twenty share common elements downplayed by Hole: a presentation of the crisis as being between Anglicanism and Dissenting faiths rather than political ideologies, a comparison of Britain to the ancient theocratic Kingdom of Israel, and a vigorous call to action in the name of God. These sermons tended to portray the radical threat as more immediate than more secular sermons which debated the abstract merits of equality and focused on convincing individuals to refrain from engaging in politics altogether. In fact, in these more provocative sermons Hole's observations were reversed. Secular arguments about the effect of reform on the economy were abandoned for appeals to the religious sensibility 13 of British citizens. It is worthwhile examining these more provocative sermons, if not to discover the clergy's role in influencing the masses, then at least to determine how clergymen viewed the usefulness and persuasiveness of religious arguments. Any examination of this subset of provocative sermons must, by necessity, begin with Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College Oxford. Tatham provides the most direct example of a sermon, or any other clerical action, leading directly to a public disturbance, and as such his sermon contains many of the religious arguments de-emphasized by Hole. On four successive Sundays, from November 18th to December 9th, Tatham delivered a provocative address, A sermon suitable to the times, to local congregations in Oxford.11 Playing on tensions between Anglicans and Dissenters, as well as between university ministers and uneducated itinerant preachers, Tatham roused the citizens of Oxford to the dangers of irresponsibly independent religious factions. Fusing the already existing religious tensions with the perceived crisis posed by the reform movement, Tatham was able to bring the simmering anxiety in Oxford to a boiling point. The immediate result was a specifically directed campaign of public violence against the Dissenting churches in Oxford, seen as centres of civil disorder. Before the year was out several such churches had been attacked by crowds of self-proclaimed loyalist rioters.

More importantly, Tatham's sermon also provides an excellent example of the uses of religious arguments in rousing the public to action. Tatham's sermon clearly belongs in the subset of religious exhortations that Hole has de- emphasized. Despite tackling the issue of reform and loyalty to the constitution like so many of his colleagues, Tatham's sermon was conspicuously quiet on political theory. In fact, political reformers barely rated a mention, as mistaken

Edward Tatham, A sermon suitable to the times, London, 1792, 1. religious leaders, such as Dissenters, drew most of Tatham's ire. In Tatham's mind, the root of civil disorder was not French revolutionaries, or even domestic reformers, but irresponsible Dissenting or Methodist preachers who promoted an environment of disobedience necessary for revolution. Tatham was not concerned with proponents of political radicalism who denounced religion as a whole, but the insidious work of Dissenters and other nonconformists, who wrongly professed to be agents of God. His sermon stood as a guidebook for the citizens of Oxford to distinguish between the "true teachers" of religion - university-educated Anglicans - and "false" religious prophets and teachers - Dissenting preachers. Tatham went so far as to see Satan as the ancient root of Dissenting teaching. Ever ready to check the progress of a religion which would destroy his power, the Prince [Satan] of this world had put in commission his agents and evil spirits, under different forms of imposition, even before the divine authority was withdrawn by which the Christian Religion was planted. These evil spirits were false prophets and false teachers, who, by the introduction of lies and heresies, corrupted the purity and simplicity of the Christian Faith. In opposition to each other, as the friends of error will ever be, whilst some contended for justification by works alone, others maintained the all-sufficiency of a dead inactive faith. Some were opposers of legal government, and spoke evil of dignities: others scoffed at the mysteries of religion, and scandalized things which they did not understand.12 By engaging in the language of "false prophets" Tatham was attempting to expose the danger of allowing Dissenters a free voice, and to tap directly into the Old Testament notion of the Kingdom of Israel, the success or failure of which depended on its religious unity. However, too much has been made of the uniqueness of Tatham's sermon. Aside from his aggressive tone, there is not much to differentiate Tatham's work from that of any number of other contemporary clergymen. Indeed, when the overarching theme and message of A sermon suitable to the

12lbid., 6-7. 15 times is compared to that of contemporary Anglican preachers, there is little to set the Oxford clergyman apart. Rev. Thomas Bancroft, a minister in Manchester, employed similar tactics in a sermon he delivered in response to the Walker Riot which had run rampant through the streets of Manchester in December 1792.13 Much like Tatham, Bancroft tied the danger of reform to irresponsible Dissenting preachers and invoked the distinctly religious analogy of Britain as a second Israel with its existence threatened by those who challenged its religious unity. Tellingly, Bancroft attached the same sarcastic label of "teachers of religion" to Dissenting preachers. I cannot call them Teachers of Religion, though they wear the garb and affect the name...there are Englishmen, who once felt an honest pride in being called so, that have leagued with the open enemies of Zion.14 Hole explains his lack of emphasis on Tatham by noting the fiery preacher's unique position as the only clergyman to openly approve of riot in the 1790s. Tatham has generally appeared merely as a footnote or outlier to the larger story in examinations of Church history in the 1790s as the only clergyman to use religion as a primary tool in his vision of social hierarchy.15 However, comparisons between Tatham and Bancroft, not to mention other clergymen who delivered similar sermons suggest there may be connections worth exploring. The emphasis on the imagery of ancient Israel and the perceived danger of Dissenting preachers ruining the all-important unity of Britain are by no means unique to Tatham's sermons. An examination of the sermons of Tatham's contemporaries reveals that both these tactics were commonly used.

13On December 11th, 1792 a Loyalist Association was founded in Manchester. Within hours of the same day rioters took to the streets shouting loyalist slogans and attacking the property of the prominent reformer Thomas Walker and the offices of the radical newspaper, the Manchester Herald. The riot soon became known as the Walker Riot, after its most prominent victim, who successfully defended his home from several waves of rioters over the night of the 11th. Thomas Walker, A review of some of the political events which have occurred in Manchester, London, 1794,60. 14 Thomas Bancroft, A sermon preached at the Cathedral church, in Chester, Manchester 1793,7. 15Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, 128. 16 Especially considering the notoriety Tatham's sermon and the subsequent riot had throughout Britain, his influence was more relevant than Hole allows. Tatham's sermon quickly went through numerous editions, while the riot it stirred inspired numerous published commentaries, chiefly by Methodists or Dissenters, protesting the loyalty of their faiths and criticizing Tatham.16 Thus, while clergymen may have been hesitant to bring the same level of forceful and direct rhetoric as Tatham, they were certainly aware of his particular strategies of emphasizing the need for religious unity and a focus on Old Testament Israel as the example for contemporary Britain. Perhaps most crucial of all, Tatham provided clergymen with an example of a sermon that successfully roused the public to action. Certainly the riots Tatham inspired in Oxford, as well as other loyalist disturbances, did not dissuade all clergymen from taking a provocative line. Just over a month after Tatham's sermon had sparked riot in Oxford, W. Mackenzie, Dean of Lichfield, published a similar sermon in Cambridge, also a scene of loyalist riot simultaneous to Oxford's. Indeed, even the title, A sermon applicable to the present times, was notably similar to Tatham's A sermon suitable to the times. In it Mackenzie strove to raise the alarm among the masses of the need to defend violently the national Church against would-be innovators. We have a civil and an ecclesiastical establishment which our fathers purchased with their blood, and it is our duty to shed our blood in its defence, and hand it down to our children pure as it was transmitted to us...Defend your altars.17 The use of the word blood in the sermon was certainly a provocative stance considering the loyalist riot which preceded the sermon. To discount Tatham's relevance merely because his tone was more aggressive than that of his

1 fi Joseph Benson, "A defence of the Methodists, in five letters addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham," London, 1793. And James Hinton, A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon, London, 1792, 14. 17W. Mackenzie, A sermon applicable to the present times, Cambridge, 1793, 11-12. 17 colleagues does a disservice to the influence he wielded, and indeed the degree to which he was representative of a wider group of clergymen. Although Tatham was the most forceful of the Anglican clergymen in his denunciation of Dissent and radicalism, and played the most direct role in instigating riot, he was separated from his colleagues by differences of degree, not of kind. Many clergymen shared many other qualities with Tatham, if not his tactless belligerence. Tatham's sermon does not exemplify his uniqueness, but instead represents of the entire subset of provocative loyalist sermons. When these sermons are examined more for their content, tone and themes, instead of the events which preceded them, Tatham's uniqueness becomes far less evident. Tatham shared with these other clergyman a particularly religious interpretation of the events surrounding the radical threat. The arguments put forward in the provocative subset of sermons relied upon an emphasis on an ideology of necessary national religious unity based on Old Testament passages and an intense distrust of Dissenters.

The most obvious, and widely used, tactic in these sermons was the promotion of fear, particularly of the consequences of an assault on the religious unity of the community. The idea that the nation was under threat if sedition and irreligion were allowed to grow unfettered was crucial to the argument. It was not enough to convince citizens of the merits of obedience in their own lives. Congregations had to be further convinced that their lives rested on the obedience of their neighbours as well. However, for the purposes of stirring the nation to action, pragmatic arguments were not enough. A sermon preached by Cornelius Bayley in Manchester, a centre of loyalist sentiment, and scene of one of the largest loyalist riots in the period, provides an illuminating example of the role sin played in these more provocative sermons. Punishment is the due reward of sin; and every sin persisted in must be punished, either in this life or the next: and although the punishments and censures, which the magistrate or the church inflict, have not always their desired and lasting effects, yet neither of them should be set aside; for they generally prevent the judgments of God from falling upon the society; and the governors deliver their own souls. As sure as this Gospel is true, so sure it is, that to countenance those who rebel against God and the King, is to be partakers with them in their evil deeds: and such will sooner or later, without bitter repentance, share in their punishments, for "a companion of fools shall be destroyed."18 Dissent from the national religious and social unity not only threatened the souls of those individuals who strayed, but also those of every citizen in the nation. The idea that judgments of God could fall upon the society as a whole certainly suggested that the faith of neighbours was nearly as important as the faith of the individual. Theology came to the fore in several of those which were devoted to inspiring the public to action. The most common means of achieving this end, as in the case of Tatham, was to equate Britain with ancient Israel,19 an analogy with a long history in England. It is worth noting that in these sermons which most directly address the issue of public action, the preacher often chose distinctly different scriptural passages than the passages in sermons emphasized by Hole. Such sermons were based, in general terms, on Jesus' New Testament advice to "render, therefore, unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's; and unto God, the things that are God's"20 or an examination of the remarkable ability of the early Christians to submit themselves to the civil government of Rome despite its pagan nature.21 These passages were selected for their exultation of loyalty to government in the face of all reason or religious belief, and suggested a passivity incompatible with public action such as riot or political demonstration. However, those who wished to incite the public to action gave their

Cornelius Bayley, Religion and loyalty inseparable, Manchester, 1792, 20-21. 19 Charles Edward De Coetlogon, The peculiar advantages of the English nation: celebrated in a sermon, London, 1792, 4. 20 Geroge Butt, A sermon upon His Majesty's Proclamation, Kidderminster, 1792, 4. 21 Samuel Hayes, A sermon preached in St. Margaret's Church, London, 1793, 1. sermons a more Old Testament flavour. Drawing from the history of the Kingdom of Israel found in the Old Testament, which explains every success and failure of the Israelites as a function of their loyalty to their God, a less pragmatic danger than the French was found - God's wrath directed at those who turned their backs on him. Added to the opportunity of invasion provided by irresponsible reformers was the possibility of incurring the wrath of a vengeful God. In this context, Old Testament warnings like Jeremiah's, "shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" resonated with a terrible foreboding.22 Unlike foreign enemies, God required the complete unanimity of Britain to avoid his punishment. Ministers referred back to the ancient city of Jerusalem,23 where one or two disbelievers were enough to spoil the entire nation. Jerusalem says he, is builded as a City that is compact together. He makes use of the close and compact Manner in which Jerusalem was built, as an Emblem to represent with how strict and firm an Attachment its Inhabitants ought to support one another; that as a whole City, from that Symmetry and comely Proportion which one Part bore to another, seemed to be but one Building, so should the People of it be at Unity among Themselves, firmly linked together in the same Harmony and Order, having but one Body and one Soul.24 This meant that the mere obedience of the individual was insufficient. A "complete partnership of national interests" was the bare minimum for national survival; a citizen's soul relied upon not just his obedience but that of his neighbour as well. In fact, religion was put forward in these sermons as a necessary supplement to secular laws, particularly in times of crisis. In religion, or the fear of the Lord (as the text expresses it) we adopt the only means that can effectually ensure the divine blessing, and make provision at the same time for the conscientious discharge of those duties which intimately affect the welfare of Society; but which lie beyond the reach of human laws to enforce.25

Charles Edward De Coetlogon, Reflections, moral, and political, on the murder of Louis the Sixteenth, London, 1793, 1. 23 John Lambert, Fear God, honour the King, Banbury, 1792, 4. 24lbid„ 4-5. 25 Robert Hawker, The invaluable blessings of our religious and civil government, Plymouth, 1793,3. 20 As such, for these clergymen, religion played a decisive role in dealing with the radical crisis of 1792-3, and was far from the tertiary concern Hole portrays it as. Despite Hole's perceived dominance of secularism, there was a strong effort to re-establish an Old Testament style society in Britain aimed at enforcing not just secular law, but the unifying law of the ancient God of Israel as well. Nor was this merely a subconscious tendency on the part of clergymen. In his instructions to his clergy the Bishop of Durham urged them to not limit the scope of their sermons to the New Testament, claiming that a truly experienced preacher "must extend them [his arguments] also to the Old" due to its unique abilities in the struggle "against the Sophistry of scepticism, the attack of philosophy."26

The greatest and most obvious threat to this religious unity within Britain was the continued existence of a significant Dissenting community. Not surprisingly, a distrust of Dissenters was also prevalent in the provocative subset of sermons. References to the failure of the American Revolution, with its consequent connotations of Dissenting disloyalty, abounded.27 Many preachers took great pains to portray Dissenting and radical ideals as synonymous. This association was normally achieved by referring to the campaign to repeal the Test Acts and grant fuller toleration for Dissenters which had reached its peak earlier in the decade. Anglican clergymen took advantage of the fact that many prominent members of the campaign to repeal the Test Acts were similarly engaged in the agitation for reform, and portrayed them as insatiable agitators who were merely taking advantage of a policy of appeasement on the part of the government to gain more and more insidious advantages for themselves. Charles Edward De Coetlogon's defence of the status quo constitution in Britain,

Church of England. Diocese of Durham, Appendix to a charge, delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Durham, London, 1794, 30. 27 Richard Bullock, Two sermons preached at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, London, 1793, 19. 21 delivered in a sermon form in late 1792, employed this familiar tactic, painting reformist ideas as essentially Dissenting in nature, and a blatant escalation of their increasingly unreasonable and dangerous demands. Is it liberal? Is it manly? Is it amiable? Is it virtuous, to insult a national Church, when the civil Legislature has granted A Toleration to those, who, from Principle and Conscience disaffect it? May not its Friends, and its Members, be tolerated too?28 The sense of the national Church under siege by ungrateful malcontents who had so recently been accommodated selflessly by the authorities was clearly a useful tool in undermining the case for reform. Certainly a significant group of clergymen were well aware of the powerful influence religious arguments could have over the crisis. More directly, Dissenters were singled out as potentially dangerous characters with suspect allegiances. The thinly veiled warning of Richard Bullock, Rector of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, stands as a typical example. Should there be any amongst them [Dissenters]; - should there be any amongst ourselves; who act otherwise, or who think differently upon this most important article [obedience to the constitution], - of such let us all alike beware. It was but a small cloud, like a man's hand, that rose at first from the sea; but the prophetic eye foresaw; that the heaven would soon be black with clouds. Although the possibility of Anglican parishioners straying from obedience is raised, the sermon reads primarily as a warning to Dissenting citizens. While Dissent in and of itself is not a crime against the constitution, it was a state of being constantly attended by the necessity to prove one's loyalty. While clergymen begrudgingly recognized the legitimacy of the Dissenting they noted that because of the nearness of their doctrine to revolution, suggested that it would be more convenient for all if they would just embrace Anglicanism.

De Coetlogon, The peculiar advantages of the English nation: celebrated in a sermon,

Bullock, Two sermons preached at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, 25. 22 Dissent was portrayed as too unstable, too open to interpretation and diverse opinions to sustain a people in the face of a national crisis. The tradition and stability of the Church of England was lauded in comparison to the uncertain and seemingly ever-changing doctrine of the Dissenting faiths. In fact, as Andrew Burnaby suggested in Greenwich Church in November of 1792, Dissent was only ever a step away from all-out atheism. Many there are in this kingdom, I am afraid, who, if we may judge from their actions, have said in their hearts, "there is no God:" many more, "who carried about with diverse and strange doctrines," have no settled form of faith, no fixed principle of religion to act by. "They are tossed to and fro, carried about, with every wind of doctrine; by the sleight of men; and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Ephes. iv. 14. But restlessness and changeableness in religion too commonly end in the rejection of all religion.30 In all these sermons, Dissent, or any kind of religion independent of the established national norm, was emphasized as serving as a breeding ground for the spread of the malicious doctrine of reform. Rather than radicals themselves, these clergymen shared a conviction that the root of the danger lay in the Dissenting preachers who fostered a lax religious atmosphere in which reformist ideas could flourish. The progression was most clearly drawn by Charles Edward De Coetlogon, who lamented the preaching style of too many independent ministers that leaned away from religion, and towards the philosophical rationality of French atheism. From the very alarming State of Religion, or rather, from the rapid Increase of Infidelity and Irreligion in this Country, I could wish it might be enquired, whether much of it be not owing to the mere moral Preaching of the Times: to the frequent Repetition of such Terms as these, in our Pulpits - The Light of Nature - The Religion of Reason - The Dictates of natural Conscience - and the like, to the total Neglect of the Style and Language of the sacred writings...Would Voltaire, Rosseau, Mahomet, or any of their antichristian Disciples, object to this Mode of Preaching?31

Burnaby, A sermon preached in Greenwich Church, 7. De Coetlogon, The peculiar advantages of the English nation: celebrated in a sermon, 23 Tatham's anti-Dissenting rhetoric, far from being the singular bigotry of a radically intolerant preacher, was matched by other clergymen throughout England. In fact, in some regions anti-Dissenting sentiment was formally organized among Anglican preachers. The diocese of Durham is one such example. Durham's cathedral proved to be a centre of conservative preaching. From July 1792 to September 1793 no fewer than seven published sermons specifically tied to loyalism were either preached in the Bishop's presence or within his cathedral, by far the greatest such concentration outside London. The assertive influence of the Loyalist Associations was clearly visible in these Durham sermons. The use of Old Testament passages - such as the popular, "amend your ways and your doings,"32 - and the warnings of the dire consequences of remaining silent in the face of licentiousness33 place the sermons firmly within the subset of aggressive calls to action. In fact, the Durham school of sermonizers provides the most cohesive collection of sermons demonstrating the doctrine of active resistance to radicalism. In these sermons the notion of total unanimity in national sentiment was not merely implied, but clearly enunciated in unambiguous terms. Demands for "Intellectual as well as Corporeal Obedience" were peppered throughout.34

However, what is most remarkable about the Durham sermons is their fervent anti-Dissenting tone, and focus on religion as the key to the preservation of the national constitution. The danger of Dissent and deviation from the unified national Church played a large role in the Durham sermons, echoing Tatham's supposedly unique position. Never missing an opportunity to further their own ends in the course of aiding the larger cause of conservatism, they trumpeted the

32 Charles Weston, A sermon preached at the Cathedral church of Durham, Durham, 1793, 1. 33 Jelinger Symons, The ends and advantages of an established ministry, London, 1792, 11. 34 Weston, A sermon preached at the Cathedral church of Durham, 14. 24 supreme virtues of the established national Church, and emphasized the dangers of unregulated dissent from the established norms. If in the first ages of Christianity, it was found necessary to check and refute the absurd tenets which then prevailed; of how much greater importance must we feel it in these days, when the refinements of philosophy, the wild speculations, and the insidious arts of modern Theorists; the flaming spirit of Sedition, and all the discordant views of numberless dissatisfied, restless, and inconsistent Separatists, as unsettled in their exterior forms as in their interior doctrines, are all combined for the malignant purpose of undermining the fabric of our justly admired Ecclesiastical Establishment.35 Again, like Tatham, Durham sermonizers portrayed Dissenters as irresponsible religious misfits, who led the innocent sheep of Anglican congregations astray for their own petty self-interest, or to further "fashionable" new doctrines of faith. Just as Tatham warned against the amateur quality of nonconformist preachers, the Durham preachers focused on the lack of established tradition and reliability in the Dissenting faiths, and noted the danger such fickleness posed to the nation. To those who separate from better motives will be added others whose pride, caprice, or conceit, leads them to erect the standard of dissension. Novelty alone to some will recommend opinions that militate with the established faith. Antiquity with them is error; and it is enough to give them a dislike to received opinions, that they are not "doctrines fashion'd to the varying hour." The puerile conceit that all was darkness and error before their own time, all is light and truth in the present day, induces them to discard the plainest truths of revelation as doctrines too mysterious for these enlightened times; as the remnant of a church not yet sufficiently reformed to adopt more rational opinions.36 For these men their enemies were just as much Dissenting preachers as they were republican reformers. The central conflict of the 1792-3 crisis was couched, not in terms of political faction or constitutional preservation, but age- old religious tension between independent and established faiths. The sense of

Edward Auriol Hay Drummond, A steady attachment to the Christian faith the particular duty of its established ministers, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1792, 8-9. 36Symons, The ends and advantages of an established ministry, 7. 25 the Anglican clergy being at the forefront of the anti-reform movement, specifically because of their ability to promote the necessary religious atmosphere to snuff it out, runs throughout the sermons. Such titles as A steady attachment to the Christian faith, the particular duty of its established ministers, or The ends and advantages of an established ministry reveal the importance the Durham clergymen put on their ability to use their religious leadership to quash the growing tide of reform. The sense of the Anglican Church unfairly under siege from an enemy it could not squarely meet on the field of doctrinal battle also ran deep in these sermons. They may, in their pulpits and publications, controvert what doctrines they please of ours, load us with whatever names of reproach, and charge us with what insincerity they choose: It is in them no illiberality; it is the privilege of freedom; it is the right of free enquiry. If we write, or preach, or speak in defence of our church, it matters not with what temper, with what force of argument, with what sincerity of conviction, we are bigoted, interested and illiberal.37 In their attempts to discredit Dissent by attaching it to national weakness and unstable radicalism, Anglican clergymen also delved into English history, both recent and more distant. Remarkably, Hole has dismissed historical arguments as not a significant tool in the repertoire of clergymen in 1792-3.38 Considering the ample references in sermons of the period to Charles I,39 "Guy Faux,"40 and most important of all, Oliver Cromwell, Hole's position is curious to say the least. Additionally, considering the religious connotations associated with these historical figures, Hole's lack of recognition of religion in 1792-3 arguments is mostly likely not aided by this exclusion. A corollary to the campaign to make Dissent and radicalism synonymous was to paint other missteps in English

J'lbid., 9. 38Hole, "British Counter-Revolutionary Popular Propaganda in the 1790s," in Britain and Revolutionary France: Conflict, Subversion and Propaganda, ed. Colin James. (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1983), 60. 39Thomas Stedman, A sermon preached at St. Chad's church in Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury, 1793,6. 40De Coetlogon, Reflections, moral, and political, on the murder of Louis the Sixteenth, viii. 26 history as the product of a similar rise in nonconformist religious tendencies. The horrors of the Cromwellian regime provided the perfect opportunity to do so. Richard Bullock of Covent Garden supplied just one of many references to the specific religious qualities which marked Cromwell's rise and regime. But why recur to remote antiquity? Look into the annals of our own country, in the last century only. In those unhappy times, law was perverted to the base ends of tyranny and oppression; and religion either alike misapplied, or driven downright mad — no sense of true piety - no real respect for law - and the fatal consequences are too well known.41 The danger prophesied by Bullock was easily applied to contemporary events. Religious principles which were independent and unguided by the stability of the national church left society open to manipulation by tyranny and violence. For Thomas Bancroft the connection between the disgrace of Cromwell and the abandonment of true religion was even more direct. As to the state of Religion, I do not know of a period, in which honesty of heart was so discountenanced, and the beauty of holiness was so deformed; in which enthusiasm ran into such wild extravagance of doctrine and practice, and hypocrisy so perfumed upon the passive credulity of the people. The regular Clergy were exiled, or confined to loathsome dungeons. Our venerable Book of Prayer, which the wisdom of more than two centuries has admired and loved, was decried and forbidden to be used, on pain of imprisonment or other severe penalties. Our Universities and Seminaries of useful learning were filled with unintelligible cant, or the jargon of the most melancholy Calvinism.42 For those members of his congregation who failed to see the parallel, Bancroft drove the point home. Such was the liberty of conscience, and such the political intolerance, which the Reformers of those days shewed to the loyal members of the Church of England. I wish, it could be said, that the same leaven of intolerance did not mix in the schemes of reform, which agitate the minds of men in the close of the eighteenth century.43 Historical arguments gave clergymen the opportunity to equate religious dissent

41 Bullock, Two sermons preached at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, 19. 42Thomas Bancroft, The danger of political innovation and the evils of anarchy, Chester, 1792,8. 43lbid., 9. 27 with both unstable reform and despotic tyranny. This is not to say that secular arguments were absent from the sermons of 1792-3. The secular arguments Hole presents as typical to the period make occasional appearances in the subset of provocative sermons. Clergymen pointed to the dangers reform posed to the prosperity of the nation as citizens were warned of the consequences of "sacrificing every political and every commercial blessing"44 by allowing disloyalty to fester. History was featured prominently as well, particularly ancient Rome. The great empire fell due to flaws within itself rather than foreign invasion. Without an active citizenry constantly on its guard, such an internal disorder would claim the life of Britain as well.45 While it is true that such political and economic arguments were delivered from the pulpit, Hole and others have overstated their prominence. Hole's assertion that religion played a secondary role to these more secular arguments is firmly refuted when these more provocative sermons are included in an analysis of the period. In 1792 George Butt appeared to counter Hole's later analysis in his claim that It is, in my opinion, an idle mistake in him who thinks that the great contests which now agitate Europe, are merely of a political nature...they are something more, and far worse. For the chief object of one party is, I doubt not, the destruction of Christianity itself.46 Historical references in sermons of this period are worth examining, not just for their religious connotations, but also because of their connection to public disturbances. This is especially true considering that the sermons in this subset can be associated with outbursts of loyalist riot, either directly preceding it in the case of Edward Tatham, or shortly after such events, as in the case of Thomas Bancroft

44Thomas Rennell, The connexion of the duties of loving the brotherhood, fearing God, and honoring the King, Winton, 1793, 18. 4Tlawker, The invaluable blessings of our religious and civil government, 29-30. 46George Butt, A sermon preached in Bewdley Chapel, Kidderminster, 1792, 6. 28 in Manchester. Certain elements of form common to the sermon subset are present in the one surviving sermon from 1792-93 that frankly discusses rioting. An address to the common people & c. on the subject of riots was delivered by Luke Booker, the Minister of St. Edmund's in Dudley, near Birmingham in April of 1792 and again a year later. Although the impetus for the original address was rumour of a wage riot, exacerbated by "the inconsistent modern doctrine of Equality,"47 Booker revisited the sermon with an added appendix in the wake of the loyalist disturbances of the winter of 1792-3. In the early spring of 1793, popular sentiment appeared explosive enough to necessitate a reiteration of Booker's message. It is not clear whether local rumours again anticipated a disturbance, or if Booker was reacting to events on the national scene. However, for a village so close to Birmingham, the Priestly Riots of 1791 must have loomed large in the minds of minister and congregation alike.48

Interestingly, Booker employed the same religious arguments deployed by Tatham. Even taken out of context and read as a conventional sermon, not as an address to the citizenry specifically on the issue of rioting, Booker's sermon reveals an interpretation of public disturbances as distinctly religious affairs. Booker called upon his parishioners to "exhort one another daily" to avoid the incendiary issue of political and social reform and warned that the radicals would "produce consequences most fatal, we are assured."49 The language he employed also drew directly upon the ancient kingdom of Israel and its contemporary manifestation in the nation of Britain. Reminding his congregation

47Luke Booker, A sermon preached in the parish church of St. Thomas; on Friday the 19th of April 1793; and an address to the common people & c. on the subject of riots, Dudley, 1793, 30. 48ln 1791 a loyalist mob, encouraged by Tory JPs, rioted for three days through the streets of Birmingham, destroying the residence and property of noted Unitarian and reformer, Joseph Priestley, among other nonconformists. Nicholas Rogers, Crowds, Culture and Politics in Georgian Britain, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 192-193. 49Booker, A sermon preached in the parish church of St. Thomas; on Friday the 19th of April 1793; and an address to the common people & c. on the subject of riots, 11. of the many failures of the biblical kingdom of Israel, he warned them that God required religious unanimity within his chosen nation. Sin is the parent of Calamity to States and Empires as well as to Individuals: that it has been so from the beginning, and will continue to be so to the end, of Time, - from the first fatal commission of it in the Garden of Eden -- to its last dreadful punishment at the consummation of all things - No place, polluted by it, however prosperous for a time, shall escape, ~ no people addicted to it, however particularly favored of heaven, shall for ever be exempted. - Where are the Jews - that "chosen generation, - that peculiar people?" - Exiled and scattered over the whole face of the earth. Booker's exhortation stands as one of the most forceful reminders of the consequence of the ancient tribes' disloyalty to their creator. It was not the secular arguments of Hole that formed the focus of Booker's message, but the direct connection between a nation's religious purity and its very survival. However, although Booker warned his congregation of the dangers of radical reformers and portrayed them as the main instigators of riot, he also included over-zealous loyalists in his denunciation of popular riot. He lumped all riot together as uniformly evil, whether it was motivated by radical zeal or even religious patriotism. But though the causes of Tumults may be various, its effects are the same. No matter what Pretext, - whether mistaken notions of Religion, - - a pretended Regard for the Government of the country - or a Grievence occasioned by supposed Oppression - the Mischiefs produced are of one kind and description.51 Booker went on to demand that private citizens leave the enforcement of laws to the magistrate and avoid riot. However, even these apparently clear statements cannot escape the ambiguity and qualifications which mark other sermons. Booker explains that what citizens should do is "shew a Disapprobation of them and their Measures without breaking the Peace" adding one final phrase which casts a shadow of uncertainty: "I should have said, without breaking the laws."52

sulbid., 12-13. 51lbid.,41. 52lbid., 45. 30 The distinction between the "peace" and the "laws" is a crucial one, leaving the door open for "lawful" action of groups such as the Loyalist Associations against reformers. Booker's conclusion strengthens his larger message of an association between religion and civil tranquility. Although Booker did not level his criticisms directly at Dissenters as men like Tatham did, his criticisms of the piety of the citizens of Dudley stand as an important part of his sermon. In the final passages of his sermon Booker laments the lack of attendance at the parish church, and ascribed to it the dangerous potential of fostering future chaos. In a flourish of evangelical piety usually associated with the later 1790s, Booker drew the lack of respect shown to the Sabbath in Dudley as an evil to be corrected, and perhaps more importantly, an evil that could easily lead to more explosive rioting.53 I need not tell you that, for the violation of the Lord's Day, idle pleas of Business or Pleasure will avail you nothing at the day of Judgment. "They that honour me, (says the Almighty) I will honour; and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.54 It is no mere coincidence that Booker nearly matched Tatham in his view of the crisis facing Britain in terms of religion. The specific threat, or possibility, of riot was accompanied by a strengthening of the religious message and tone of clergymen. Whether attempting to incite loyalist riots, as Tatham did or discussing the moderation which their aftermath seemed to call for, clergymen saw such civic disturbances as religious affairs. Although Booker presents a unique case in terms of the place of riot in sermons, some useful inferences can be drawn from his statements. While he does share with other ministers the ambiguous doublespeak of denouncing riot while at the same time exhorting the public to take some kind of action, Booker

Ibid, 24-28. Ibid., 26. 31 was sufficiently anti-riot to denounce loyalist disturbances by name. This moderate stance on loyalist riot may be due to his, and his congregation's, proximity to Birmingham, site of the Priestly Riots which were nearly unanimously abhorred for their violence and lack of restraint.55 Indeed, not only was Booker's the only surviving sermon to directly discuss riot in this period, but he was also one of the few ministers in the Birmingham area to publish loyalty sermons in 1792-3. Booker's unique nature appears to stem directly from a hesitancy on the part of Birmingham clergymen, and perhaps their congregations, to experience another popular disturbance. It is not clear whether the paucity of fiery loyalty sermons is attributable to the reluctance of Birmingham-area clergymen to deliver them or their parishioners to hear them. Most likely both were unwilling to revisit the violence of the Priestley Riots. Despite their lack of public rhetoric Birmingham clergymen appear to have been particularly active in the local Loyalist Association, accounting for one third of the Association's committee.56 It is possible that an awareness of popular mistrust of riots, as a product of the Priestley Riot, may have driven Birmingham clergyman into less public activities in their support of conservatism. Certainly similar events elsewhere in England elicited similar reactions from clergymen. In the wake of anti-reforming riot among his parishioners, James Fawcett of Cambridge delivered a sermon which dealt with the delicate issue of balancing malicious actions and the virtuous results they produce. Much like Booker, Fawcett tied moral transgressions such as dueling, and their effect on the stability of the nation, to the issue of civil disorder and the rise of radicalism. However, perhaps the most obvious similarity between the sermons

55F.C. Mather, High Church Prophet: Samuel Horsley 1733-1806, and the Caroline Tradition in the Later Georgian Church, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 83-84. 56Austin Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-3" The Historical Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1 1961,65. 32 of Booker and Fawcett was their moderate stance on rioting likely influenced by the fact that both towns had recently witnessed loyalist riot. In fact, Fawcett not only exhibited a more moderate tone than most clergymen in the winter of 1792- 3, but explicitly used the word "moderation" in his concluding remarks of the sermon, creating a far less aggressive message than was common among his colleagues. It remains only, that we unite in our conduct the moderation, which Religion teaches, with the firmness, which the occasion demands; that in defending ourselves, we remember the charity we owe to our brethren; and in guarding the public, the respect, which is due to its laws.57 The parallels suggest a commonality of attitude. Both clergymen had witnessed first-hand loyalist riot, and as a direct result both were moved to urge moderation of their parishioners. Similarly, both ministers attempted to replace open riot as an instrument of furthering the loyalist cause with moral reform of various kinds, such as a stricter observance of the Sabbath or avoidance of dueling. It was perhaps not just a shifting of tactics, but a continuation of the premise that the crisis was primarily religious. If citizens could no longer express their religious loyalty through open riot, perhaps more individual religious moral reform could arrest the growth of radical sentiment. Finally, and very specifically, both men urged their audiences to remain within the bounds of the laws of England. In fact, Booker was very careful to stipulate that his listeners should not break the "law" rather than the "peace." This distinction was perhaps one outlined by other clergymen during this period, as the winter and early spring of 1793 saw an increase in the number of radical leaders who were targeted for legal prosecution throughout England, often at the hands of civilians independent of the government's legal hierarchy. Although Hole is right to note a degree of secularism in some loyalty

James Fawcett, A sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1793, 18. 33 sermons of 1792-3, his relegation of religious arguments to the status of catch-all "safety net," misses the specific role God played in the loyalist message. True, and ironically enough, religious matters at times were only sporadically at the forefront of the message delivered from the pulpit. However, Hole has too easily dismissed religion in anti-radical sermons as without pattern. Central to this issue is the removal of Edward Tatham from the historical purgatory of being a unique figure from which meaningful conclusions about the larger historical context of the 1790s can not be drawn. Tatham's style and themes were ones he shared with many other Anglican churchmen. Whether it was Mackenzie's sermon at Cambridge, which clearly borrowed from Tatham's example, the numerous Old Testament references to the necessary spiritual unity of the realm, or any number of other Anglican preachers who set the political crisis firmly within the context of an ongoing Anglican-Dissenting rivalry, Tatham's work does not read as unique, or indeed particularly remarkable, when set against the work of his peers. This tendency among Anglican clergymen to elevate the importance of the Anglican-Dissenting divide has been further obscured by Hole's curious assertion that historical references played little role in the sermons of 1792-3. For many preachers, taking advantage of the historical memory of England and forming a link between the present political chaos in France and the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell was the key to their entire effort. Not only did such an achievement cloud the present reformist movement with the noxious airs of civil disorder, bloodshed and political oppression, but perhaps more importantly for Anglican clergymen it strengthened the notion that the true enemy of England was the Dissenter. The Puritan dictatorship of the previous century was not just a historical analogy; it was also an earlier chapter in the long-running battle between the established and nonconformist churches. Hole identifies the larger shift from the secular and immediate arguments 34 of 1792-3 to the more personal, religion-based arguments of Hannah More and other writers in the later 1790s. Evangelicalism came to dominate anti-radical Church propaganda as writers urged citizens to reform their own spiritual lives rather than the state, replacing earlier arguments from the pulpit which sought to discredit reform by pointing to how well the current British socio-political system worked. However, this interpretation leaves out the specific uses the Loyalist Associations, and the ministers who associated with them, had for religion in the crisis months of 1792-3. It also ignores the way in which many Anglican churchmen viewed the nature of the crisis facing them. Not only were a larger group of clergymen using religious arguments to convince the masses that reform was a dangerous, and perhaps fatal, proposition, some were attempting to convince the public that the crisis was not political at all. For these men, the crisis was not about debates over the rights of man, or the most effective way for a nation to be governed, but about the national religious laxity and instability necessary to allow such debates to exist. In the view of the sermons of the most vocal preachers in 1792-3, the crisis was particularly religious in origin, religious in execution, with distinctly religious solutions. CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZED RELIGION: CLERICAL PARTICIPATION IN LOYALIST ASSOCIATIONS

Besides the conventional means of presenting their arguments against reform and radicalism to their congregations through sermons, clergymen of the early 1790s also had the opportunity to operate within organized Loyalist Associations to support the status quo. Whether by sitting in committees which expounded the dangers of radical groups, or publishing and distributing conservative propaganda, clergymen were able to further the anti-radical discourse in ways that augmented conventional sermons. Once again, the particular kind of clergymen who most often participated in Loyalist Associations, and the rhetoric they employed suggest that their motivations were primarily religious, and their involvement in the Loyalist Association movement had more to do with their own genuine convictions about the danger of radicalism and its association with Dissent, than an attempt to ingratiate themselves with the political elite. Discussions between clergymen, whether through Loyalist Association correspondence, charges delivered by bishops, or even sermons delivered by and distributed between clergymen can be used to form a general sense of what issues clergymen felt they were addressing through their participation in Loyalist Associations and what methods they believed would be successful.

Late in 1792 events in France coupled with the increasing prevalence of reformist societies within Britain forced the government into action. Citing an imminent threat to the security of the nation, the King called out the militia in the first week of December.1 Whether or not such a threat actually existed, or was merely a fabrication on the part of the government to arouse the kind of fear

1Clive Emsley, "The London 'Insurrection' of December 1792: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?" The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 1978), 66. 35 36 necessary for repression, the episode indicates the sense of crisis and level of paranoia within Britain during the winter of 1792-3. In fact, even before the mobilization of the militia to put down the ambiguous potential insurrection, individual citizens were already organizing to take action against threats to national security. The most prevalent of these organizations was the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers, founded by John Reeves. Reeves' Association, which was often referred to simply as the Loyalist Association, soon spread throughout Britain. Some towns were inspired by the work of Reeves and established committees and organizations which loosely followed the same pattern as Reeves' own in London, while many used the published charter of the original Loyalist Association as their template in forming carbon-copy Associations. As a result, the Associations were by no means uniform. However certain similarities existed between virtually all of them. Nearly all Association charters expressed the same objectives: to limit the distribution and refute the principles of reformist literature, to publish and distribute literature that promoted loyalty to the constitution, to encourage the growth of other such Associations throughout Britain,2 and later, to suppress any group which fostered popular disorder or riot.

Due to their distinctly repressive nature, Loyalist Associations have traditionally been viewed as negative aspects of 1790s political history, more notable for the obstacle they posed to radicalism and reform than any historical significant characteristics they held in and of themselves.3 Much like the Anglican sermons of 1792-3, the historical debate over Loyalist Associations is

Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers, Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers - at a meeting of gentlemen at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, London, 1792, 3-4. 3Kevin Gilmartin, "In the Theater of Counterrevolution: Loyalist Association and Conservative Opinion in the 1790s," The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3 (July 2002), 291-292. 37 only gradually moving beyond oppositional ideological arguments between scholars. The most recent locale for heated dispute has been the ambiguous origins of the Loyalist Associations. While conservative historians point to the resounding growth and success of the Associations as proof of popular sympathy for conservatism, other historians argue that the Association movement acted as a thinly veiled front for governmental repression and owed its success to support from Pitt.4 The result has been, much as in the examination of loyalist clergy, to focus on the degree to which the populace of late eighteenth-century England can be said to be "conservative" or "reformist," perhaps a more ambitious goal than the uncertain evidence of Association memberships and loyalty petitions can provide. Instead, I will attempt to follow a similar line of inquiry to that of the preceding chapter of this paper and examine the manner in which clergymen engaged in Loyalist Associations: how they interacted with their parishioners on the local level, what their motivations were for joining Loyalist Associations, and finally, how they viewed themselves as members of these Associations.

Indeed, the commonalities between Loyalist Associations and loyalty sermons go further than the parallel manner in which historians have treated them. Clergymen played a leading role in many of the Loyalist Associations across England, a fact that has been mentioned in passing by historians of the Association such as Eugene Charlton Black and Austin Mitchell, though not pursued in detail.5 Association committees were formed by assemblies of local leaders using their prominence in the community. Magistrates, clergymen, large merchants and publishers all met together to discuss the best methods of

"ibid., 311-313. For a full analysis of this debate see: Michael Duffy, 'William Pitt and the Origins of the Loyalist Association Movement of 1792," Historical Journal Vol. 39 No. 4 (1996), pp. 943-962. 5Austin Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-3" The Historical Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1961, and Eugene Charlton Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963). 38 proliferating loyalist propaganda and intimidating radicals into submission. As a result of the prominent position held by local elites, such as clergymen, in them, Loyalist Associations prove to be ideal avenues to examine clerical attitudes and activities in 1792-3. Added to this is the wealth of sources relating to Loyalist Associations: their extensively distributed propaganda, published founding charters, and archived letters from all over England to the original Association in London. The result is a detailed and nuanced picture of clergymen in the early 1790s that challenges the conventional image of the lazy sycophantic clergyman. Even before Reeves founded the first Loyalist Association on November 20th, 1792, the Anglican clergy actively supported loyalism in their local communities in ways which would later be echoed through Loyalist Associations. In fact, the Loyalist Associations, normally associated with political conservatism and repression, were pre-dated by a distinctively religious campaign of repression by many clergymen. Reacting to the activities of the Dissenters' campaign of 1787-1790 to remove the Test Acts, and inspired by the King's Proclamations against sedition, Anglican clergymen throughout England took a leading role in presenting the King with 386 declarations of loyalty over the summer of 1792.6 This connection between the Test Act Repeal campaign and the calls for reform in 1792-3 has not been explored deeply by historians of the Loyalist Associations. Eugene Charlton Black lists the many clergymen involved in various Associations,7 but makes no mention of the fact that many of the same men, such as Henry Zouch, played a defining role in forming similar anti-Repeal groups that acted in the same way as Loyalist Associations would two years later. In fact, the shadow of the Test Act Repeal campaign loomed over many clergymen throughout the 1790s. For some, the 1792-3 constitutional crisis was

6H.T. Dickinson, British Radicalism and the French Revolution, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985),32-33. Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, 238-268. 39 merely the second act of an ongoing campaign of unrest led by Dissenters. With the spread of Loyalist Associations, these conservative clerical activities became more formalized and better organized. However, the process was by no means uniform. Some clergymen appeared at committee meetings to lend a flavour of authority to their local Associations, while others took on the undisputed position as leader of the committee. Some acted as conduits for the centralized propaganda of the London Association, distributing leaflets and books among their congregations, while others augmented this material with their own vociferous calls for conservatism from the pulpit. Much as the sermons examined in the previous chapter, the clergymen involved in Loyalist Associations can be grouped together by deciphering their common characteristics and activities. Indeed, there is significant overlap between the clergymen discussed in both chapters. Therefore, similar inferences can be drawn by examining the clergymen most involved in Loyalist Association activity. In fact the two groups are quite similar, most notably in the strong religious element in their rhetoric and a distrust of Dissent. This chapter will seek to establish precisely what type of clergyman was most likely to be involved in Loyalist Associations, and what kind of specialized role clerical figures played in them.

Especially at the highest levels one of the most remarkable connections between churchmen involved in the Loyalist Associations was their joint involvement in the evangelical movement. However, evangelicalism in the loyalist movement has generally been associated with the later 1790s, especially the increasing popularity of Hannah More after 1795, rather than the 1792-3 period. In this framework evangelicalism breathed new life into the more pragmatic conservative arguments of 1792-3 and fostered a new breed of conservatism based on moral reform of the individual rather than any sense of 40 collectivism.8 This tendency to associate the evangelical message of personal reform only with later conservative writings ignores the remarkable religious quality of those clergymen most vocal in 1792-3. Bishops like Shute Barrington of Durham, Beilby Porteus of London and John Moore of Canterbury were all leaders of the evangelical movement in the early 1790s, and lent direct support to Loyalist Associations in the winter of 1792-3. Isaac Milner, the arch- conservative vice-chancellor of Cambridge University who would take some of the most provocatively repressive measures of the period, was so steeped in the evangelical tradition he could claim responsibility for converting Wilberforce to the evangelical faith.9 As we have seen in the previous chapter, this religious enthusiasm was not limited to the Church leadership, but also found its way into many clergymen of the lower levels, especially in their sermons.

This religious enthusiasm easily translated into active participation in Loyalist Associations, the most effective instrument of conservative indoctrination available to defenders of the status quo. Delivering sermons was but a small part of the range of activities clergymen could participate in to further the cause of the Associations. Churchmen were also integral in the process of distributing sermons published at the behest of, or collected by, the Associations. The executive committees of the Associations also provided clergymen with opportunities to contribute to the effort by organizing and leading meetings, passing resolutions, and later taking the lead in legal attacks against radicals. Though not directly related to their duties as religious authorities leadership in the administration of Loyalist Associations was in some cases even more actively pursued by clergymen than sermons. Starting in the spring of 1793 the

"Robert Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England, 1760-1832, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 101. And Hole, "British Counter-Revolutionary Popular Propaganda in the 1790s," in Britain and Revolutionary France: Conflict, Subversion and Propaganda ed. Colin Jones, (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1983), 64. 9The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) vol. 38, 310-313. 41 Associations began to adapt to the changing domestic situation and clergymen were crucial in their campaigns to collect evidence and prosecute radicals for treason. The same networks clergymen used to so effectively distribute loyalist propaganda were adopted to single out particularly active political radicals and bring witnesses, whether legitimate or not, against them. While only a small minority of loyalty sermons in 1792-3 were delivered directly to Loyalist Associations, a large proportion of them were later published at the behest of the local Association. Ministers prefaced their works with humble dedications and expressions of gratitude to their local Loyalist Association for encouraging them to publish their sermons, or for their direct aid in distributing them. Richard Bullock, Rector at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, prefaced his collection of two sermons in January 1793 with a typical address to the "Gentlemen of the Covent-Garden Association Committee." In compliance with your resolutions of the 5th instant, I lose no time in putting these Sermons into your hands. Should they have the good fortune in any degree to answer your purpose, by promoting the great object of our association, their intention, may perhaps atone with others, as they have done with you, for their many imperfections.10

Such introductory remarks were nearly ubiquitous in loyalty sermons delivered between December 1792 and April 1793. As sermons were the most conventional and obvious way clergymen could involve themselves in the lives of the masses, it is not surprising that this would be the case. However, while it is easy to determine which sermons were marked by the influence of the Loyalist Association, the distinction by itself is not particularly informative. Any analysis of Loyalist Associations, and clerical involvement in them, must determine precisely what kind of influence the Association connection had over the tone, themes or content of sermons.

10Richard Bullock, Two sermons preached at St. Paul's, Covent Garden , London, 1793, iii- iv. 42 The sermons of Samuel Hayes provide a useful opportunity to examine the influence Loyalist Associations had over sermons, what set Association sermons apart from others, and more importantly what influence Loyalist Associations had on clergymen themselves. Hayes was a man of literature, a composer of several poems and essays and a prolific collector of books. However his primary duties lay in ministering to the congregation of St. Margaret's Church in Westminster. Representing the highly educated and literary segment of the Anglican clergy, Hayes was particularly active in denouncing the cause of radical reform. Hole himself has used Hayes' sermon A sermon preached before the burgesses of Westminster delivered on July 20th, 1792 to demonstrate the secular nature of clerical arguments. It is an unsurprising choice, as it makes for a quintessential^ secular sermon as described by Hole. According to Hole, Hayes attacked the revolutionary notion of equality on purely social grounds and through the language of the body politic, paying mere lip service to religious concerns.11 We are assured, that religion hath not only the promise of the life that is to come, but also which now is. And so well convinced have mankind been of the veracity of this affection, that Legislators have, in all ages and in all regions, supported and enforced the claims of virtue and piety, from consciousness that the welfare of society can be firmly secured by no other means.12

The passage represents the paradox Hole describes - religious leaders making distinctly secular arguments. While Hayes was clearly talking about religious belief, he took great pains to emphasize the worldly value of religion over its power to influence individual souls. As such it is a sensible choice of sermon for Hole to use in describing the particularly secular nature of most sermons in the early 1790s.

11 Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, 119. 12Samuel Hayes, A sermon preached before the burgesses of Westminster, London, 1792, 7. 43 What is surprising is that Hole makes no mention of a subsequent sermon delivered by Hayes a scant six months later on January 27th, 1793, after the formation of the Loyalist Association, in which he again addressed the issue of loyalty and reform. Indeed, this second sermon of Hayes' was dedicated to, and published and distributed by his local Loyalist Association. Although in many ways similar to his sermon in July of the previous year, this later sermon diverges in specific and crucial ways which help to explain the curious role of Loyalist Associations in influencing the voice of the clergyman from the pulpit. In many ways Hayes was preaching in a slightly different environment in January. The potential rebellion that had been successfully prevented by the government in December certainly heightened tension within Britain. Whether it was merely a product of the conservative press, or a legitimate threat to the security of the nation, is an issue best left to other historians.13 What is important for our purposes is that for the first time, officially substantiated rumours of insurrection were circulating freely. The Loyalist disturbances, both large and small, which had been spreading ceaselessly throughout Britain must also have fostered a crisis atmosphere. However, most crucial to the change in Hayes' tone was the two-month-old institution of the Loyalist Association.

Hayes' overall message remained familiar. He employed a passage from Romans, popular among contemporary preachers, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,"14 and also lauded the wisdom of the state's decision to "adopt public and unusual measures" to ensure the safety of Britain.15 In many ways, the sermon was a reiteration of his concerns from the previous July. However, Hayes made a crucial distinction which is absent in his earlier sermon. In this new sermon he defined "submission," the crux of his entire message, as

13Emsley, "The London 'Insurrection' of December 1792: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?" 67. 14Samuel Hayes, A sermon preached in St. Margaret's Church, London, 1793, 1. 15lbid.,2. 44 first and foremost a Christian duty, and considered the benefits society derives from it a secondary matter. Hayes presented this arrangement in a methodically compartmentalizing style prevalent among many of his colleagues. First, that we are obligated to be obedient to our lawful Rulers for the Lord's sake; that is in acquiescence with the positive mandate of him whom we acknowledge to be the Author and Finisher of our faith. Secondly, that obligation is farther confirmed by the influence which subjection to the higher powers must ever have on the dearest interests of society.16

Hayes' logical and didactic style was common to many other Anglican clergymen, perhaps aiding in the perception of them as unimaginative and uninspiring. More importantly, although religious and secular concerns are present in both sermons, this shift in emphasis is both easily apprehended and profoundly meaningful. The shift to a more religiously emphasized message often denoted a parallel shift to a call to action. Religious fear was more motivational than illuminating the logical fallacies of republicanism. The case of Hayes is no different. Previously Hayes had questioned the legitimacy of the reformers' challenge to authority, and attempted to prove the fallacy of the doctrine of equality, in order to win over his congregation to the conservative platform. He now augmented his strategy of demonstrating the fallacies of radical ideology with warnings about the manifest dangers England braved if it turned away from God by accepting reform. We may clearly see, that obedience to earthly governors is a duty imposed upon us by the Gospel of Christ, inculcated both by his precepts, and those of his Apostles. He, therefore, that, without adequate cause, disavows allegiance, and refuses to submit to the ordinances of man, violates a fundamental principle in religion. Of course, he renders himself obnoxious to the indignation of that Saviour, by whose acceptance alone he can inherit eternal life.17

16lbid., 2-3. 17lbid., 5. 45 Perhaps even more revealing, Hayes elucidated the possible consequences of disobedience for the individual, rather than society as a whole. Although the rest of his sermon does deal with the danger irreligion posed to the entire nation, this emphasis on the individual is a clear departure from both Hayes' earlier sermon, and the typical secular sermon imagined by Hole.

Even when Hayes addressed the issue of communal rather than individual dangers, he maintained the centrality of religion in his message. In his concluding remarks, Hayes promoted the sense of divine providence working in the favour of the conservative movement, and the distinctly religious ramifications of a betrayal, or even lax attitude towards the religious principles of Christianity. Divine Providence hath hitherto distinguished these realms by signal marks of its favour and protection. If we acknowledge that our security and happiness are to be ascribed to the interposing arm of Heaven, we must likewise acknowledge that their duration will depend upon the sincere performance of our duty to God.18 This second sermon displays a heightened sense of alarm and immediacy when compared to the one Hayes delivered to the burghers of Westminster six months earlier. While a comparison of Hayes' two sermons serves to illuminate the subtle differences between the sermons of the summer 1792 and the winter of 1792-3, as well as the influence of Loyalist Associations, the exercise also provides significant clues regarding how clergymen viewed their role in, and interacted with, the community. For all the subtleties of tone and emphasis, the most obvious difference between Hayes' two sermons is in their dedications. The sermon of July, 1792 was delivered to the burgesses of Westminster, presumably inspired by the King's Proclamation against seditious writings in May. The sermon of January, 1793, however, was dedicated specifically to "George

Ibid., 15. 46 Jackson, MP, Chairman, and other loyal members of the Association."19 The connection to the local Loyalist Association, a body determined to root out sedition and foreign influence, explains the shift in tone between Hayes' sermons. The process of altering Hayes' material for the purposes of the Association repeated itself with other clergymen throughout Britain. It was perhaps in the diocese of Durham that this clerical campaign enjoyed its most comprehensive state, as well as the most easily traceable lines of the Church hierarchy involving itself in the larger conservative movement. The Bishop of Durham, Shute Barrington, was one of the more evangelical Bishops in the Anglican Church, and even rarer, actively encouraged evangelicalism within his diocese.20 Translated to the bishopric in 1791, the energetic Barrington had an immediate and forceful effect on events. His patronage networks, which included William Wilberforce and William Paley, put his feet firmly in both the abolitionist- evangelical and anti-radical camps.21 Although Barrington himself was not an active member of the Loyalist Associations, he is relevant to any discussion involving them due to the overwhelming presence of his clergymen in the Durham Loyalist Association. It can hardly be considered a coincidence that the Bishop of Durham, notable for his attention to detail within his diocese and personal leadership of his clergy, found himself at the head of the diocese which had, arguably, the most active clerical involvement in the Loyalist Associations.

Under his authority as bishop, the Durham clergy proved to be among the most active loyalist sermonizers in all of England and some of the most visibly active groups of clergymen in Loyalist Associations. As we have seen in the

19ibid., 1. 20Kenneth Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 50. 21 Trie Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) vol. 4, 79-82. 47 previous chapter, Durham's clergy were among the most active in the nation in terms of conservative sermons, and more relevantly, enjoyed one of the closest and most prolific connections to the local Loyalist Association. Durham provides not only an example of clerical conservatism in general, and its influence within Loyalist Associations, at its highest levels, but also the manner in which this conservatism was disseminated to the lower clerical orders.

The most direct way for bishops to exercise this kind of influence over their clergy was through "charges" delivered to clergymen or printed and distributed among them. In 1792 The Bishop of Durham published for public consumption the charge that he had delivered to the clergy of his diocese. Hole has used it as a crucial piece of evidence in his analysis of the attitude of the clergy in the early 1790s. However, the Bishop's charge holds a contradictory place in Hole's interpretation, as he claims the charge was meant to urge Durham's ministers to inspire obedience through revelation, more than through reason, presaging the shift away from pragmatic political arguments after 1793.22 This is an odd interpretation, considering the charge was delivered to the clergy of Durham and published in 1792. The Bishop of Durham was actually one of the more active and influential bishops, at least within his own diocese, during the 1792-3 period. The Bishop of Durham, his charge, and his clergymen, are all worth examining, not as easily dismissed harbingers of events two years down the road, but as actors who were influential, and indeed representative, of contemporary events. Simply examining the manner in which The Bishop of Durham addressed his clergy reveals useful information about how both he and the clergy of the diocese viewed reform.

The Bishop of Durham's charge met the foreign and domestic crisis, not in terms of what the church's position on reform ought to be, but instead as a divine

22Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, 111. 48 warning to strengthen the quality of the preachers in his diocese. His main focus lay in providing the citizens of Britain with a religious counter-message to that of irresponsible reformers, sufficiently passionate and dynamic to challenge the force of the radical message. According to The Bishop of Durham, the danger in not doing so was accurately represented in English history. Whenever the established ecclesiastical system was scorned in favour of more nonconformist views, disaster soon followed. This is more remarkably true with respect to religion (whose ultimate obligations and interests are so remote) than in any other case. You . have only to recollect the history of the last century for full proofs of the innumerable extravagancies and impieties of that intellectual licentiousness, which originates in the unrestrained latitude of professing and propagating private opinions on the subject of religion.23

Accordingly, of all the reforms proposed by radicals throughout Britain, The Bishop of Durham saw the campaign to repeal the Test Acts as the most dangerous, and central to the ultimate battle between conservatism and radicalism. Instability in our religious laws would tend to the dishonour of the essential doctrines of religion, which they protect. Among other proposed objects of innovation in our laws, there is one which cannot have escaped your observation, but which I recall to your attention, because it more immediately concerns you as Ministers of religion: I mean the proposal made, in the last session of Parliament, for the repealing of statutes which were enacted for protecting the fundamental doctrines of Christianity from blasphemy and corruption.24 The Bishop of Durham saw the domestic struggle between radicalism and conservatism as a battle between the activists on either side over the hearts and minds of the masses. As a result, the path to victory lay in cultivating a force of intelligent, forceful and rhetorically gifted clergymen. In an appendix to his charge, The Bishop of Durham set about establishing this force by setting

23Church of England. Diocese of Durham, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Durham, Bath, 1792,17-18. 24lbid., 14. 49 rigorous academic standards for the clergy in his diocese and hiring a Hebrew scholar to assist all ministers in learning the nuances of scripture.25 In this way, despite their significant differences, The Bishop of Durham and Tatham shared a similar outlook on domestic events. Both de-emphasized the politics of the loyalist-radical divide and instead saw the issue as a fundamentally rhetorical one which could be solved by sufficient application of scriptural expertise on the part of clergymen. These attitudes were similarly present in the many Loyalist Association-related sermons preached by Durham's clergymen. Considering the public enthusiasm of its Bishop it is not surprising that the cathedral town of Durham saw some of the most active participation of clergy in its local Loyalist Association. Radical critics complained that the Durham Loyalist Association committee consisted entirely of "the clergy of our cathedral and their dependents."26 Although The Bishop of Durham's charge did not instruct his clergy to take an active leadership in Loyalist Associations, it seems clear that he successfully delivered the message through other means. The Bishop of Durham vocally associated the danger of the radical movement with the lax morality that inevitably came with a move away from devout Anglicanism. In parliament the Bishop of Durham raised the spectre of irreligion as a legitimate threat of internal disorder, fueled by such secret weapons as female dancers trained to distract and weaken the morals of the nation.27 Nor were local reformers in Durham blind to their Bishop's actions. Undoubtedly the reformers of the cathedral town had the leader of their own diocese in mind when they noted that "undue influence is not, however, monopolized by the lay members of

Church of England. Diocese of Durham, Appendix to a charge, delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Durham, London, 1794, 31-32. 26Austin Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-3," The Historical Journal Vol. 4 No. 1,65. 27Ben Wilson, Decency and Disorder, (London: Faber & Faber, 2007), 16. 50 the House of Lords."28 The Bishop of Durham's influence over his clergy can also be seen in their constantly voiced opposition to Dissenting citizens. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Durham's pulpits were particularly active centres of anti- Dissenting rhetoric. In this the clergy of Durham may simply have been following their Bishop's lead. Although the Bishop of Durham's tone towards Dissenters was moderate in comparison to some of his clergymen's, there is reason to believe he saw Dissenters as the primary cause of the lack of religion that threatened the nation. Starting in the summer of 1792, Percival Stockdale, a poet for hire attempting to gain the patronage of the Bishop, began corresponding with the Bishop of Durham in order to achieve that end, even sending the Bishop possible sermons to use in the ongoing campaign from the pulpit.29 This campaign for patronage was accompanied by Stockdale's publication of a pamphlet on the issue of reform in both the Anglican Church and the British constitution. In both instances Stockdale sought to ingratiate himself with the Bishop, echoing his call for the reform of the Anglican Church by developing a more vigorous clerical class,30 and perhaps more importantly criticizing the Dissenter's irresponsible attitude towards reform. Indeed, the uncharitable heat; the acrimony, and obstinacy, with which the dissenters urge their claims, show that they are not interested in the success of these claims, by a Christian spirit, but by sinister, and baleful passions; by prejudice, envy, and hatred; by that restless fever for wealth, and dominion.31

The strongly anti-Dissenting attitude of the Durham Loyalist Association, influenced in no small part by the anti-Dissenting attitudes of the Bishop and his

Constitutional Reformer, Remarks, addressed to the Rev. Charles Weston, chairman of a committee of the Durham County and City Association, Durham, 1793, 22-23. 29Shute Barrington - Bishop of London, Letters between the Right Rev. Father in God, Shute by divine providence, Lord Bishop of Durham...and Percival Stockdale, London, 1792, 1. 30Percival Stockdale, Observations on the writings and conduct of our present political and religious reformers, London, 1792, 29. 31lbid., 38-39. 51 clergy, did not pass unnoticed by Durham's radical community. Both conservative and reformist parties were aware that tensions between Anglicans and Dissenters in everyday society could be exacerbated by the crisis of social, and possibly military, incursions from France. The anti-Dissenting nature of many of the sermons distributed by the Durham Loyalist Association may reflect awareness on the part of the clergymen that exploitable religious tensions were present, and could be effectively used to motivate popular demonstrations of loyalty. Certainly critics of the Anglican clergy in Durham recognized the strategy of exploiting religious tensions within the town. In a pamphlet addressed to Rev. Charles Weston directly, the reformers of Durham suggested that local clergymen, acting through the Loyalist Association, were emulating the actions of other clergymen throughout the country by denouncing radical riot, while simultaneously approving of its loyalist counterpart. Such were the professions after the truly alarming Riots at Birmingham; - - compare these with the pretexts of the same ministers for alarming the nation in the December of the same year. Shall I venture to hint at your private motives for imitating ministers in this singular omission? Perhaps you were conscious, that yourselves had contributed to foment a similar spirit of disorder, by the exasperating abuse of the Dissenters which you circulated in the letter of Thomas Bull.32

The degree to which the radicals focused on the leadership of the Durham clergy in its Loyalist Association and the religious intolerance it promoted indicates that it was not only clergymen who saw the disturbances of 1792-3 as distinctly rooted in religious differences.

However, clergymen did not just bring their religious vision of anti- radicalism to the Loyalist Associations through the conventional means of public sermons. They also played a crucial role in the administrative life of Loyalist Associations, taking advantage of the links within their local parishes to further

^Constitutional Reformer, Remarks, addressed to the Rev. Charles Weston, chairman of a committee of the Durham County and City Association, 8. 52 the cause of conservatism. Although Reeves envisioned his Loyalist Association as a counter to the Corresponding and Constitutional Information Societies, he planned on them operating in a distinctly different manner. While Reeves' original goal was indoctrination of loyalty into the minds and souls of the lower classes, he saw no reason to include the "vulgar" sorts in the actual administration of the Associations,33 instead keeping the committees small so as to be "better adapted for dispatch of business."34 However, it is a testament to the lack of control Reeves had over his own creation, as well as the enthusiasm of many citizens, that this hierarchical structure was not always the used. Although some Loyalist Association committees followed Reeves' intended pattern, others were more inclusive, and each was usually shaped by the power structures in its local community. Nearly all, however, included the parish clergy in some form or another. Even in Associations in which the vicar was not an active member, the founding meeting was usually marked by a speech imbuing the Association with religious legitimacy.35

Due to the tireless activities of the Durham clergymen and their Bishop's calls for his clergy to use their evangelical enthusiasm to crush Dissent and the radicalism it fostered, the town provides a useful opportunity to explore the clergy's role in the administration of Loyalist Associations. Although the Bishop of Durham was not directly involved in the local Loyalist Association of Durham, his clergymen more than made up for his absence. Additionally, it is unlikely that the Bishop of Durham was either unaware or disapproved of his clergy's activities. Far more likely, considering the keen interest he had in the quality and

33Clive Emsley, Britain and the French Revolution, (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2000), 42-43. 34Association for preserving liberty and property against Republicans and Levellers, Association papers. Part I. Publications printed by special order of the Society for preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans, London, 1793, 7. Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, 256. 53 attitude of the men under his charge is that Durham encouraged his clergy to participate in Loyalist Associations privately. This supposition is further strengthened by the fact that several of the Durham sermons were both dedicated to the Bishop of Durham and published by the Loyalist Association.

In particular, Rev. Charles Weston, Prebendary of Durham, acted as Anglican standard-bearer in the Durham Loyalist Association. Indeed, Weston stood as chairman of the committee of the Durham County and City Association, and was active enough to be singled out by local reformers as the de facto leader of the organization and "organ by which the Committee of the Durham Association announce their opinions."36 As can be imagined, the avenue most often used by Weston to accomplish this was the pulpit of the Durham cathedral. In fact, the document in which the Durham reformers labeled Weston as an "organ" of the Loyalist Association was published mere weeks after Weston delivered two sermons focused on obedience in quick succession on January 30th and February 3rd, 1793. The precise date of the founding of the Durham County and City Loyalist Association is unclear, but it is reasonable to draw a parallel between the beginning of its birth and Weston's heightened activity in late January, 1793.

However, Weston presented himself as the local figure-head of loyalism, not just from his pulpit, but also from his position as chairman of the Durham Loyalist Association. When he was singled out by Durham reformers for his bigoted attitude towards Dissent as well as any kind of reform, Weston's accusers saw him not just as an agent of the Anglican Church in Durham, but also as the leader of the conservative movement as a whole. However, Weston was not secularized in these attacks. In fact, in the eyes of the reformers of

^Constitutional Reformer, Remarks, addressed to the Rev. Charles Weston, chairman of a committee of the Durham County and City Association, 3. 54 Durham, the local Loyalist Association, under Rev. Charles Weston, appeared to be an instrument to prop up the Anglican Church and promote its bigotry, more than a venue for the Church to support the state. Weston was sarcastically attacked for his intolerant rhetoric and his negative focus on Dissent more than his Association's stance on radicalism. According to the reformers, the main crime committed by Weston and others in the Association was religious intolerance. Whether the Imitators of the Mr. Reeves's Association in this County have attended to this maxim [religious tolerance], may be drawn from their accusing the Dissenters of being the cause of the American War.37

This criticism was followed by the reprinting of the Bishop of St. Asaph's defence of the Dissenters in regard to the American Revolution, and a scathing request for Weston and his fellow clergymen to recognize their fellow Anglican's assertion. But so candid an avowal of the truth would ill suit the views of those Charitable and Tolerant Clergymen who take the lead in our present Associations.38 The implication that Weston was not the only Durham clergyman taking a leading role in the Loyalist Association was surely no accident. The leadership of both the Loyalist Association, and their enemies among the reforming community, saw the contest in Durham as a religious one with clear lines drawn between Anglican and Dissenter. For all the prominence of clergymen in Durham's Loyalist Association, and the numerous references to Weston in the sources, it was by no means a singular example of the leadership of clergy in Loyalist Associations. In the period of 1792-3 Weston is more representative of the larger trend among clergymen, rather than a unique figure in himself. One such clergyman, M.B.

37lbid., 27. 38lbid., 27. 55 Broke, an Anglican minister near Ipswich, described in a letter to Reeves the scenario surely played out by Weston and other men like him throughout England. Several respectable Persons in this Neighbourhood being disirous [sic] of forming an Association on similar Principles with that held at the Crown & Anchor it is requested that you will favour me with the Manner which that society may recommend to be adopted in Country Towns and in Counties, together with the letters of such Publications as they may advise to be distributed.39

Clergymen were often turned to, and surely just as often saw themselves, as obvious leaders of the Loyalist movement. It is no coincidence that many clergymen were singled out to be the ones to contact the central Association for advice. Many reacted to the call to action with a personal enthusiasm and vigour that is not reconcilable with a view of the eighteenth-century Anglican clergy as primarily concerned with their own economic position and political careers. Henry Zouch provides an excellent example of this personally, and more importantly religiously, motivated minister, bent on arresting the growth of the reformist movement. As the vicar in Wakefield, Zouch stood as an active clergymen in the evangelical movement. His participation in various reforms on behalf of the poor or incarcerated criminals was fueled by an analogous evangelical reform of the Christian spirit. His activities made him one of the key figures in Wilbeforce's Proclamation Society, and a powerful cultural figure locally.40 By the crisis months in the winter of 1792-3, Zouch was nearly 70, and had but two more years to live. However, despite his age, he found himself at the centre of events in Wakefield and the surrounding area. As early as June 11th Zouch had chaired a meeting which resolved unanimously to restrict the spread of "politically false and dangerous" ideas designed to "excite groundless

39M.B. Broke to John Reeves, December 2nd, 1792. British Library, MSS ADD 16920, vol. 2. A0The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) vol. 60, 1003-1004. 56 Jealousies and Discontentments" among the people.41 Ultimately Zouch was successful in his attempts to raise a popular fury and intimidate the local Society of Constitutional Information.

By winter the Loyalist Association had made serious inroads within the respectable ranks of Wakefield society. A subsequent, much larger meeting was held for the same purpose on the 10th of December. Although Constable William Steer chaired this meeting, Zouch was active and influential as always. The meeting's final resolution was to once again thank the Reverend Henry Zouch for his "indefatigable Zeal in securing the peace and Happiness of the Town and Neighbourhood of Wakefield."42

In addition to his activities in the administration of the Loyalist Association Zouch also took personal action by hiring a spy to attend radical meetings and report their contents to him. One such letter survives, written to Zouch by a Mr. Wheat in reference to a radical meeting sometime in February 1792. The account reads as one would expect, relating the structure of the meeting, the various villages from which its audience had traveled, and descriptions of the anti-aristocratic rhetoric employed by the meeting's speakers. However, it is perhaps noteworthy that the one speaker whom Mr. Wheat described by name was Benjamin Dawson, a local man who was described as "an enemy of tithes."43 For Zouch, ever aware of threats to the stability and ascendancy of the Anglican Church, it is not inconceivable that he had contracted Mr. Wheat to bring specifically to his attention any attacks on the Ecclesiastical establishment among the radicals.

Perhaps the most universal role clergymen played in Loyalist Associations

41 Friends to the King and Constitution (Wakefield, England), That the loyal and spirited resistance of.., Wakefield, 1794,11. 42lbid., 15. 43Mr. Wheat to Henry Zouch, Feb 27th, 1792. Carlisle Records Office MSS D LONS L1 /1 12. 57 was that of distributor of published materials. Early on in the life of the Association movement the unique value of the clergyman's connections within the community was recognized. Throughout the eighteenth century British clergymen had acted as crucial information gatherers for government officials during elections.44 As the structure of the Loyalist Associations quickly took shape late in 1792, many conservative leaders were equally quick to encourage clergymen to play a similar role in the coming weeks and months. The Times took an early lead in this campaign to reveal to Church of England ministers their unique position within society. The paper called on Loyalist Association members and independent printers to send all their propaganda to vicars, deans and cathedral chapter houses all across Britain. Generic templates, or "plans," for the resolutions necessary to found a local chapter of the Loyalist Association were also mass produced and distributed to clergymen, singled out as ideally suited to get the materials in the hands of the right people in each community.45

For their part, clergymen recognized the crucial position they held in the community in terms of distribution of material. A large proportion of the letters written to the central Loyalist Association in London by clergymen were marked by the desire for more and more material to distribute among the masses in their parish. Clergymen were often very particular in their demands. Typical was the request of Rev. Thomas Stern, Vicar of Pontefract, who called upon the Loyalist Association to, Furnish Copies of their Considerations & Resolves for such purposes I shall be extremely happy to order the Distribution of 1000 or 1500 of them in the Town & Neighbourhood where I reside.46 In fact, even these fairly innocuous requests reveal the importance of the

44William Gibson, The Achievement of the Anglican Church 1689-1800: The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995), 38. 45Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-3," 61. 46Rev. Thomas Stern to John Reeves, Dec. 2, 1792. British Library, MSS ADD 16920, vol. 2. 58 religious element of the reformist movement. Clergymen were highly sensitive to Dissenting communities within their parishes and formed their requests for material accordingly. The East Kent and Canterbury Association, heavily influenced as it was by the ecclesiastical patronage of the Archbishop's court, asked Reeves for a copy of a speech by Rev. McRead, which was deemed "well worth Notice, especially as it was addressed to Dissenters."47

Indeed, the East Kent and Canterbury Loyalist Association provides the best example of ecclesiastical involvement in the process of producing and distributing conservative propaganda. The Archbishop of Canterbury, John Moore, stood with the Bishop of Durham as one of the more evangelical bishops in the Anglican Church. Although he did not devote as much energy as other evangelicals to the abolitionist movement, that merely allowed him to focus his ecclesiastical weight behind the Loyalist Associations. The printer John Jones was active within the East Kent and Canterbury Association, both in its founding and its subsequent proliferation of literature. Jones' efforts were backed by the patronage and support of the Archbishop of Canterbury.48 Throughout 1792-3 and beyond Jones continued publishing materials specifically for the East Kent and Canterbury Association. Unlike most Loyalist Associations, which collected and distributed propaganda which had been centrally published in London, the East Kent and Canterbury Association proved prolific in its independent publication of material. Jones' anti-reform activities culminated in August 1793 with the creation of the Kentish Register, a journal purporting to be literary, but in fact acting as a clearing house for anti-Revolutionary editorials and letters from throughout the region.49 In fact, the output of the East Kent and Canterbury

47J.H. Stringer - Secretary of the East Kent and Canterbury Association to John Reeves. British Library, MSS ADD 16924, vol. 6. 48Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, 245. 49777e Kentish register, and monthly miscellany. From August to December, 1793. Volume I, Canterbury, 1793. 59 Association has been noted by historians as anticipating Hannah More's later "Cheap Repository Tracts" as evangelical, and distinctly religious, propaganda.50 In this way the work of the East Kent and Canterbury Association can be seen as evidence that distinctly religious, evangelical arguments against reform, generally seen as a phenomenon of the later 1790s, were a significant factor in 1792-3. The most prolific writer within the influence of the Canterbury Loyalist Association was William Jones. Jones was one of the first Anglican churchmen to denounce the French Revolution from the pulpit at the outset of the upheaval in France.51 However, though an active member of the Anglican Church in Canterbury, Jones became best known for his nationally published material, in which he adopted the character of John Bull, private citizen of Britain, commenting on the affairs in France. Although ostensibly writing as a secular citizen of Britain, Jones' work had a distinctly religious tone. Just as in the more conventional work of his fellow clergymen, Jones' published material was informed by the stresses, public reactions and changing political atmosphere of 1792-3. His first John Bull letter, One Penny-worth of Truth published in 1792, consisted of a single sheet containing a correspondence between two brothers, John and Thomas Bull. This dialogue, or personal letter format, was akin to many Loyalist Association publications. Similarly, the arguments Jones employed, the impracticality of the theory of democracy or equality when applied to human society, the vague atheism and hypocrisy of Revolutionary France, are familiar to any student of 1790s conservative propaganda. However, Jones' pamphlet was not merely another piece of nondescript secular propaganda. His preoccupation with Methodists and Dissenters, particularly Priestley, and their

David Eastwood, "Patriotism and the English State in the 1790s," In The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 156. 51 Hole, "English Sermons and Tracts as Media of Debate on the French Revolution 1789- 1799," 19. 60 complicity in the failure of the American War, reveals Jones' authorship.52 As we have seen above, the connection between the failure of the American War and the unreliability of Dissenting subjects in time of crisis is one that provocative clergymen latched onto eagerly. Whether because of its particular popularity - the pamphlet sold over 200,000 copies by the end of the 179253 - or the increasing intensity of debate in the larger sense, Jones found himself at the centre of the reform discussion and followed up his first "letter" with a far more extensive fifty-page booklet, A letter to John Bull, Esq. from his second cousin Thomas Bull. In it, Jones expanded upon the points he addressed in the first letter and clarified positions he felt had been distorted by the public in the intervening months. Ostensibly written to Thomas Bull's more educated cousin, John Bull, the second letter allowed Jones to take a more elevated tone and provide a more detailed explanation of his views. He provided a nuanced understanding of the radical notion of natural rights as a philosophical ideal that was but a fiction in the real world.54 Jones also rationalized his earlier attacks on Dissenters, formulating a sophisticated condemnation of nonconformists.55 In this way, Jones' work is a rare example of a clergyman recognizing and addressing reactions to his message in a way that was not possible with conventional sermons. The format of the booklet, a letter between two relatives, also served to accentuate this dialogue-like character. As a result, inferences about both Jones and his popular audience can be drawn from this second publication.

Although impossible to determine with any degree of certainty, the content

52William Jones, One penny-worth of truth, from Thomas Bull to his brother John, London, 1792,1. 53William Jones, A letter to John Bull, Esq. from his second cousin Thomas Bull, London, 1793,4. 54lbid., 13-16. 55lbid„ 7-8. 61 of the letter suggests that Jones' attitude towards Dissenters was the most provocative and controversial element of One Penny-worth of Truth. Presumably responding to popular criticism of the close association he drew between Dissenters and disloyalty in time of war, Jones, at first glance, appears to soften his position. However, his argument that his attacks on those Dissenters who worked against the British state during the American War should not be construed as being directed against all Dissenters, is less than whole-heartedly presented. Many of the Dissenters are as averse as we are to the religious principles of Dr. Priestley, and the political principles of Thomas Paine; and though their flatterers may not wish it, their friends would have been glad if they had signified the same by some public act half a year ago, that the wheat might have been separated from the chaff. It is the misfortune of every faction, that they who are best among them are led by the worst.56 While Jones moderated his tone on Dissenters, acknowledging that some had good intentions, his implication was that it was now too late for the worthy Dissenters to separate themselves from the evil. The passage amounted to a recognition of the theoretical innocence of some Dissenters, but denied them any vindication in the practical world. Additionally, Jones appeared to put the burden of proof squarely on the Dissenters' shoulders, claiming that toleration of individual Dissenters was possible, provided they demonstrated their virtue. So when we speak of the Dissenters, the worth of individuals is always to be excepted; and Thomas Bull himself will be as ready as anybody to make the exception, where it is due.57

In fact, Jones' supposed clarification of his position on Dissenters even had a threatening subtext, employing a veiled, yet threatening attitude towards Dissenters reminiscent of Bullock's. He drew an analogy between all Dissenters being defined by the actions of a few during the American War, and the notion of

56lbid., 10-11. 57lbid., 10. 62 all Anglicans being defined by the actions of a few during the Birmingham Priestley riots.58 While Jones was careful to point out that all respectable Anglicans "abhor" the actions of the Priestley rioters, he could not pass up the opportunity to attack the prominent Unitarian by speculating that Priestley probably provoked the riot to score a public relations victory for reformers.59 The result is a passage which, on the surface, appears to be sympathetic to Dissenters and critical of mobs that violently attack them, but upon deeper inspection serves to remind Dissenters of their tenuous safety.

Additionally, the work produced by John Jones, who, in addition to printing material also penned works of propaganda, shares certain elements with that of the clerical propagandist, William Jones. Much like William Jones, John Jones focused on the American War in an attempt to paint Thomas Paine and his supporters as disloyal.60 Although not nearly as religious-minded as William Jones, the publications of the East Kent and Canterbury Association placed an emphasis on the established Church less visible in the material distributed by other Associations. Most works focused on the atheism of Paine and the French revolutionaries, and the role of organized religion in forging national unity.61 The East Kent and Canterbury papers are marked by the same mistrust of Dissenters found in William Jones' work, if presented in a slightly more indirect and politic manner. John Jones' assertion that "the man who dissents from [the unity of the nation], is an enemy to his country"62 was carefully worded to ensure that those who did not adhere to the tenets of the Church of England understood the fine

58lbid., 7. 59lbid., 8. 60John Jones, Circulated by the East Kent and Canterbury Association: The reason of man, with strictures on Paine's Rights of Man, Canterbury, 1793, 26. 61 John Bowles, Circulated by the East Kent and Canterbury Association: A protest against T. Paine's "Rights of Man, "Canterbury, 1793, 6. 62Jones, Circulated by the East Kent and Canterbury Association: The reason of man, with strictures on Paine's Rights of Man, 28. 63 line they were balanced upon. The East Kent and Canterbury Association and the court of the Archbishop were certainly seen by the clergy of the Anglican Church as leaders in the conservative publication industry. It was to Archbishop Moore and the East Kent and Canterbury Association that Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London, turned in order to counteract the flood of Paineite pamphlets in 1792.63

In fact, Dissent, rather than reform by itself, featured prominently in many clergymen's motivations to participate actively in Loyalist Associations. John Hawkins, Vicar of Halstead in Essex, worried over the uncomfortably large number of Dissenters in his parish. I am the head of a large parish containing near four thousand Inhabitants, one half of whom nearly are Dissenters.64 While he admitted they had not caused any disturbances yet, he suggested that Loyalist Associations should take special care in regard to the Dissenting issue whether specific communities of Dissenters had agitated violently for reform or not. I think it very expedient that no measures should be left unattempted which may prevent our falling into the melancholy situation of our neighbours Abroad.65 Others noted the suspect loyalty of Methodists, whose connection to the Church of England appeared unclear after the death of Wesley.66 Certainly the clergymen of the 1792-3 period saw the conservative-reformist conflict as one inseparable from the religious concerns of the day. Indeed, Zouch, among others, saw the 1792-3 reformist crisis as a continuation of the Test Act Repeal protests of 1790, and as such, a fundamentally Dissenting campaign. Zouch's

63Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984, 100. 64John Hawkins to John Reeves, November 29 , 1792. British Library MSS ADD 16919, vol. 1. 65lbid. 66John Taylor to John Reeves, March 2nd, 1793. British Library MSS ADD 16925, vol. 7. 64 reactions to the reform movement in 1792, calling and chairing a special meeting to organize the local conservative elements and collecting information on the meetings of groups calling for reform, neatly echo his activities in the winter of 1790. After corresponding with the Archbishop of York, Zouch had organized a meeting of Anglican clergymen from the region surrounding Wakefield to discuss what action should be taken against the Dissenters. There is reason to believe Zouch and his associates saw the Test Act Repeal campaign of 1790 and the reformist crisis of 1792-3, normally separated by historians as two related, but different events, as one and the same. In his correspondence with other conservatives the labels "Dissenter" and "Radical" were virtually interchangeable.67

In fact, Henry Zouch embodies many of the enthusiastic, and particularly religious, actions of clergymen in respect to Loyalist Associations. Much like other ministers all across England, he used his local standing to organize conservative activities, co-ordinate action with elements in London and the surrounding countryside, and chair the local Loyalist Association, all the while promoting his own vision of the rise of radicalism as a specifically religious crisis. Nowhere in this broad scope of activities is there evidence of political sycophancy or an elevated sense of secularism. Indeed, in the case of Zouch himself, his advanced age and long time standing as Vicar of Wakefield make it unlikely that he had one eye on his political advancement while engaging in his anti-radical measures

While his enthusiasm was remarkable considering his age, in a general sense, Zouch's activities and attitudes in 1792-3 were not unique. Clergymen throughout England took active and enthusiastic roles in their local Loyalist

67Wentworth Fitzwilliam to Henry Zouch, Sept. 1, 1791. Carlisle Records Office MSS D LONS L1 /1 12. 65 Associations, and often lent them a particularly religious character. Far from being largely secular instruments of the state operating in only nominally religious circles, many clergymen involved with Loyalist Associations saw themselves as occupied with a religious struggle, with religious causes and religious solutions. The Bishop of Durham provides a constructive example. Seeing the reformist crisis as caused by the weakness of religious values in Britain, the Bishop of Durham sought out religious solutions. A strengthening of the education, dedication and enthusiasm of his clergy were the keys to the Bishop of Durham's campaign. While not all clergymen enjoyed his hierarchical position, and thus were unable to engage in such an extensive operation, many shared his fundamental assessment of the reformist movement. Whether it was Zouch and others, convinced the rise of radicalism was an extension of the Dissenting rabble-rousing which had been foiled during the campaign to Repeal the Test Acts, or clergymen like John Hawkins who generally doubted the loyalty of the Dissenters in his community, Anglican clergymen seemed to locate the source of danger in the Dissenting community rather than in radical political elements.

Nor can this energetic participation in these Associations be entirely dismissed as self-interested pursuit of preferment. Although, undoubtedly, career advancement motivated some, the correlation between evangelical clergymen and those involved in Associations suggests personal motivations were more telling. Once again, Hole's assessment of the rise of evangelical arguments after 1795 is helpful in examining clerical attitudes in 1792-3. Evangelical leaders like those under the purview of the Bishop of Durham, or Henry Zouch, were disproportionately represented in the leadership of Loyalist Associations. The influence of primarily religious motivations in the clergy's relationship with the radical movement was prominent, even before 1795, 66 especially when considered in light of Loyalist Associations. For others, such as Henry Zouch, unlikely to be further promoted in the Church at age 68, the approval of his superiors likely had little influence over his actions. CHAPTER 3 RELIGIOUS LOYALISM IN ACTION: CLERICAL INVOLVEMENT IN ANTI-RADICAL DISTURBANCES AND REPRESSION

In the 1790s the French Revolution sparked an intense and protracted ideological conflict in England between radical reformers inspired by events across the English Channel, and the conservative elite, eager to preserve the status quo. During 1792-3, this ideological conflict spread down the social scale as riots exploded in several towns across England. Primarily these riots consisted of crowds of citizens attacking the property of those whose loyalties appeared uncertain in the name of Church and King, or conservatism in general. Traditionally, historians have looked beyond simplistic notions of loyalty and conservatism among the crowd and pointed to broad socio-economic trends or class power struggles as motivations for the rioters' actions. However, while these explanations for the violent nature of loyalist disturbances have some merit, an undue emphasis on them takes away from a recognition of the affinity to the conservative order, particularly conservative religious sentiment, present among the lower classes and their overwhelming hostility and xenophobia towards the political ideology of France and its Revolution. Whether eliminating the possibility of loyalist sentiment by painting the interaction between crowd and elite as fundamentally oppositional, or by over-emphasizing the influence of economic forces to the detriment of a genuine affinity for the religious and political establishment, histories have removed, or at the very least marginalized, religion in the analysis of loyalist riots.

This chapter will focus on the loyalist riots in Oxford and Cambridge in the winter of 1792-3, and their aftermath, to determine what further understanding of the encouragement, outbreak, and reaction to loyalist riots can be gained by examining them through a predominantly religious perspective. Inevitably, this 67 68 will also entail an examination of how the primarily socio-political focus historians have placed on the Oxford and Cambridge riots has served to limit our understanding of them. As in the case of other riots throughout England at this time, historians have not come to a consensus on what precisely these crowds were expressing. Were they genuinely frightened by the French threat of atheism and instability? Enticed to disorder by a repressive government? Or perhaps latching on opportunistically to a chance to settle personal scores and engage in looting and vandalism? While sources do not allow us to answer these questions with any degree of certainty, an examination of them will at least elevate questions of the influence of religious sentiment to an equal footing with those of social or economic factors.

The process of marginalization of religion began with the work of George Rude and E.P. Thompson, the seminal historians of eighteenth century public disturbance. While both historians have been integral to a general understanding of how popular crowds operated in early modern England, their analysis of riot focuses on the effect of economic stresses and class structures in bringing the people out into the streets. Respectively, Rude and Thompson see loyalist public disorder in terms of social and economic resentment in times of turmoil,1 or as a venue for political negotiation and exchange between the classes.2 This focus on the economic and class issues involved in loyalist disturbances has continued into the present day, as part of the larger debate to determine the political sentiments of the lower orders. Marxist historians have adopted Thompson's model of clear class consciousness determining the activities of the masses, while their critics have attempted to point to the inherent conservatism of the British commoner, particularly in 1792-3.

1George Rude, The Crowd in History (London: Serif, 2005), 139-140. 2E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common, (New York: The New Press, 1993), 56. 69 The result of this stark emphasis on economic and class concerns is to downplay the role of religion. While Rude and Thompson can be excused for not discussing the effects of religion at length in what, after all, are social or economic histories of riot, their choice of focus has limited their analysis. In seeing loyalist riots as fueled primarily by social and economic affairs, Rude has left room to examine the religious element in loyalist riots. This is because, perhaps unsurprisingly for a social historian, his concern is with the actions of the masses rather than the ability of individual authority figures to act as catalysts to events. As a result, Rude dismisses religion, in and of itself, as an influential factor in bringing about loyalist riot. The manner in which Rude ignores the Oxford loyalist riots, inspired directly by a single preacher, Edward Tatham, is exemplary of this dismissive attitude towards the power of individual authority figures, particularly religious ones. Later historians have revealed the limitations of both historians' models. For example, Alan Booth's re-examination of Rude's analysis of the Manchester Loyalist Riot of 1792 raises significant doubts about Rude's focus on economic factors. Booth has challenged Rude's notion that the North and Manchester specifically, was experiencing hard economic times in 1792-3, which in turn sparked loyalist riot. Indeed, considering the periods before and after, Booth considers the winter months of 1792-3 to be a relatively prosperous time for the citizens of Manchester.3 Certainly, such an observation undermines the idea of rampant economic resentment and desperation, so prominent in Rude's theory, acting as a catalyst for loyalist riot. The evidence not only challenges Rude's assumptions, but also suggests religious divisions themselves may have been an explanation for the sudden outburst of loyalism in Manchester, rather than simply

3Alan Booth, "Popular Loyalism and Public Violence in the North-west of England 1790- 1800," Social History, Vol. 8, 1983, 302-303. 70 a legitimizing veil for economic frustration, as posited by Rude. Manchester clergymen engaged in a vigorous campaign of sermons denouncing reform almost immediately before the outbreak of loyalist riot in the city, suggesting a link that is more than merely coincidental.4 Rude's desire to see events in terms of broad economic and social terms has limited his ability to appreciate the influence of simple religious sentiment over the actions of men. Similarly, Thompson's conception of loyalist riot is weaker for its lack of emphasis on religion. Thompson's model is intended to be a counterargument to what he calls the fiction of the "one-class" society. Thompson's main argument is that the paucity of sources dealing directly with the lower classes of eighteenth century Britain has led to a reliance upon the perspective of the elite. This, in turn, has created the illusion of a "one-class" society in which the poor appear to share much of the religious and political culture of the elite due to the deferential behaviour of the former and the prevalence of paternalist sentiment among the latter.5 Thompson posits a radically different model in which lower class sentiments are indecipherable to both modern historians and contemporary elites. Not surprisingly, Thompson downplays the value of religion in popular attitudes as it was merely one of the most obvious conduits through which the poor could express superficial deference. While Thompson's concerns are legitimate, and historians ignore them at their peril, it is a warning that is not necessary when examining loyalist riot of the 1790s. Indeed, despite Thompson's cautions against falling into a "one-class" fallacy, the history of loyalist riot in many cases has exhibited an inverse bias in the sources. Most prominently in Manchester and Cambridge, the sources employed most often by historians were produced by the primary radical actors in

4W.R. Ward, Religion and Society in England: 1790-1850, (London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1972), 24. 5Thompson, Customs in Common, 20-22. 71 each case: Thomas Walker's A Review of the Political Events Which Have Occurred in Manchester6 and William Frend's account of his own trial7 respectively. Both documents were written by radical political figures that were attacked by conservative elements, either through open riot or legal proceedings. Needless to say, both these sources are biased towards the plight of the victim of conservative repression and highlight the lack of commonalities between elites and the masses. Once again, Alan Booth provides a strong counterargument to the traditional view of loyalist riot. Due to the unreliability, or plain nonexistence, of sources pertaining to small-scale demonstrations of public loyalism, Booth has noted that most surveys of loyalist expression are limited to the larger riots such as the Walker Riot of Manchester, or the Priestley Riot in Birmingham.8 Such large-scale events necessarily took place in larger urban areas in where the growing industrial class provided an ideal example of diverging class tensions informing the roots of conflict. However, Booth has noted that smaller scale expressions of loyalism were far more common than modern historians allow9 and could be sparked by as mundane factors as personal differences between individuals or a simple gathering of citizens for some purpose other than political expression. An emphasis on the larger riots tends automatically to elevate the influence of Marxist class principles and inversely downplay the non-class relationships between individuals at the local level.

In fact, Booth's extensive research into the loyalist disturbances of the North in the 1790s reveals that the most common trait of the victims of loyalist

6Thomas Walker, A review of the political events which have occurred in Manchester, London, 1794. 7William Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, Cambridge, 1793. 8Booth, "Popular Loyalism and Public Violence in the North-west of England 1790-1800," 296-297. 9lbid., 297. 72 violence was not conspicuous wealth or even social class, but reformist politics, and even more remarkable, religious persuasion. Dissenters were attacked by loyalist mobs, sometimes without having any clear connection to the reform movement, and Unitarians especially were singled out as enemies of the British state because their "liberal theology" made them inherently suspect in times of crisis.10 However, even Booth's work only touches on religion tangentially. His main focus is to demonstrate that public loyalist violence was an effective tool in 1792-3, both in terms of winning over the common people to conservatism and discouraging or intimidating reformers. In this way, Booth effectively challenges Thompson's perception of lower-class sentiments, but still leaves a wide avenue open to pursue further his observations of religion in loyalist mobs. In fact, this lack of a coherent explanation of popular Anglican-fueled conservatism has been noted by other historians of the Church of England such as John Walsh and Stephen Taylor who have claimed that "the existence of that [Anglican] loyalty, however, is easier to define than its meaning."11

Neither do historians of the Loyalist Associations shed a great deal of light on the influence of clergymen on loyalist riot. While Austin Mitchell recounts the extensive roles clergymen played in Loyalist Associations, particularly in terms of distributing pamphlets and collecting information for prosecutions,12 he is less forthcoming on the role clergy, or the Associations themselves, played in inciting riot.13 Mitchell's analysis is undoubtedly shaped by the lack of sources and certainty surrounding the manner in which loyalist riots, or any kind of riot, developed. However, as this chapter will demonstrate, specific disturbances do

10lbid., 306. 11John Walsh and Stephen Taylor, "Introduction: The Church and Anglicanism in the 'long' eighteenth century" in The Church of England c. 1689 - c. 1833: from Toleration to Tractarianism, ed. Josh Walsh, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 27. 12Austin Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-3," The Historical Journal \/o\. 4 No. 1,(1961), 65-73. 13lbid., 74. 73 exist which clergymen sparked, or at the very least reacted to, which can further our understanding of how religion affected public loyalism and vice versa. It can be expected that historians of the late eighteenth century clergy would be more useful in determining how churchmen influenced, and were influenced by, the loyalist riots of 1792-3 than historians of riot in a more general sense. However, the most prominent historian of the church and its involvement in the anti-reform movement of the 1790s, Robert Hole, has yet to tackle fully the issue of loyalist riot. Hole's focus on the main themes which clergymen presented to their congregations in the 1790s is geared more towards deciphering the attitudes and mindsets of clergymen rather than the influence they wielded over their congregations. However, despite his emphasis on the clergy rather than their congregations Hole does note some important tendencies among the riotous groups of loyal citizens. One such example is the clerical achievement of exploiting the near-secularism of Unitarianism, and its associations with radicalism, to add an important element of religion to the anti- reform campaign.14 Hole has also been one of many historians to note that the long history of Dissenting opposition to the tithes due to the Anglican Church operated to tie religion into politics and heighten tensions between conservative and reforming elements.15 However, as in his analysis of Anglican sermons in 1792-3, Hole is hesitant to ascribe too much religious influence to the motivations of loyalist rioters. While the Oxford riots provide the most direct connection we have between religious sentiment and loyalist riot, Hole has agreed with many other historians and determined that the events in Oxford were unique and therefore not a useful case from which to draw general conclusions. Rather than

14Robert Hole, "English Sermons and Tracts as Media of Debate on the French Revolution 1789-1799," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 35. 15Robert Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 124. 74 examine the way in which Tatham's religious arguments influenced the rioters who took to the streets in Oxford soon after hearing his sermon, Hole dismisses the fiery preacher as too exceptional a figure to be historically useful in an examination of the process of riot.16 The lack of emphasis placed by historians such as Rude and Thompson on religion, and more particularly clergymen, in influencing riot leaves an opportunity to expand upon, or qualify their theories. After indirectly examining the crowd through clerical attitudes towards it, in this chapter I turn to a re­ examination of the religious element in loyalist riots during 1792-3, particularly in Oxford and Cambridge, may provide useful insights or criticisms of Rude or Thompson's interpretations of popular protest. Conclusions regarding the role of religion in loyalist riots will be achieved through a specific investigation into how clergy and crowds interacted in the lead-up to, during, and in the wake of loyalist riots. Although the two towns by no means represent the entirety of public protest during this period, the prominent position of the Church, both in the universities and the towns themselves, makes them particularly useful when determining the role of the clergy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, due to the close connection of Church of England clergy to both disturbances, the events in the two university towns have been underrepresented in the scholarship of both Rude and Thompson.

Recently, Jan Albers has revealed the heretofore underrepresented influence of the growing tensions of religious rivalry in the late 1780s and early 1790s. Although her research has been limited geographically to Lancashire her conclusions may well be more widely applied. The conclusions of Albers' study which are relevant to this chapter are that during the campaign to repeal the Test Acts in 1787-1790 the age-old political stereotypes of the "king-killing" Dissenters

16lbid., 128. 75 and "crypto-Jacobite" Anglicans were more exaggerated and more specifically religious in nature than at any other time in the century.17 These tendencies Albers has noted in Lancashire certainly appear to be present among many of the clergymen examined in this thesis, both in terms of the sharply drawn divisions between "us" and "them" with regards to Dissenters, as well as in seeing the repeal campaign of 1787-1790 as a decisive turning point whose influence was still being exercised over events. A focus on the particularly religious dimensions of loyalist disturbance might determine whether this observation can be applied accurately to clergymen in other places in England.

Although, for the sake of precision, the focus of this chapter will be directed primarily at Oxford and Cambridge, it is important to note that clerical influence over popular expressions of loyalism extended throughout Britain. Alan Booth has demonstrated the role of clergy in fostering anti-radical sentiment across Britain throughout the 1790s, as well as encouraging specific demonstrations of loyalty, both large and small.18 The Priestley Riots were inherently religious, with their violent focus on the Dissenting community in Birmingham. Simultaneous with the riots in Oxford and Cambridge, popular loyalism flooded into the streets of Manchester as well. The so-called Walker Riot occurred under the tacit approval of the secular and religious authorities. Throughout the period before and after the Walker Riot the local clergymen were busy encouraging anti-reformist behaviour and exploiting their magisterial positions to intimidate radicals.19 Indeed, as in Wakefield and Durham, the Manchester Loyalist Association, integral to the instigation of the Walker Riot,

17Jan Albers, '"Papist traitors' and 'Presbyterian rogues': religious identities in eighteenth century Lancashire" in The Church of England c. 1689 - c. 1833: from Toleration to Tractarianism, ed. Josh Walsh, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 331-332. 18Booth, "Popular Loyalism and Public Violence in the North-west of England 1790-1800," 299-300. 19Ward, Religion and Society in England: 1790-1850, 24. 76 was chaired by a clergyman, Rev. John Griffiths.20 Oxford and Cambridge, in particular, are useful for examining clerical influence over these kinds of disturbances. The prominence of the clergy in both university towns, and wealth of primary source material, allow for investigating specific activities clergymen engaged in during 1792-3. Chief amongst these is the role of Anglican clergy, not just in forming Loyalist Associations, but in directly sparking or encouraging riot itself. In the traditional view of historians, particularly E.P. Thompson, eighteenth-century Anglican churchmen have been portrayed as a corrupt and feeble clergy. However, especially in the case of the 1790s, the weakness of Anglican clergymen has been challenged in recent years by religious historians, who describe an active and influential clergy.21 The prominence of clergy in Loyalist Associations has been noted by Mitchell22 and others, although their influence over the rioting classes has not been adequately explored. Various Oxford and Cambridge historians have researched extensively the loyalist riots of 1792-93, including the ubiquitous presence of churchmen, but the fruitful results of these works have not been tied into the larger picture of loyalist riot. The loyalist riots in Oxford in the winter of 1792-3 provide a unique example of Church influence over crowds. Unlike other examples of loyalist riot, where authorities, secular or religious, were seen tacitly, though mutely, approving of the riot from the safety of their homes, the responsibility for the loyalist disturbances in Oxford can be tied directly to the work of one man, Edward Tatham Rector of Lincoln College. Where even the provocative William Jones admitted grudgingly that the rioters had overstepped their legal rights in

20Frida Knight, The Strange Case of Thomas Walker, (London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., 1957), 103. 21William Gibson, The Achievement of the Anglican Church 1689-1800: The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995), 30. 22Mitchell, "The Association Movement of 1792-1793," The Historical Journal, 66. 77 attacking the property of Dr. Priestley two years previously, Tatham was unabashed in his praise of them. For Tatham the true venue for the struggle for the preservation of Britain was not on the continent, or even against French revolutionaries, but against irresponsible Dissenters in the streets of Britain's own towns. In December of 1792 he would be given an opportunity to participate more directly in similar disturbances closer to home. Although Tatham's A sermon suitable to the times provides the most direct connection between the activity of a clergymen and a loyalist riot, the explanation for this unique position in the history of 1792-3 does not lie in Tatham's rhetoric, as some historians have claimed. In fact, from the examination of Tatham's sermon in the first chapter, we can determine that in terms of tone, rhetoric and theme it did not greatly differ from a host of other sermons delivered by other Anglican clergymen throughout England. Historians of Oxford and the larger loyalist movement in the 1790s have often focused purely on Tatham's unique character and attitude towards Dissent. But perhaps a more useful exploration would be why Tatham's sermon caused such an uproar in Oxford.

If Tatham's sermon was unique in one way, it was not due to his intolerance towards Dissenters, which was commonplace as we have seen, nor his advocacy for action by the public. Rather, Tatham's singular focus was on the tensions, mostly religious and cultural, existing within Oxford. Not surprisingly Tatham, as the Rector of Lincoln College, elevated the value of university-educated preachers in securing stability against disorder from below. It was only those who had learned their trade at the prestigious and more importantly, Anglican, universities of Oxford and Cambridge that had both the "ability" and "integrity" to guide the nation properly.23 While this interpretation of events stressed the importance of the preacher in defending the British

23Edward Tatham, A sermon suitable to the times, London, 1792, 10-11. 78 constitution, its true importance lay in its negative corollary, the elevated danger of "incorrect" preachers. It was a sentiment that was by no means unique to Tatham. The Bishop of Durham's charge was fuelled by the same perceptions of contemporary events, with his emphasis on the importance of an active and knowledgeable clergy in protecting the populace from the fatal consequences of mistaken religious beliefs. Tatham's message differed only by a matter of degrees, not on a fundamental level. For Tatham, and Durham as well, it was not radicals spouting abstract theories about equality who posed the greatest danger, but irresponsible Dissenting preachers who cultivated a society in which those ideas could flourish.

The image of Tatham as a unique figure in the 1790s Church has rested upon his vision of religious laxity being the driving force behind events, his aggressive distrust of nonconformist preachers, and an emphasis on the need for national unity based on Old Testament Israel. However, as the first two chapters have demonstrated, these characteristics were by no means unique to Tatham. In fact, an entire group of clergymen, those involved in Loyalist Associations, and others who independently produced conservative sermons, shared with Tatham these attitudes. In fact, the only thing that sets him apart from his contemporary clergymen is that we have a clear connection between his rhetoric and an outbreak of civil disorder. It is a difference of public reaction and circumstance, not one of attitude or ideology between Tatham and all other churchmen. The prominence Tatham enjoyed after the outbreak of violence may have increased his influence over other clergymen. In terms of rousing the public to action, Tatham's actions in Oxford were an exemplary success. The extensive publications surrounding the Oxford riot certainly gave Tatham's colleagues a wealth of material to draw from in attempts to similarly inspire the masses. 79 Perhaps most important of all, Oxford is the clearest case we have of groups of citizens reacting specifically to a clergyman's call for action, and thus stands as unavoidable evidence of clerical leaders having a significant influence over their congregations, and the influence of religion in stirring the masses.

In late 1792 Tatham delivered his provocative sermon, A Sermon Suitable to the Times, from the pulpits of four separate churches throughout Oxford in December.24 As we have seen the sermon questioned the loyalty of Dissenters and Methodists, and pointed out the potential weakness of the Oxford citizenry if they too willingly submitted to the nonconformist faiths. Significantly, Tatham devoted relatively little time in his sermon to radicals themselves, instead warning of the insidious spread of Dissent. The "false prophets" he attacked throughout his diatribe were not French infiltrators, or even domestic political reformers, but Dissenting preachers.25 The battlefield Tatham presented was not one of two nations separated by the English Channel, but existing in the immediacy of Oxford's streets. Tatham set up a dichotomy between ministers properly educated in "the study of languages, sciences and other necessary parts of learning,"26 which not surprisingly in a University town such as Oxford meant Anglican clergymen, and irresponsible and incompetent Dissenters. This emphasis on the importance of men of quality in the pulpits of the nation is reminiscent of the Bishop of Durham's goal of improving the quality of preachers as the crucial element in his campaign against the reform movement in his diocese.

Heightening the anxieties of Anglicans in Oxford, Tatham lamented the popularity of all forms of Dissent within the town27 and the foolishness nearly all

24Vivian Green, The Commonwealth of Lincoln College: 1427-1977, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 367. 25Tatham, A sermon suitable to the times, 6-7,12. 26lbid., 8. 27lbid., 11. 80 citizens of Oxford had recently shown in ignoring preachers of real "ability" in favour of false prophets.28 The notion of Dissenting sentiment running rampant was crucial enough to Tatham's message that the main contemporary criticism of the sermon was that it exaggerated the size of the Dissenting community in Oxford, which at the time consisted of only two churches.29 The sermon achieved the dual ends of first equating specific local Dissenters with French subversion, then overstating their numbers and influence in Oxford.

Both historians and contemporary observers believed Tatham's forceful rhetoric was responsible for sparking loyalist riot in Oxford directed specifically against the Dissenting community and their churches. Tatham delivered his sermon on successive Sundays from November 18th, to December 2nd, 1792.30 Within days of its first delivery James Hinton, a leader in the Oxford Dissenting church had begun complaining to Tatham that his sermon was inspiring assaults against his congregation and asked the Anglican clergyman to renounce the violence publicly. In a note delivered on November 29th, Hinton, Therefore submits to the candour of Dr. T. whether he might not in a note, annexed to his Sermon, exculpate the Dissenters in Oxford, as well as many others, from the charges of which they are entirely innocent. This is the rather desired, as the lower orders of people here have already begun to make particular application of a general censure.31 Neither Tatham nor anyone else at the University responded to Hinton's note, and the sermon was delivered in Oxford again the next day. Hinton's worries were well founded as the harassment of Dissenters turned to full-scale rioting. Hinton's concerns also reveal important characteristics of the populace in Oxford. Clearly Hinton was aware of tensions between Anglicans and Dissenters within

28lbid., 10. 29James Hinton, A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon, London, 1792, 14. 30Tatham, A sermon suitable to the times, 1 and 11. 31 Hinton, A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon, 5-6. 81 Oxford that were being exacerbated, rather than created, by Tatham. In this light, the outburst of loyalist riot cannot be viewed as a contrived disturbance initiated by Tatham's word from above, but a gradual boiling over of tensions which was merely triggered by the flashpoint of his provocative message. However, once the riots began, the Dissenters and Methodists of Oxford changed their tone and began to see the direct influence of the authorities in the riot. This is not a surprising attitude considering Tatham's obvious approval of the riots, as well as his early refusal to discourage riotous attitudes among the citizens of Oxford before violence broke out. Contemporary observers were quick to note the connection and accused the Oxford clergy of not just indirectly stirring up riotous sentiment, but outright encouraging it against the Dissenting community of the town. Within a month of the riot at least two defences of the Methodists and Dissenters of Oxford were published, laying the entire responsibility for the rioting on Tatham's door-step. One defence, written by Joseph Benson, a leading Methodist and certainly no friend to the cause of reform, blamed Tatham's irresponsible rhetoric for inflaming the spirits of the lower classes. Such is the charitable language in which you have declaimed at four of the Churches in Oxford, and such are the means by which, as I am this moment informed, you have contrived to stir up a mob, against a few poor innocent people, met together in a peaceable manner in a place duly licensed to worship God, and receive the word of Christian instruction and exhortation; a people Sir, as loyal to the King.32 Others echoed Benson's accusations, and sought to "banish from this city, that spirit of contention to which his Sermon has unfortunately given rise."33 In fact, reports of University officials involving themselves in the affair found their way into these published apologies for Dissenters, with virtually no mention of political

32Joseph Benson, A defence of the Methodists, in five letters, addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham, London, 1793, 38. 33Hinton, A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon, 2. 82 views or reform activism playing any role whatsoever in the disturbance. Through your illiberal, abusive and slanderous harangue, a lawless rabble of gownsmen, and others of the baser sort, assembled, obliged the Preacher to leave the pulpit, overthrew the seats in the chapel, and beat and otherwise ill-treated many of the people. Such, Sir, is the blessed fruit of your preaching! Such is your loyalty to your King, to stir up the mob against a people to whom he graciously grants his protection!34 While Tatham's influence over the riots is easier to trace, there has been less discussion among historians about the underlying religious tensions within Oxford that Tatham was playing upon. Anglican-Dissenting tensions in Oxford have not been thoroughly examined. Considering the clear and immediate connection between the provocative stance of a clergyman and an outburst of popular violence, the Oxford disturbances have been underrepresented in the historical scholarship. The sermon and the riot which followed have only been examined by historians whose scope is limited to Oxford itself, or mentioned as a footnote by historians of the Loyalist movement such as Eugene Charlton Black.35 The events of December 1792 appear to challenge E.P. Thompson's conclusion that class distinctions dominated the forum of loyalist riot. Class structures appeared to be of only secondary importance in instigating the loyalist riots, which divided the town vertically along religious lines rather than between social classes. While it can be difficult at times to separate religion from social class in eighteenth century Britain - especially in the university towns where Anglicanism tended to be the religion of the elite, while Methodism and Dissent were favoured by the lower classes - Thompson's emphasis on the class aspects of riots should be accentuated by an acknowledgment of the role of religion. The way in which the rioters specifically targeted all Dissenting

34Benson, A defence of the Methodists, in five letters, addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham, London, 38. 35Eugene Charlton Black, Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 241. 83 churches, rather than directly economic or political targets, suggests that they saw themselves engaged, not only in class struggle or negotiation, but in a battle between religious groups with other concerns of only secondary importance. Perhaps more importantly, Tatham's absence, in any significant degree,36 from the work of a historian of loyalism and the clergy such as Robert Hole is especially remarkable. This commonality of religious and political allegiance across class lines, whether created by, or merely expressed during the riot, thrived in the following months. The sermons, and the subsequent riots, sparked a vigorous campaign of popular loyalty within Oxford. On January 6th an effigy of Thomas Paine was burnt with Oxford magistrates "[conniving] at the tumultuous and somewhat riotous expression of it."37 However, loyalism was not rooted merely in the encouragement of the authorities. Loyalism manifested itself, not just in officially organized or encouraged symbolic actions like effigies or intimidations of Dissenters, but also through the day to day activities of private citizens. In the weeks and months following Tatham's inflammatory sermons, "the loyal flannel" became a staple of dress for much of the population of Oxford.38 Tatham, and the University officials who approved tacitly of the disturbances he encouraged, tapped into and gave a venue for the expression of anti-Dissenting attitudes which were prevalent among the citizenry. The victims of the violence saw the crisis surrounding the Oxford riot as no less crucial to the future of Britain as the rioters. The reaction from Dissenters and Methodists was both passionate and immediate, revealing the simmering tensions between conformists and nonconformists in Oxford, and indeed

36Hole, Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832, 128. (Hole merely mentions Tatham as an outlier from his conception of the fundamental secularism of the clergy in 1792-3) 3fLG. Mitchell, "Politics and Revolution: 1772-1800," in The History of the University of Oxford Vol. V, ed. L.S. Sutherland, L.G. Mitchell, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 185. 38lbid., 185. 84 throughout England. Joseph Benson, prominent in Manchester and Bristol's Methodist communities, defended the Dissenters and Methodists of Oxford immediately and staunchly against the charges of disloyalty leveled against them by Tatham. For Benson, the key to Tatham's argument was the inherent superiority of Anglican loyalty to the Methodist brand. Significantly, Benson embraced Tatham's dichotomy of educated ministers against populist preachers. He mocked the traditional Anglican clergy for its secular nature and bookishness,39 using these traits to explain why the citizenry had abandoned university preachers for the Methodist pulpit.40 Indeed, the rising popularity of nonconformist churches may have been a sore point for Tatham and other University officials as the honourary sermons delivered at Oxford's ceremonial functions had multiplied to such a degree that their quality suffered and attendance was beginning to dwindle.41 Benson did not mince words and placed the blame for the riots against Methodists directly on Tatham's doorstep.42 The exchange between Tatham and Benson serves to illuminate the robust tensions that existed between conformists and nonconformists in Oxford and other communities across England. The threat of French invasion, whether manifested physically or through revolutionary ideas, appears to have coupled with the explosive religious divisions within English society to create a heightened sense of anxiety that was greater than the sum of its parts. It is worth noting that Benson was by no means a nondescript Methodist defending his faith against the repressive acts of conservatism. Benson himself was among the most politically conservative of the Methodist church. In fact, simultaneous to his

39Benson, "A defence of the Methodists, in five letters addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham," 21-22. 40lbid., 37-38. 41R. Greaves, "Religion in the University 1715-1800," in The History of the University of Oxford Vol. IV, ed. L.S. Sutherland, L.G. Mitchell, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 417-418. 42Benson, "A defence of the Methodists, in five letters addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham," 38. 85 defence of the Oxford Methodists, Benson was campaigning for a formal declaration of loyalty to the Crown by all Methodists. The death of Wesley had left the leadership and direction of the Methodist church uncertain, and Benson was among the most vocal members who demanded it take a conservative route. Under such circumstances, Benson's outraged defence of his Oxford compatriots was not, as might be imagined, a war of words between conservative and reformist individuals, with religion acting merely as the conduit for their political disagreement. Instead, Tatham and Benson, with quite similar political allegiances, dealt primarily with issues of denominational tension. The legacy of the campaign for the repeal of the Test Acts from 1787- 1790 loomed over the dealings between Anglicans and Dissenters or Methodists during 1792-3, and at times was just as influential as the growing threat of French radicalism. Benson's defences, and others such as that by James Hinton, were marked by criticisms of the University as an institution, criticisms belying a long tradition of resentment between the institutionally educated Anglicans and independent Dissenters. Hinton turned Tatham's generalizations against him, asking "if a whole community were to participate in the guilt of a disaffected individual, would the University itself be innocent?"43 Benson similarly attacked the University and the Anglican element in Oxford for being unable to attract sizable congregations, despite all their eloquence and learning.44 While the Oxford riot itself was about the perceived loyalty, or more precisely disloyalty, of certain citizens in the town, sectarian religious rivalries and the clash between institutional, academic Anglicanism and the more independent Dissenting preachers also played a crucial role. The controversy stirred up by Tatham was still working its way through the

43Hinton, A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon, 18. 44Benson, A Defence of Methodists, in five letters addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham, 37-38. 86 University the following spring. In a sermon to the University as a whole, Ralph Churton decried "the grosser corruptions of public life, the turbulent passions"45 and the undue diffusion of "social conversation" within the walls of the University. Churton also warned the young students of Oxford against "a querulous censorious disposition."46 The warning may well have been more relevant had it been delivered to the students of Cambridge. Simultaneous to Churton's sermon, events in Cambridge, building since the winter, were coming to a head. This time a Fellow of the University, extremely popular among the student body, acted as a force for reform opening the way for new methods of conservative counterattack. Upon first glance, events in Cambridge appeared to mirror those in Oxford as the winter of 1792-3 saw violent demonstrations of loyalty to the constitution, following provocative actions by figures of authority. The Loyalist Association movement took little time to reach Cambridge. By December of 1792 an alliance of town and University officials had founded a local Association.47 Almost immediately this coalition of "town and gown" took action within the community. Within the month a violent mob of townspeople attacked reformers and members of the Cambridge Society for Constitutional Information, singling out the house of Robert Robinson, leader of the local reform movement.48 While some University fellows sought to disperse the riot and maintain order, a significant number of the University administration openly encouraged the rioters and publicly deemed it a "laudable" action.49 Whether the approval of town or University authorities was active, or merely tacit, the local populace took to rioting enthusiastically. For

45Ralph Curton, A sermon preached before the University of Oxford, Oxford, 1793, 14. 46lbid., 16. 47Peter Searby, A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. Ill, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 416. 48lbid.,416. 49lbid.,416. 87 many citizens of Cambridge it seemed "every evening" of December had its share of violent disturbances.50 Commentators were quick to note that riot immediately followed the first meeting of the local Loyalist Association. Accusations of "manipulated panic" were issued almost immediately,51 and have been largely accepted by historians ever since. Although this interpretation certainly holds an element of truth, it tells but a portion of the story and fosters a limited understanding of the situation in Cambridge. As in Oxford, tensions between reformers and conservatives, and nonconformists, in this case Unitarians, and Anglicans had been obvious since the spring. Particularly since the Priestley Riots in Birmingham in July, 1791, Unitarians had been viewed as among the most dangerous of Dissenters throughout England.52 Moreover, in Cambridge this general trend was strengthened by the active Unitarian community on campus. In May, Cambridge Unitarians had reacted to Edmund Burke's stance against their faith and burned him in effigy.53 Even without such public displays of dissent from conservatism, the extremely visible and vocal population of Unitarians in Cambridge did not pass unnoticed by the town's citizens. Considering the short distance between Unitarianism and atheism in the public mind, not to mention the inherent connection to France, an explanation of loyalist riot relying exclusively upon the actions of the Loyalist Association appears simplistic. More likely is that the meeting of several authority figures in the form of a Loyalist Association organized and legitimized anti-reform and anti-Unitarian sentiment already

50Frida Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1971), 116. 51Lucyle Werkmesiter, A Newspaper History of England 1792-1793. (Lincoln, University of Nebraska, 1967), 151. 52David L. Wykes, "Joseph Priestley, Minister and Teacher," in Joseph Priestley, Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian ed. Isabel Rivers and David L. Wykes, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 44. 53Werkmesiter, A Newspaper History of England 1792-1793, 123. 88 present in the community at large. However, perhaps the most informative aspect of the Cambridge disturbances was not the riots themselves, but the influence they wielded over the activities of Cambridge reformers and clergymen over the subsequent months. Once again, religious differences were to play a central role. Central to these aftershocks was William Frend, popular fellow of Jesus College and unabashed Unitarian and reformer. Within the context of tacitly approved riot and intimidation, Frend published Peace and Union, a controversial pamphlet purporting to be an appeal for moderation directed at both sides of the constitutional debate. Frend's pamphlet, and the repressive reaction it engendered from the clerical university authorities, has been used by historians as an example of the eagerness with which clergymen aided the secular state by blindly attacking its enemies. However, in reality Frend's pamphlet proved to be much more provocative than he claimed, particularly in its attacks on the Anglican Church, which were far more prominent in Frend's pamphlet than historians have thus far allowed. Similarly, despite historians' claims to the contrary,54 the clerical reaction, which will be discussed later in the chapter, was marked by its religious, rather than political, dimension.

While there were also whispers of a traitorous plot emanating from certain members of the University faculty to open the path for a French invasion,55 undoubtedly directed at Frend, they had almost as strong religious connotations as political. Indeed, the very reason the rumours worked so effectively against Frend specifically was his position as the most prominent Unitarian in Cambridge. The close association in many British minds between Unitarianism

54Most notably Frida Knight, Frend's biographer. Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 121-123. 55Arthur Grey and Frederick Brittain, Jesus College Cambridge, (London: Heinemann, 1979), 124. 89 and the troubling atheism which seemed to be driving the revolution in France allowed religious sentiment to connect the dots of the seemingly political rumours. Frend was both an active member of the Society for Constitutional Information as well as a veteran of the campaign to repeal the Test Acts two years previous.56 Considering this backdrop, what happened next appears to have been almost inevitable. Frend was brought to trial at a University-convened court and expelled from Cambridge for his dangerous behaviour and seditious publication.

On February 22nd, 1793, almost immediately following Frend's publication of Peace and Union, itself following on the heels of multiple outbreaks of public violence in Cambridge, five Fellows of Jesus College protested to the Vice- Chancellor of the University about the inflammatory nature of the pamphlet.57 However, it took until late April for any action to be taken, and it was only on May 3rd that Frend was brought to trial to effect his banishment from the University for his seditious writing.58 A series of accusations formed the premise of the trial, mostly dealing with Frend's anti-clericalism in his attacks on the Anglican liturgy, its supposed idolatry and the existence of ecclesiastic tithes.59 A collection of at least twenty-seven college officials had orchestrated the trial, but one man took the leading role and presided over the court as judge - Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, Isaac Milner. As an ordained minister and frequent lecturer, Milner was prominent in both the educational and religious leadership of the university.

Unlike Tatham, Milner was a gregarious individual and a well-respected professor on campus. His lively scientific lectures attracted the attention and

56Searby, A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. Ill, 414-415. 57Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 128. 58Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 6. 59lbi<±, 10. 90 admiration of many students. Similarly, while Tatham made no effort to hide his contempt for Methodism popular within Lincoln College, Milner was more in tune with Cambridge's popular theological leanings which tended towards evangelicalism. As Vice-Chancellor, he was the leading force of evangelicalism in the University.60 Milner also held important connections outside of Cambridge. Most crucial of these links was his relationship with William Wilberforce. Milner himself was responsible for Wilberforce's conversion to the evangelical movement61 and looked to the prominent politician for patronage throughout his career.62

However despite Milner's comparative popularity, the court he threw together to try Frend was met with extreme public interest, much of it sympathetic to Frend. The crowds that packed themselves into the audience at the trial- house were so large that early in the proceedings a change of venue was required to accommodate their numbers.63 The majority of the crowds were pro- Frend, and cheered on his sarcastic contempt for the legitimacy and competence of the prosecution and the court itself.64 However, the degree to which Frend enjoyed the sympathies of the civic population may be overstated in the historical scholarship surrounding the trial. The vocal support expressed by many of the members of the audience throughout the trial does not necessarily correspond with the sentiments of the majority of the citizens of Cambridge, as has been claimed by some historians.65 The crowds viewing the trial were primarily made up of young undergraduate students, more likely to feel sympathy for the popular

60V.H.H. Green, Religion at Oxford and Cambridge, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964), 239. 61777e Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) vol. 38, 310-313. 62Milner secured the deanery of Carlisle through Wilbeforce's influence. Green, Religion at Oxford and Cambridge, 240. 63Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 6. 64Searby, A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. Ill, 418. 65Knight, Univeristy Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 141. 91 and charismatic Frend and more likely to hold radical political opinions than the average citizen of Cambridge. This possibility has not seriously been addressed by historians of the trial, who draw their information either from Frend's own account of the trial, or the university memoirs of Frend's associates.66 The fact that the trial was a target for open mockery by some, does not disprove the notion that the citizens of Cambridge as a whole held any kind of sympathy for conservative religious or political ideals has not been adequately established.

As the trial progressed the crucial decision of the case seemed to be, not whether Frend had broken an obscure statute of 1603 involving the ability of university fellows to use their position to publish seditious pamphlets, but whether the court itself was legitimate. Frend interrupted the progress of the proceedings constantly to point out a continual string of technical violations of his rights and question the legal merits of the court itself.67 Additionally, Frend's subsequent printed material did not concentrate on proving his innocence, but rather on establishing the fundamental illegitimacy of the court. The trial's significance reached beyond the implications it held for Frend, or even Cambridge as a whole, to the precedents it established for the larger conservative movement. In fact, the trial can be read as a test case for the effectiveness of the new legal strategy to uproot radicalism. Even more significant is the trial's status as a referendum on the Church of England's value as an instrument of anti-radicalism in British society. The court's defence of the Anglican liturgy is a component of the trial that has yet to be explored deeply by historians who, for various reasons, have de-emphasized the centrality of anti-clericalism to both Frend's pamphlet and the conservative reaction to it.

0Blbid., 28. 67Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 61 and 81. 92 Traditionally, Frend's trial has been viewed in much the same way Hole understands the sermons of the same period - distinctively secular in nature, and more about politics than religion. An instructive passage from the proceedings of the trial demonstrates the curious role of Frend's economic analysis in the court. In the second edition of Peace and Union Frend attached an appendix relating the destructive effects war with France would have on the domestic economy, particularly the spinning industry.68 The prosecutors latched onto this claim and brought in their own expert on economics, Dr. Watson, to challenge the accuracy of Frend's statements. Mr. Frend called this evening on Mr. Audley, who has given him a printed paper just made for Cambridgeshire, and Parts of Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Huntingdonshire, and shewn him the Letters from Yorkshire and other Parts, informing him of the Progress in the lowering of the Value of Spinning. At a Meeting, this week, in Suffolk, Spinning was lowered again 2d. per pound, from 9d. to 7d...Mr. Watson still persists in declaring that the Price of Spinning, which was one week at a shilling, and reduced, according to Mr. Frend's account, over a large district, to 9d. The week after, was not in this manner reduced.69

In a trial intended to stamp out dangerous religious and political ideas, such lengthy efforts to clarify the varying price of spun material in an assortment of counties across England stand out as inexplicable diversions. Frend himself,70 and through him modern historians,71 have seen this as evidence that Frend's anti-war stance instigated the trial against him. Under this interpretation, the college heads of Cambridge felt it necessary to defend the reactionary foreign policy of the British state and discredit any challenge to the ongoing war with France. The result is, once again, a vision of the eighteenth- century clergy as essentially irreligious and sycophantic to the secular government whose foreign policy was being criticized.

68William Frend, Peace and union, (Second Edition), Cambridge, 1793, 66. 69Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 36. 70lbid., 32-34. 71Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 121-126. 93 However, Frend had a personal interest in painting the clergy in such a way. In focusing on his anti-war statements, Frend was able to portray himself as a victim of arbitrarily administered authoritarian repression rather than a controversialist who had published a provocative pamphlet at a time of great social anxiety and stress. In his efforts to clear his name, and demonstrate the illegitimacy of the court that convicted him, Frend published the proceedings of the trial. Unsurprisingly, Frend's account is biased. Transcripts of the actual trial are interposed with Frend's own scathing commentary. Frida Knight, the only historian to examine Frend's case in depth, has accepted Frend's own interpretation of events sharing Frend's derisive tone and attitude towards Milner and the other authorities. Knight's description of Isaac Milner, "a curious combination of ambition and laziness,"72 is derived entirely from Frend's account and ignores Milner's active evangelicalism and prodigious campus life. The result is that this interpretation, with its inherent de-emphasis of Frend's provocative attacks on the Church of England, is ultimately unconvincing. Even if one can ignore the tensions between Unitarians and Anglicans which had been a visible part of community life in Cambridge for at least a year before Frend's trial and take his pamphlet out of context, his criticisms of the Anglican liturgy73 and corruption of its clergy make it impossible to remove theology from the controversy. Frend's own modest claim that his pamphlet noted that "some changes in the religious establishment were desired"74 stands as a remarkable understatement. Frend even went to the provocative length of equating the Church of England with Catholicism. We have seen in the church of Rome, with what ease the best system of religion and morals may be perverted to the most detestable purposes, but forget that the same leaven ferments in

72lbid., 109. 73Frend, Peace and union (Second Edition), 40-42. 74Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 120. 94 the bodies glorying in a separation from her.75 The comparison formed one of the main disputes of the trial. Frend contended dubiously that he had made no such comparison, while the main prosecutor, Dr. Kipling, whose clumsy rhetoric was normally not a match for the eloquent Frend, hounded the defendant effectively on the issue of Catholic Anglicanism.76

The amount of time Frend devoted to addressing the claims that he was anti-clerical indicate the major focus of the trial.77 A full two-thirds of Frend's concluding remarks form a direct response to accusations that his pamphlet charged the Church of England with having an impure liturgy, an invented hierarchy of church officials and participating in idolatry. Similarly Frend's claim that his foray into criticizing the Church of England was merely a "digression" from his main points is highly dubious.78 This "digression" took up 25 of the 49 pages of the pamphlet. Finally, Frend turned to the questionable claim that he was referring to the Catholic Church and not the Church of England in the pamphlet. Such a claim was correctly perceived by the court as unlikely, since a call for the Catholic Church to reform itself would not have been a particularly effective method to change affairs in England, the stated goal of the pamphlet.79

Knight's assertion that Frend's anticlericalism played little or no role in the controversy is untenable.80 In fact, of the eight charges brought against Frend, five were directly related to his criticisms of Anglican theology.81 If the religious concerns of the University clergy are given a more prominent position in interpreting the Frend trial, then Isaac Milner's address to the youth of the

75Frend, Peace and union, St. Ives, 1793, 38-39. 76Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 46-47. 77lbid„ 63-70. 78Frend, Peace and union (Second Edition), 41. 79lbid., 70. 80Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, 126. 81Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 9-12. 95 University at the conclusion of the trial takes on a different meaning. Rather than attempting to dissuade the young students of Cambridge from embracing republicanism, Milner was attempting to guard against what he saw as an assault on the Church of England by fashionable trends in theology. Once again, the image of the Church of England under assault was used to its full effect. Milner's claim of the trial itself, "It is a cause" of great importance. A bold and indecent attack has been made upon the religious institutions of the country,"82 reveals the danger many clergy felt about the growing popularity of Unitarianism on campus. Indeed, Frend made it easy for men like Milner to envision a structured campaign against the Anglican Church. Frend appended a message to parliament in a second edition of his account of the trial, calling directly upon legislators to remove the Church of England from a position of prominence in the universities. The crux of Frend's public campaign can be gleaned from his comments after his trial: "The first thing, therefore, in the university, to which I would call your attention, is the folly of making its members subscribe to a religious creed."83 Milner's conclusion to the trial served as a warning against the kind of campaign Frend was to set out upon after the trial. As popular as Frend was among the youth of the university, Milner saw a danger of the destruction of the Anglican presence at Cambridge from within. He is known to have objections to the established Doctrines of the Church of England, and if he be permitted thus to defame with impunity the solemn institutions of our Religion, and the public functions of the Clergy, I am sure that great use will be made of such forbearance and lenity: our Under-graduates will soon be taught to insult the doctrines and ceremonies of the Church to which they belong, they will believe them to be mere political contrivances.84 Even before the trial ended, Milner anticipated Frend's campaign to paint the

"Ibid., 77. 83William Frend, An account of the proceedings at the Univeristy of Cambridge against William Frend, Cambridge, 1793, v. 84Frend, The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, 78. 96 preceding events as repressive politics rather than religious dispute. Milner also expressed the fear that the events that had led to the trial threatened the Anglican purity of the university. Although rarely as clear and overt as in Oxford, religious sentiment and the threat of political chaos were never absent from scenes of loyalist riot, or other popular expressions of loyal sentiment. Any interpretation of loyalist riot in the 1790s must, at the very least, take into account a degree of conservative sentiment among the masses. Therefore, the general conclusions of Thompson and Rude must be qualified by the results of regional research carried out by historians such as Linda Colley and Alan Booth. Colley, especially, has established the wide range of loyalist sentiment throughout Britain, leaving Thompson's generalizations about the lower orders of society vulnerable. What we can conclude is that in certain specific regions and towns the crowd willingly expressed their loyalism through violence. Rude's original supposition that socio-economic stress was at the root of Church and King riots stands up well to examination, but must be supplemented by other influences, such as the propaganda of the Church, as described by Hole, and qualified by Booth's emphasis on political and religious factors. The crucial triggers for loyalist riot appear to have been the visibility of Dissenters with a particular attachment to France, as well as a vocal clergy, or other local conservative element.

As a result, Edward Tatham stands out less as an anomaly and more as a figure representative of the attitudes and tactics shared by a larger group of clergymen, who was simply the most direct and visible cause of loyalist riot in his region. Due to pre-existing social and economic tensions, or the actions of other, non-clerical, conservative leaders, the riots in other parts of Britain are less obviously tied to clergymen. However, this should not negate any similarities between Tatham and other churchmen, nor should it devalue the influence other 97 clergymen had over their congregations. When Tatham's A sermon suitable to the times is taken out of the context of the Oxford riots and compared to the sermons delivered by his colleagues, such as Thomas Bancroft,85 W. Mackenzie86 or Cornelius Bayley,87 the fiery Oxford preacher does not appear particularly remarkable or eccentric.

Not only were these religious concerns limited to the pulpit. Clerical actions, such as those taken by the University leaders at Cambridge, demonstrate a strong religious sentiment. While Frend was a devoted member of the reform movement, it was apparently his Unitarian faith that drew the most criticism from church leaders during the trial. As well, the greatest fear of Milner and his colleagues was the possibility of the popularity of Unitarianism spreading among the younger students at Cambridge. The threat of competition from nonconformist faiths seemed to fuel much of the activity, not just of conservative clergymen, but of the populace as a whole. The visible Unitarian community in the town, coupled with Frend's popularity among the young students in the University, signaled a challenge to the authority of the Anglican Church, and men like Isaac Milner, in Cambridge. In the case of Oxford, the citizenry were remarkably quick to react to Tatham's message and began singling out Dissenters for retributive attacks before the fiery clergyman had even completed his round of sermons. The lack of convincing required to bring Oxford's citizens into the streets against nonconformists suggests that religious tensions were already a significant priority for many of them.

Thomas Bancroft, A sermon preached at the Cathedral church, in Chester, Manchester 1793. 86W. Mackenzie, A sermon applicable to the present times, Cambridge, 1793. 87Cornelius Bayley, Religion and loyalty inseparable, Manchester, 1792. CONCLUSION

While any student of either eighteenth century history, or its literature, is familiar with the insipid Mr. Collins described at the outset of this thesis, clergymen of his ilk are remarkably absent from the sources explored in this research. One can hardly imagine Austen's Mr. Collins summoning up fire and brimstone from the pulpit as Edward Tatham did in Oxford, nor steadfastly standing behind his rhetoric in the face of the ongoing rioting it caused. Even the ability of dozens of other preachers throughout England to link the reformist movement to the over-arching ambition of the Dissenting community coherently, personified in the tyrannical Cromwell, seems beyond the unimaginative Collins. Neither does he seem capable of the leadership and independence displayed by Henry Zouch in founding and chairing energetically a Loyalist Association committee requiring the approval and adherence of community elites. Throughout the chapters of this thesis a large group of diverse clergymen, both in terms of geography, church hierarchy and age, have demonstrated the falsity of the stereotype of the sycophantic Anglican clergyman and certainly revealed the need for a re-examination of both clergymen and their place in late eighteenth century political and social history.

Discussions of Anglican clergymen have far too often been subsumed into the larger narrative of the battle between conservatism and radicalism in the late eighteenth century. As such the sources they produced, such as sermons, have mostly been employed by historians on both sides of the debate to either highlight the cynical, political and social self-interest of the dominant elite, or as sources to demonstrate the popularity of conservatism among the masses. These historical interpretations share a distinctly forward-looking perspective, as they anticipate, and seek to explain, the outcome of the revolutionary period in Britain. However, a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the social 98 99 atmosphere of the 1790s may be gained by employing a retrospective analysis of events. Understandably, eighteenth century clergymen, and indeed lay citizens, looked to the past to explain contemporary events, rather than interpreting them as precursors to future political and social changes. This process serves to emphasis the deeply religious manner in which many in Britain interpreted the events going on around them.

It is easy, in retrospect, to see the political and social crisis brought on by the French Revolution as something novel in Western history. Certainly historians have generally seen 1789 and the subsequent events of the Revolution as the dividing point between the ancien regime eighteenth century and the modern nineteenth. However, the clergyman of 1792-3, among other individuals, may not have been as cognizant of the fundamental shifts in society and politics. In fact, what is remarkable about clerical reactions to the French Revolution in 1792-3 is the historical continuity churchmen saw in the upheaval. Men from diverse areas such as Henry Zouch in Wakefield, Bishop Barrington in Durham and Richard Bullock in London1 all pointed to the campaign for reform as a means to a larger, and more traditional end - the supremacy of the nonconformists' faiths. Not only did Anglican churchmen make extensive use of religious rhetoric in aid of conservatism but, they appear to have assumed that religious tensions were the driving force behind the crisis. Disturbances marked by tensions between Anglicans and Dissenters, such as those in Oxford or Cambridge, suggest that clergymen were not entirely alone in this respect.

In much the same way that historians like E.P. Thompson have questioned the presence of genuine popular loyalty in loyalist riots, Hole's research has questioned the presence of religious arguments in the sermons of

Richard Bullock, Two Sermons Preached at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, London, 1793, 19- 24. 100 clergymen in the early 1790s. Rather than viewing figures such as Edward Tatham or the Bishop of Durham as eccentric outliers, or precursors of the later growth of evangelicalism, as Hole does, it is more fruitful to incorporate these men into the contemporary events surrounding them. The two men actually share much in common: their mistrust of independent preachers, the value they placed on education, and the dangers posed by an irresponsibly led citizenry. Indeed, these similarities are present in any number of their colleagues throughout 1792-3.

It does a disservice to the late eighteenth century clergy to dismiss the powerful religious sentiment of these preachers by treating them as singular anomalies, or a few remarkable churchmen, a few years ahead of their time. Instead, this religious element can be explained more accurately as the adaptations and reactions of a group of men acting under the stresses of an explosive and ever-shifting domestic and foreign crisis. While Hole is correct - many clergymen quickly understood the value of secular arguments in the campaign to convince the masses of the merits of the status quo - he is less willing to acknowledge that many of the same churchmen also recognized the value of religious arguments in the campaign to foster a more vigorously anti- Dissenting and anti-radical attitude among in the citizens of Britain. Indeed, Anglican clergymen not only saw religious arguments as useful. Many of them saw such arguments as absolutely necessary considering the perceived centrality of religion to the constitutional crisis.

For Anglican clergymen, and perhaps a significant segment of the British population, the decision before them in the wake of the French Revolution was as much Anglicanism or Dissent, religious conformity or individual faith, as it was conservatism or political liberty. Clearly, excluding political considerations 101 entirely from the crisis of the 1790s would not be tenable. Indeed, it is virtually impossible in the eighteenth century to separate political, religious and social influences over society. However, it is hoped this research will counterbalance the emphasis historians have placed on the political dimension of events in the 1790s. To focus on the secular arguments put forward by clergymen, and the reaction to them by radical groups or the theoretical debates between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke tells only a portion of the story and limits our understanding of the varied social tensions which drove the crisis of the 1790s. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Agutter, William. Christian politics; or the origin of power, and the grounds of subordination. London, 1792.

Allen, Bennet to John Reeves, December 28th, 1792. British Library MSS ADD 16923, Vol. 5.

Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers. Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levelers - at a meeting of gentlemen at the Crown and Anchor Tavern. London, 1792.

Association for preserving liberty and property against Republicans and Levellers. Association papers. Part I. Publications printed by special order of the Society for preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans. London, 1793.

Bancroft, Thomas. A sermon preached at the Cathedral church, in Chester. Manchester, 1793.

Bancroft, Thomas. The danger of political innovation and the evils of anarchy. Chester, 1792.

Barrington, Shute - Bishop of London. Letters between the Right Rev. Father in God, Shute by divine providence, Lord Bishop of Durham...and Percival Stockdale. London, 1792.

Bayley, Cornelius. Religion and loyalty inseparable, Manchester, 1792.

Benson, Joseph. A defence of the Methodists, in five letters addressed to the Rev. Dr. Tatham. London, 1793.

Booker, Luke. A sermon preached in the parish church of St. Thomas and an address to the common people & c. on the subject of riots. Dudley, 1793.

Bowles, John. Circulated by the East Kent and Canterbury Association: A Protest Against T. Paine's "Rights of Man." Canterbury, 1793.

Broke, M.B. to John Reeves, December 2nd, 1792. British Library, MSS ADD 16920, vol. 2.

Bullock, Richard. Two sermons preached at St. Paul's, Covent-Garden. London, 1793.

Burnaby, Andrew. A sermon preached at Greenwich Church. London, 1793.

102 103 Butt, George. A sermon upon His Majesty's Proclamation. Kidderminster, 1792.

Butt, George. A sermon preached in Bewdley Chapel. Kidderminster, 1792.

Church of England. Diocese of Durham. A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Durham. Bath, 1792.

Church of England. Diocese of Durham. Appendix to a charge, delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Durham. London, 1794.

Constitutional Reformer. Remarks, addressed to the Rev. Charles Weston, chairman of a committee of the Durham County and City Association. Durham, 1793.

Curton, Ralph. A sermon preached before the University of Oxford. Oxford, 1793.

De Coetlogon, Charles Edward. The peculiar advantages of the English nation: celebrated in a sermon. London, 1792.

De Coetlogon, Charles Edward. Reflections, moral, and political, on the murder of Louis the Sixteenth. London, 1793.

Drummond, Edward Auriol Hay. A steady attachment to the Christian faith the particular duty of its established ministers. Newcastle upon Tyne, 1792.

Fawcett, James. A sermon preached before the University of Cambridge. Cambridge, 1793.

Fitzwilliam, Wentworth to Henry Zouch, Sept. 1, 1791. Carlisle Records Office MSS D LONS L1 /1 12.

Frend, William. An account of the proceedings at the Univeristy of Cambridge against William Frend. Cambridge, 1793.

Frend, William. Peace and Union. St. Ives, 1793.

Frend, William. Peace and Union, (Second Edition). Cambridge, 1793.

Frend, William. The trial of William Frend M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge. Cambridge, 1793.

Friends to the King and Constitution (Wakefield, England). That the loyal and spirited resistance of... Wakefield, 1794.

Hawker, Robert. The invaluable blessings of our religious and civil government. Plymouth, 1793. 104 Hawkins, John to John Reeves, November 29th, 1792. British Library MSS ADD 16919, vol. 1.

Hayes, Samuel. A sermon preached before the burgesses of Westminster. London, 1792.

Hayes, Samuel. A sermon preached in St. Margaret's Church. London, 1793.

Hinton, James. A vindication of the Dissenters in Oxford, addressed to the inhabitants; in reply to Dr. Tatham's sermon. London, 1792.

Jones, John. Circulated by the East Kent and Canterbury Association: The reason of man, with 2trictures on Paine's Rights of Man. Canterbury, 1793.

Jones, William. One penny-worth of truth, from Thomas Bull to his brother John. London, 1792.

Jones, William. A Letter to John Bull, Esq. from his second cousin Thomas Bull. London, 1793.

Kentish register, the, and monthly miscellany. From August to December, 1793. Volume I, Canterbury, 1793.

Lambert, John. Fear God, honour the King, Banbury, 1792.

Mackenzie, W. A sermon applicable to the present times. Cambridge, 1793.

Rennell, Thomas. The connexion of the duties of loving the brotherhood, fearing God, and honoring the King. Winton, 1793.

Stedman, Thomas. A sermon preached at St. Chad's church in Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury, 1793.

Stern, Thomas, Rev. to John Reeves, Dec. 2, 1792. British Library, MSS ADD 16920, vol. 2.

Stockdale, Percival. Observations on the writings and conduct of our present political and religious reformers, London, 1792.

Stringer, J.H. - Secretary of the East Kent and Canterbury Association to John Reeves. British Library, MSS ADD 16924, vol. 6.

Symons, Jelinger. The ends and advantages of an established ministry. London, 1792.

Tatham, Edward. A sermon suitable to the times. London, 1792. 105 Taylor, John to John Reeves, March 2nd, 1793. British Library MSS ADD 16925, vol. 7.

Walker, Thomas. A review of some of the political events which have occurred in Manchester. London, 1794.

Weston, Charles. A sermon preached at the Cathedral church of Durham. Durham, 1793.

Wheat, Mr. to Henry Zouch, Feb 27th, 1792. Carlisle Records Office MSS D LONS L1 /1 12.

Secondary Sources

Albers, Jan. "'Papist traitors' and 'Presbyterian rogues': religious identities in eighteenth century Lancashire" in The Church of England c. 1689 - c. 1833: from Toleration to Tractarianism, ed. Josh Walsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 pp 317-333.

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.

Black, Eugene Charlton. Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization 1769-1793. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Booth, Alan. "Popular Loyalism and Public Violence in the North-west of England 1790-1800." Social History. Vol. 8, No. 3, 1983. pp 295-313.

Christie, Ian. "Conservatism and Stability in British Society." in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 169-187..

Colley, Linda. "The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation 1760-1820." Past and Present. No. 102, Feb. 1984. pp 94-129.

Dickinson, H.T. "Popular Conservatism and Militant Loyalism 1789-1815." in Britain and the French Revolution 1789-1815 ed. H.T. Dickinson. New York: St. Martins Press, 1989. pp. 103-125.

Dickinson, H.T. British Radicalism and the French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

Dinwiddy, John. "Interpretations of Anti-Jacobinism." in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 38-49.

Duffy, Michael. "William Pitt and the Origins of the Loyalist Association 106 Movement of 1792." Historical Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4. 1996. pp. 943- 962.

Eastwood, David. "Patriotism and the English State in the 1790s." In The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 146-168.

Emsley, Clive. "The London 'Insurrection' of December 1792: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?" The Journal of British Studies. Vol. 17, No. 2 Spring, 1978. pp. 66-86.

Emsley, Clive. Britain and the French Revolution. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2000.

Gibson, William. The Achievement of the Anglican Church 1689-1800: The Confessional State in Eighteenth Century England. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.

Gilmartin, Kevin. "In the Theater of Counterrevolution: Loyalist Association and Conservative Opinion in the 1790s." The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 41, No. July 2002. Pp. 291-328.

Ginter, Donald E. "The Loyalist Association Movement of 1792-93 and British Public Opinion." The Historical Journal. 1966, Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 179-190.

Greaves, R. "Religion in the University 1715-1800." in The History of the University of Oxford Vol. IV, ed. L.S. Sutherland, L.G. Mitchell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. pp. 401-424.

Green, Vivian. Religion at Oxford and Cambridge. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964.

Green, Vivian. The Commonwealth of Lincoln College: 1427-1977. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Grey, Arthur and Frederick Brittain. Jesus College Cambridge. London: Heinemann, 1979.

Hole, Robert. "English Sermons and Tracts as Media of Debate on the French Revolution 1789-1799." in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 18-37.

Hole, Robert. "British Counter-Revolutionary Popular Propaganda in the 1790s." in Britain and Revolutionary France: Conflict, Subversion and Propaganda, ed. Colin James. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1983. pp. 53- 69. 107 Hole, Robert. Pulpits, Politics and Public Order in England 1760-1832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.

Knight, Frida. The Strange Case of Thomas Walker. London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., 1957.

Knight, Frida. University Rebel: The Life of William Frend 1757-1841. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1971.

Mather, F.C. High Church Prophet: Samuel Horsley 1733-1806, and the Caroline Tradition in the Later Georgian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Matthew, H.C.G. and Brian Harrison. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Mitchell, Austin. "The Association Movement of 1792-3" The Historical Journal. Vol. 4 No. 1, 1961. pp. 56-77.

Mitchell, L.G. "Politics and Revolution: 1772-1800." in The History of the University of Oxford Vol. V. ed. L.S. Sutherland, L.G. Mitchell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. pp. 163-190.

Philp, Mark. "Introduction" in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 1-17.

Rogers, Nicholas. Crowds, Culture and Politics in Georgian Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Rude, George. The Crowd in History. London: Serif, 2005.

Searby, Peter. A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Thompson, E.P. Customs in Common. New York: The New Press, 1993.

Walsh, John and Stephen Taylor. "Introduction: The Church and Anglicanism in the 'long' eighteenth century," in The Church of England c. 1689 - c. 1833: from Toleration to Tractarianism, ed. Josh Walsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. pp 1-66.

Ward, W.R. Religion and Society in England: 1790-1850. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1972.

Wells, Roger. "English Society and Revolutionary Politics in the 1790s: The 108 Case for Insurrection," in The French Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Mark Philp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp. 188-226.

Werkmesiter, Lucyle. A Newspaper History of England 1792-1793. Lincoln, University of Nebraska, 1967.

Wilson, Ben. Decency and Disorder. London: Faber & Faber, 2007.

Wykes, David L. "Joseph Priestley, Minister and Teacher," in Joseph Priestley, Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian ed. Isabel Rivers and David L. Wykes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp 20-48.