Does John Wilkes deserve to be considered a key contributor to the liberal cause in eighteenth century Britain?
John Wilkes died in December 1797, having, as George Rudé puts it ‘long lived in the odour and sanctity of the new Toryism’.[1] By 1783 he had largely abandoned the radical cause to its own devices and the radical movement in Britain had all but forgotten about him. Yet even today Wilkes is remembered as ‘a friend to liberty’, and revered for his contribution to the development of British society. In November 2004 Lord Justice Judge, in a speech at the Law for Journalists Conference London, referred to the publication of the first North Briton as the beginning of an independent press:
This is what I then said. “I believe in an independent press”. That is fundamental and remains my starting and finishing point. I said then, and I repeat, “For me, the clarion call is the first sentence of the first copy of the North Briton, published in 1762, by John Wilkes… In that address I wondered whether there was any memorial plaque to John Wilkes in say the Press Complaints Commission, or the huge buildings which house our national newspapers. I wondered whether there was any monument to him in St Brides. I said that I thought that there should be. The first publication of the North Briton was a historic moment. And such moments should be marked.
The historiography of John Wilkes usually questions his sincerity, his personal commitment to the cause of liberty, or advances the notion that he was either a patriot or a demagogue - but on the whole it is taken as read that his actions were crucial to the cause of liberty and had a considerable impact on the nature of British politics. This essay will discuss first how vital the character of John Wilkes was to the 18th century liberal movement and whether he deserves to be thought of as an instigator of the movement, second the change in the nature of British politics during the period 1750-1797 and how much of that should be attributed to Wilkes (whilst considering alternative factors), and finally will examine those occasions on which Wilkes effectively impeded the progress of liberty or deserted the cause; which in turn requires some reflection on the sincerity of his commitment and his personal motivation.
Could there have been a movement of the Wilkite sort without the participation of Wilkes? The conditions of the time were certainly conducive to it. By the mid-eighteenth century Britain was ripe for a major political reform movement. Businessmen were inclined to vigorously agree with William Beckford when he said: ‘… and as to your nobility, about 200 men of quality, what are they to be the body of the nation? Why, sir, they are subalterns… They receive more from the public than they pay to it.’ As creators of wealth, many men of commerce considered the aristocracy as parasites.[2] Despite the fact that they made a substantial economic and cultural contribution to society that should have entitled them to respect and recognition, merchants, tradesmen, shopkeepers and professionals were far from adequately represented in the House of Commons. Government was seldom concerned with their interests during the reign of George III. Many merchants were unhappy with the conclusion of a war they had largely paid for on what they saw as unfavourable terms; the loss of Guadeloupe and its sugar plantations was particularly frustrating to them.[3] It was off the back of this event that Wilkes’s North Briton was eagerly received.
However, these men of enterprise were increasing in number and growing in influence. Examples of parliamentary lobbying are provided by Rogers; he mentions large scale petitioning by tanners against leather duties from 1697 to 1699 and by shopkeepers against Pitt’s retail tax in the 1780s, eventually bringing about a repeal of the act.[4] It seems probable that, just as elsewhere in Europe, the ‘middling sort’ would have organised in defence of their interests and liberties, perhaps in a more extreme fashion than the Wilkites. Especially considering many of the ideals Wilkes came to be associated with were not original: Beckford in 1761 spoke against the disproportionate influence of ‘pocket boroughs’ and in 1769 called for extensive parliamentary reform.[5] Similar radical ideas had been voiced as early as Walpole’s premiership.[6] Wilkes was also not the only person publishing liberal material at the time; in 1771 an Historical Essay on the English Constitution appeared by Obadiah Hulme, followed in 1774 by James Burgh’s Political Disquisitions.
Similarly, the ‘inferior sort’ of people were forming a popular movement in London before Wilkes ‘fever’ swept the capital on his return from Paris in 1768. Rudé is quite certain that Wilkes, although helping to spread the movement, was not responsible for its conception, which was more a consequence of a severe winter and equally unfriendly economic conditions.[7]
The emergence of some kind of independent press can almost be regarded as a certainty considering the rapidly rising numbers of literate people who had a vested interest in obtaining accurate political news from an alternative source to government. When such a great commercial demand arises someone will inevitably appear to sate it.
However, this can only be speculation; it is more useful to assess Wilkes’s impact on the liberty movement through his actions and their repercussions. Even if Wilkes was not an essential ingredient he was at the very least an effective catalyst. Although the opposition paper The Monitor appeared alongside The North Briton it was not as popular nor as inflammatory, and was therefore a less effective means of promoting an alternative political viewpoint. No doubt this is why Justice Judge thinks not of The Monitor but the North Briton when he talks about an independent press. The complete lack of deference in the tone of the North Briton was a ground-breaking style of reporting, but it was really through his legal battles with the government that John Wilkes contributed to the development of an independent press. He was arrested after the publication of No. 45 of the North Briton, his house searched and documents seized under a general warrant that did not name him specifically. By publicly fighting his case and encouraging others to do likewise, Wilkes exposed the government’s authoritarian methods to public scrutiny and condemnation, leading Justice Pratt to rule in 1763 that general warrants were illegal.[8] Not only did this deprive the government of a form of censure they had been using for many years, it also gave British citizens a further measure of protection from wrongful arrest, thereby increasing their civil liberties.
But defeating the government required more than Wilkes alone. In fact one might argue that the British legal system had evolved to protect its citizens from unfair persecution and that Wilkes and fellow printers merely provided test cases. Perhaps then it is more Justice Pratt’s decision that should be celebrated because of his courageous and liberal interpretation of the law, frowned upon as it was by some of his conservative peers, particularly Lord Mansfield: ‘No man has ever behaved so shamefully as Lord Chief Justice Pratt. He has denied Your Majesty that justice which any petty Justice of the Peace would have granted to a highwayman.’[9]
On the other hand Wilkes was directly responsible for encouraging printers to bring successful suits for damages against the government, and so the increased boldness and independence of the press that was a consequence must be in no small part thanks to him.
As a direct link between Parliament and the printing trade, as well as the political elite and the ‘middling sort’, Wilkes was uniquely placed to help the growth of an independent press. This link helped the cause in two ways; as a member of the political elite his peers could never manage to completely ignore him, whilst it also gave him access to otherwise restricted (often embarrassing) information he could bring back to his supporters and write about in his publications. The North Briton is undoubtedly all the more interesting because of the involvement of a socially and politically informed Member of Parliament, especially since parliamentary reporting was at this point still prohibited.
Although Wilkes was not particularly powerful or influential in national government, the positions he attained in London government for himself and his supporters were exceptionally useful to the Liberal movement. Under George III’s direction, the House of Commons attempted to curb the newfound independence of the London press and put an end to what was considered illegal Parliamentary reporting by arresting those responsible. Wilkes was able to use his position as an Alderman to engineer a situation whereby he could first declare their actions in contravention of City Laws, and then arrest a messenger of the House of Commons for trying to carry them out. Parliament’s overreaction to this, namely sending Lord Mayor Brass Crosby and Alderman Richard Oliver, both of whom were also Members of Parliament, to the Tower of London, merely served to extend sympathy for the liberal cause and outrage the population of London at this act of tyranny.[10] Without proper legal grounds for this action, the House eventually decided to adjourn and release the pair, presenting the Wilkites with another victory for the cause of Liberty and effectively demonstrating that government was now powerless to prevent the London press from reporting parliamentary debate. Although Wilkes was right in the thick of the affair,[11] it is worth noting that the principles he was defending were shared by the uppermost London officials, and the scheme required not only the bravery of Crosby and Oliver but the bellicose and guileless nature of George III and his ministry to turn out a success.
One of the most useful aspects of Wilkes’s contribution was that he acted as a rallying point for disparate groups of radicals and even those merely disgruntled with government, being as he was not tied down by a definitive set of ideals but representing a more general demand for legitimate, less exclusive government, and the vague concept of ‘liberty’. This is reflected by his election platform of 1768, which was largely based on an attack of general warrants and seizure of papers, even though the courts had been declaring such methods unlawful since 1763, and therefore they were no longer a real concern.[12] Despite this he was able to marshal enough popular support to win the seat of Middlesex comfortably. It was Wilkes’s unique character that enabled him to become such a popular figurehead. He combined journalistic talent with a theatrical flair, and demonstrated an admirable resolve in the face of a formidable power. His successful attacks on the overbearing authority of the King and his ministers inspired the politically powerless to make themselves heard in defence of their rights. Unfortunately for the cause, many of these people were more celebrating Wilkes’s achievements and showing support for him than attaining a true understanding of the issues and actually developing their own ideology.[13] This is demonstrated by the frequent unhelpful and random acts of violence committed by those using Wilkite slogans, [14] and by the movement’s failure to survive once Wilkes had moved on. It seems that Edmund Burke was accurate in his observation that ‘the crowd always want to draw themselves from abstract principles to personal attachments’.[15]
Another attribute Wilkes contributed to the liberal movement was his canny use of publicity and propaganda. Brewer describes his ‘extraordinary skill in producing propaganda in almost every shape, form and size.’[16] Timely handbills were issued to Wilkite supporters so that they might make their voices heard at critical moments, such as Brass Crosby’s committal to the Tower.[17]
But was Wilkes really the great friend to liberty he portrayed himself to be? Historians frequently question his sincerity and the motivation behind his actions. Christie heavily implies that his return from Paris in 1768 in order to run for Parliament was more because of financial concerns than anything else. As an M.P. he would be immune to arrest for debt and Wilkes himself stated: ‘What the devil have I to do with prudence? I owe money in France, am an outlaw in England, hated by the King, the Parliament, and the bench of bishops… I must raise a dust or starve in gaol’.[18] These are not the words of a man returning to sacrifice himself for the liberty of his countrymen. In fact, after he had been expelled from parliament he wrote to Lord Temple that he would not be returning to England.[19] This, together with the fact that Wilkes spent much of his four-year exile travelling pleasurably in France and Italy, gives the impression that he was not a man wholly devoted to his cause, and in fact was more concerned with his own well-being.
Indeed, given his profligate lifestyle at the time, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Wilkes’s initial interest in being elected to Parliament was more linked to the social connections and the social elevation that accompanied the position than in order to advance the cause of liberty.[20] After all, his first spell as the Member for Aylesbury was spent predominantly in the pursuit of pleasure, whether it be at Medmenham Abbey or the Beefsteak Club.[21]
Some of his activities in City politics call Wilkes’s commitment to the liberal cause further into question. His personal differences with John Sawbridge and John Horne led to the break up of the Bill of Rights Society, and the rivalry between the two factions saw the King’s favourite William Nash elected Lord Mayor instead of the liberal Sawbridge, a direct consequence of Wilkes dividing the liberal vote and backing Brass Crosby.[22] Christie opines that the split occurred because: ‘Wilkes resented the diversion of some of its (the Society’s) funds from his own use to the support of the printers’.[23] This is the accusation that Horne makes in his letters to Wilkes after the split.[24] Whereas Brewer is of the view that the clash came about because he did not share their radical ideology and they did not share his radical methods.[25] Either way, John Wilkes in this instance was clearly not prepared to compromise for the greater good of the liberal cause, and this enabled Nash to set about blocking suggestions for reform.[26]
There is a lot to be said in defence of the view that John Wilkes was more of a friend to himself than a friend to liberty. Throughout his life he professed his dedication to the cause, but his radical activities were usually either concerned with righting injustices done to himself or fighting for issues in which he had a particular interest: He fought against general warrants after he had been issued one, he fought for his seat in Parliament after he had been deprived of it. He defended parliamentary reporting, and as a political journalist himself he had a vested interest in doing so. Moreover, until he was allowed to take his seat in Parliament Wilkes would be inclined to antagonise the House of Commons. When he was called to appear before the House of Commons with regard to his obstruction of the King’s Messenger he replied he would not until permitted to attend in his place as a member.[27]
True, he supported shorter parliaments and more equal representation, but he pressed these issues with none of the vigour he had shown in his own struggles, and with little success.[28] Notably he did not attempt to use his continued popularity amongst the lower classes to pressure the government, actually showing a certain disdain for them.[29] This indicates that in reality he did not feel they shared a common cause, although he professed to when it suited. Symbolic of this is his defence of the Bank of England during the Gordon Riots, and he even went so far as to issue what amounts to a general warrant for ‘searching and securing all idle and disorderly persons, and all concealed arms.’ Furthermore he imprisoned a fellow publisher for printing ‘seditious and treasonable papers.’[30] Such hypocrisy certainly suits the profile of a man who is prepared to marshal every argument available in support of his own cause, but does not truly appreciate the principles involved.
Wilkes constantly manipulated language so that he might increase his support base, he was incredibly successful, for example, in turning his personal libel case into a case concerning the ‘Liberty of all peers and gentlemen, and… all the middling and inferior class of the people’.[31] For that reason it is difficult to ascertain from his words whether he speaks with true conviction or as a demagogue. If we are to accept the idiom that ‘actions speak louder than words’ then his refusal to work solidly in promotion of the radical cause with Sawbridge, Townsend and Horne, his later rejection of the ‘inferior sort’, and finally his acceptance of a comfortable ‘extinct volcano’ status under the younger Pitt do little to promote him as a ‘pure and high-souled lover of liberty’.[32]
Although during Wilkes’s lifetime there were no obvious statutory reforms to Parliament, the political workings of the country had changed notably by the time he died. Legal measures the government had used as a means of repressing dissent were declared invalid; general warrants were made illegal and Members of Parliament were derived of their supposed right to reject a member. The disenfranchised masses had been encouraged to become politically active and had responded, helped along by the commercialisation of politics and widely available political publications, as well as mass petitioning.
However, these appear to be almost side-effects of Wilkes’s battle for self-preservation against an increasingly tyrannical government, and he went some way to reversing them through his own use of general warrants and military repression during the Gordon Riots. It appears that Wilkes felt the need to halt the encroachment of the crown into ministerial affairs, but the same authoritarian methods were valid when directed by elected representatives rather than the crown. In this aspect he was a true Whig. As Trench puts it: ‘Wilkes was no revolutionary. That is to say, his revolution had taken place in 1688, and all he now wanted was to return to the balanced Settlement which that had brought about.’[33] Just as Wilkes regarded himself as an ‘accidental patriot’, he appears an accidental friend to liberty and a better friend of the status quo prior to George III. The tribulations of William Cobbett twelve years after Wilkes’s death illustrate just how far Britain had yet to travel on the road to liberty.
Bibliography
Barry, Jonathon & Brooks, Christopher (eds.) – The Middling Sort of People: Culture, Society and Politics in England, 1550-1800 (London: Macmillan 1994)
Brewer, John – Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1976)
Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform: The Parliamentary Reform Movement in British Politics 1760-1785 (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. 1962)
Postgate, Raymond – “That Devil Wilkes” (London: Constable & Co. Ltd 1930)
Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty: A Social Study of 1763 to 1774 (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1962)
Shirley, Walter Shirley – John Wilkes: Demagogue or a Patriot? (London: Stevens and Sons 1879)
Trench, Charles Chevenix – Portrait of a Patriot: A Biography of John Wilkes (Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons Ltd. 1962)
Thomas, Peter D.G. – John Wilkes: A Friend to Liberty (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996)
Thomas, Peter D.G. – Wilkes, John in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004)
Weatherly, Edward H. (ed.) – The Correspondence of John Wilkes and Charles Churchill (New York: Columbia University Press 1954)
[1] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.192
[2] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.9
[3] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.16
[4] Rogers, Nicholas – The Middling Sort in Eighteenth-Century Politics in Barry, J & Brooks, C. (eds.) – The Middling Sort of People p.162
[5] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.16
[6] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.36
[7] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.39
[8] Thomas, Peter D.G – John Wilkes in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
[9] Trench, Charles C. – Portrait of a Patriot p.127
[10] Postgate, Raymond – ‘That Devil Wilkes p.200
[11] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.157
[12] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.27
[13] Trench, Charles C. – Portrait of a Patriot p.222
[14] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.53
[15] Burke, Edmund – Burke Correspondence in Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.46
[16] Brewer, John – Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III p.173
[17] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.160
[18] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.26
[19] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.35
[20] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.19
[21] Shirley, Walter S. – John Wilkes: Demagogue or Patriot? pp.11-13
[22] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.165
[23] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.47
[24] Postgate, Raymond – ‘That Devil Wilkes p.163
[25] Brewer, John – Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III p.199
[26] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.57
[27] Postgate, Raymond – ‘That Devil Wilkes p.201
[28] Christie, Ian R. – Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform p.67
[29] Rudé, George – Wilkes and Liberty p.192
[30] Thomas, Peter D.G. – John Wilkes p.188
[31] Wilkes, John, as appears in Brewer, John – Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III p.168
[32] Shirley, Walter S. – John Wilkes: Demagogue or Patriot? p.46
[33] Trench, Charles C. – Portrait of a Patriot p.267
