Print, Politics and the Provincial Press in Modern Britain

| vii →

Figures

Figure 2.1. The vestry book and the celebrated secret order (Dudley: G. Walters, 1823?) (detail). Reproduced with permission of Dudley Archives and Local History Service.

Figure 2.2. Rejoice! Rejoice!! Glorious Victory! (Dudley: Walters, 1831). Reproduced with permission of Dudley Archives and Local History Service.

Figure 5.1. Busts of Joseph Rhodes and Ludwik Zamenhof, located at the entrance to Keighley Reference Library.

Figure 5.2. Rhodes’ English-Esperanto Dictionary (Reference Copy and Lending Copy).

Figure 5.3. The English-Esperanto Dictionary’s due-date list (top copy).

Figure 5.4. The English-Esperanto Dictionary’s due-date list (bottom copy).

Figure 6.1. The Town Crier, new series, no. 1, 3 October 1919. Reproduced with permission of Archives and Collections, Library of Birmingham.

Figure 6.2. Straight Forward, no. 1. September 1920. Reproduced with permission of Archives and Collections, Library of Birmingham.

Figure 6.3. Front cover of Home and Politics, no. 28, August 1923. Reproduced with permission of Conservative Party Archive, Bodleian Library.

Figure 6.4. ‘Everywoman: Dress, the Home, Women’s Work and Play’, Birmingham Mail, 3 November 1919.

Figure 6.5. The Liberal Flashlight, no. 25, January 1924. Reproduced with permission of the National Liberal Club Library, London. ← vii | viii →

Figure 7.1. ‘Aelodau Seneddol Cymru’ [Members of Parliament for Wales] XII – Watkin Williams, Trysorfa y Plant [The Children’s Treasury], Rhagfyr 1876 [December 1876], rhif. 180 [no. 180].

Figure 8.1. Self-identified occupations in the Northern Star readers and correspondents column, 1837–1848.

| 9 →

DUNCAN FRANKIS

1 ‘That Nefarious Newspaper’: The Dublin Evening Post, 1789–1794

Within a decade of the outbreak of revolution in France in 1789, there were similar rebellions in Batavia (in the Netherlands), Brabant, Ireland, Scotland, Haiti, Liège and Poland. The simultaneity of these events has led some historians to argue that the French Revolution and the 1798 Irish rebellion were part of a wider revolutionary wave which swept across much of Europe, as well as the Americas, during the second half of the eighteenth century: an Atlantic, or Democratic revolution.¹ Games, however, highlights that attempts to write a Braudelian Atlantic history that connects the entire region and its revolutions, remain elusive. This is in part due to methodological limitations and disciplinary divisions, as well as the difficulty of finding a point of view that is not limited to a single place.² This research explores ways in which to address some of these issues and reveals a new insight into eighteenth-century Irish radicalism and its roots, by examining the content of the Dublin Evening Post. Ireland, geographically isolated from mainland Europe, found itself amid the revolutionary climate, but to what extent was it influenced by rebels in other countries? It is too simple to call the phenomena a domino effect; the spreading influence and ideologies of one nation upon another were far more complex. However, it is evident that people in one area of the world had a profound impact upon movements in different regions – separated by land, sea, language and social convention. This work explores the relationship between the ← 9 | 10 → French Revolution and Irish radicalism through print culture, using two methods outlined by Armitage: a trans-Atlantic approach to determine the effects of the French Revolution upon the growing dissatisfaction of the Irish nation during the 1790s, and a cis-Atlantic approach to examine the uniqueness of the Irish entity.3

The historiography of the 1798 rebellion, its origins, and Irish radicalism has divided academics. Early twentieth-century historians Hayden and Moonan believed that the uprising was fundamentally an insular phenomenon, a result of population increase, an increasingly literate populace and the availability of radical publications.⁴ They believed that the existing dissatisfaction regarding living conditions for the working class, and an inherited xenophobic attitude towards the British passed down through generations, created an environment in which radicalism and revolution flourished.⁵ These ideas, as well as the belief that Francophobia was never truly absent in Ireland during the eighteenth century,⁶ has led many to dismiss the idea that the French Revolution had a significant impact on the rise of Irish radicals. More recently Canny and Beckett have contested this image of an isolated Irish society and placed increased significance upon the influence of French Revolutionary ideals. Beckett argued that, until the importation of French philosophy at the end of the eighteenth century, there was no sign of any political move against the Irish government.⁷ Canny attributes the increase in radicalism to ‘accident, or the excesses of state, or foreign intervention’.⁸ Print culture allows us to test the validity of ← 10 | 11 → these different claims and assess which is more accurate, giving us a greater context and understanding of the 1798 Irish rebellion and its origins.

Studying the hypothetical influence of a heterogeneous revolution upon a collective consciousness provides its own set of challenges: how is it possible to tangibly measure impact? Smyth concludes that the concept of influence is too simple, because it implies that there was an importation of ready-made French ideas by Ireland and other countries.9 However, the absence of a defined consensus should not deter historians from trying to understand the process and influence of French social and political thought. One way to do so is to study print culture, which was crucial in forming public opinion. Ó Ciosáin believes that mass literacy is crucial for large-scale nationalist mobilisation and one of the most significant developments in political history and radicalism is improved literacy. He highlights that the ability to access and understand print culture creates an ideological awareness and identity between communities of similar mentality and interests.¹⁰ The social revolutions that took place in France, the Americas and throughout Europe were presented to the Irish public through newspapers, pamphlets and organised or independent propaganda. These structures of communication allowed for the diffusion of nationalistic sentiments and emphasised the empathetic characteristics of those movements.¹¹

Considering the increasingly significant role that that newspapers had in forming and expressing public opinion during the eighteenth century, it is surprising to find that there is an absence of comprehensive studies exploring the relationship between individual Irish newspapers and radicalism in this period. The Irish press was, until recently, a neglected source for historians and students of literature. Now, however, the role of newspapers has been emphasised for research into the development of Irish politics and society. In an introductory essay included in a microfilm collection ← 11 | 12 → of Irish newspapers, Legg highlighted the work of Bew, Comerford and Donnelly to elucidate this trend.12 During the late eighteenth century there was a variety of newspapers that had a sizeable circulation within Ireland, but Powell believed that there is still an over-reliance upon two books regarding the Irish radical press: Inglis’s The Freedom of the Press in Ireland, 1784–1841 and Munter’s The History of the Irish Newspaper, 1685–1760.¹³ Radical newspapers in the late eighteenth century included the Post, The Volunteer’s Journal and the United Irishmen’s Northern Star. Some of these publications have received academic attention already,¹⁴ which resulted in the choice to research the Post, which has received little attention in comparison. Despite generally being ignored by the historiography, Tutty revealed that after 1778 it built up a substantial circulation and believed that it was one of the most influential newspapers in Dublin.¹⁵ The opinion that the newspaper was influential was also the view held by Chief Secretary to Ireland, Robert Peel. In 1813 Peel wrote that ‘most of the dissatisfaction in this country arises from the immense circulation of that nefarious paper the Dublin Evening Post. It is sent gratuitously into many parts of the country and read by those who can read to those who cannot; and, as it is written with a certain degree of ability, and a style which suits those upon whom it is intended to work, it does, no doubt, great mischief’.¹⁶ The newspaper had a reputation for radical and incendiary views, due to its infamous and eccentric proprietor, John Magee, who had been tried for libel on numerous occasions.¹⁷ An examination of the content of the Post ← 12 | 13 → during the French Revolution will show how it covered events and how its stance changed over time.

To understand the significance of the Post’s reaction to events in France some context to the newspaper’s pre-revolution content must first be established. In 1789 the newspaper was published three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday) and was structured similarly in each issue. The front page consisted of various advertisements, infrequently there would be a local story, but most issues would save news for the second, third and fourth pages. There was a maximum of five pages in total. The Post was noticeably insular in its content with foreign news usually being restricted to a few columns in each edition. French affairs were rarely mentioned in the first half of 1789 and most of the international news coverage was concerned with the Russo-Swedish War and Russia’s ongoing tension with the Ottoman Empire. These issues were covered with an air of indifference however, with little interest or consequence connected to Ireland. The newspaper was predominantly concerned with local politics, events and smear campaigns against rival newspapers, most notably the Freeman’s Journal. The penultimate pages were mainly dedicated to miscellaneous advertisements for books, wholesale items and fashions. The final page consisted of a section entitled ‘The Postscript’, which contained a variety of opinion pieces from the consistently nationalistic public. Not all contributions were positive regarding the French Revolution, but inflammatory rhetoric against frameworks of government became more frequent. This section was unpredictable and varied, containing risqué, salacious letters sent in from a wide spectrum of individuals. However, liberty, constitutionalism, and Irish freedom were regular themes to be found in the Postscript. The Postscript was an open forum in which radical thoughts, musings and grievances were presented to the reader for interpretation. The Post’s content prior to the French Revolution supports the vision of an insular Ireland, as depicted by Moonan and Hayden. Articles under the title of The Irish Revolutionist and Friends of this Independent Nation were published, and Irish socio-politics was the dominant topic, as well as an open disdain for the British government. The nefarious, meddlesome and manipulative image referred to by Peel is evidently not an inaccurate statement. If read to the uneducated, ill-informed or easily convinced, it is easy to see the effect it could have and how far reaching its influence could be. The standard of writing was generally relatively high and produced by ← 13 | 14 → seemingly well-educated authors: vocabulary was broad and complicated subject matters were analysed in detail. However, the content was still accessible and clear, but also undeniably manipulative and biased, twisting facts and events to fit an agenda. The vague talk of conspiracies and the British threat were rarely specific, and the Post failed to offer practical suggestions to achieve democracy. Romanticized visions of social revolution were included alongside passages about liberty, constitution, the rights of man and the freedom of the press. This research traces the opinion of the Post as the grim realities of revolution were revealed throughout continental Europe and the Atlantic World.

Gough proposed that there were distinct periods of the relationship between non-French revolutionaries and the French Revolution: beginning with initial enthusiasm until April 1792 and the French invasion of Austria, followed by hostility until the summer of 1793, culminating in fear following the rise of the Jacobins.18 The concept is at odds with the idea of a revolutionary or democratic wave, suggesting that the spread of Revolutionary France beyond its own borders may have eventually acted as a deterrent. A study of the Post tests the validity of this concept in Ireland through a micro-history focused on its coverage. Upon the outbreak of revolution, the theory holds weight, the pages of the newspaper were flooded with overwhelmingly supportive and enthusiastic coverage. The Post declared that the men of the National Assembly were the ‘ablest men of one of the most enlightened nations in the universe’.¹⁹ A change in content and structure took place within the pages of the Post quickly after the convening of the Estates-General. Coverage of events in France increased throughout July 1789 and by August there was not a page untouched by articles entitled ‘Affairs in France’, ‘National Assembly’ or simply ‘Paris’. The French Revolution dominated the newspaper, which was a stark change from regional stories and advertisements. The storming of the Bastille was first reported in July 1789 and, following the events, seven consecutive editions of the paper had their front page dedicated ← 14 | 15 → to coverage of Parisian news. The newspaper revelled in the fall of the political elite and nobility of France, as well as the clergy. Criticism of the ‘lofty pretensions’20 of the nobility and derision of the ‘plump, pampered’²¹ clergymen quickly become prominent themes, and parallels were drawn to Irish society. Kearny concluded that French Revolution of 1789 was ready for exportation.²² It is evident from the beginning of the Revolution that the Post was enthusiastic about a variety of the supposed universal ideas stemming from France.

The repealing of the Navigation Acts in 1779 and new Corn Laws in 1784 had led to a brief boom in the Irish economy,²³ which had led to some stability for the population (although mainly the land-owning classes), as well as a trend towards leniency for the Catholic and Gaelic elements of the population. Despite this, the universalism of the ideas stemming from the Revolution in France evidently provoked the writers at the Post to recall the famine of the 1740s, religious sectarianism and the unequal distribution of taxation. The newly formed National Assembly’s debates on topics such as clerical tithes and nobility privileges were all printed in detail and reignited old grievances were discussed in the Post:

Some of the main themes developed within the Post in the early months of the French Revolution included the need for reform within the Church’s hierarchy, particularly with regards to the collection of clerical tithes. The importance of the freedom of the press was evident, as was the need to reform corrupt law enforcement, as well as the need to reform taxation systems. These aims mirrored many of the French revolutionaries’ goals. The newspaper demonstrated an open disdain for many judicial bodies within Ireland and saw the National Assembly as a beacon of hope and proof that legitimate change was possible: ‘We see in France at this moment, after overturning the idols of political superstition, and bursting the shackles of oppression, gradually subsiding from the anarchy ever attendant on great and sudden revolutions, into a constitutional grandeur that promises to become the astonishment and admiration of the earth’.25 Comparing revolutionary France to Ireland, the authors of the Post asked their readership: ‘what do we behold at this moment in this country? – A system of bribery and corruption, of interest and influence of tyranny, and oppression; of cruelty and injustice, set up in opposition to the sacred principles on which alone the basis of our constitution can be secured’.²⁶

It is evident that the Post believed the French Revolution to be the beginning of a global movement, regularly referencing the interconnectedness of the international community, a theme which is vital to the historiography of the Atlantic World.²⁷ The writers of the Post seemed convinced that revolution would reach the shores of Ireland, and they welcomed it wholeheartedly. In August 1789 they adopted, and continued to use, a metaphor for the spreading revolutionary vigour to be found in the Atlantic World, taking inspiration from another revolutionary country the Post used Benjamin Franklin’s studies of electricity as an allegoric device commenting that ‘The spirit of Liberty which appeared so conspicuous in America, seems as if conveyed to them by that philosophical Franklin’s electrical fire … The French, while assisting them, caught the glowing flame […] it is likely ← 16 | 17 → to diffuse itself through all despotic monarchies of Europe’.28 Historians may debate the extent to which the Atlantic revolutions were connected, but it is evident that at least some contemporaries in Ireland had already drawn parallels between similar movements.

The electricity metaphor continued to be used throughout 1789 to track revolutionary movements outside of France. In December it was reported that the French sparks of liberty are ‘beginning to kindle up a blaze, in the very heart of Spain […] Corsica has declared itself independent’.²⁹ The Post’s view that the French Revolution influenced events in Corsica has been reiterated in recent studies as well; Ramsay argued that the taking of the Bastille in July 1789 was the first revolutionary event to influence Corsicans, highlighting how there was a spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm when news reached the island.³⁰ In 1790 the Post covered the revolution in Brabant as well, which made front page news. Before the French Revolution, the Austrian-Netherlands (modern-day Belgium) had received little more than a paragraph dedicated to it. Reports of the Brabant Patriots’ struggles against the Holy Roman Emperor, Joseph II, and his Imperial army in Brussels contained obvious bias in support of the Brabant rebels with allegations of atrocities against the civilian population by Austrian forces.³¹ The language used when referring to the opposing sides in Belgium was both manipulative and brazenly partisan in support of the rebel patriots: ‘though liberty may be finally triumphant, it is inconceivable that the Emperor will abandon these fine provinces […] the opposition of well-disciplined troops, and experienced generals, to a numerous body of raw forces, supported by a generous spirit of freedom, must inevitably produce a frightful contest’.³² Polasky concluded that the revolutionary movements in Brabant came as a surprise to the rest of Europe and caused more shock when the Belgian army succeeded in driving the Austrian troops from their ← 17 | 18 → provinces.33 Movements such as the Brabant and Corsican revolutions were covered in great detail by the newspaper and cemented the Post’s belief that a diffusion of revolutionary ideas was spreading and, against all odds, was becoming successful. The coverage of these events directly contradicts the idea that Irish radicalism was isolated and unaffected by international mechanisms. It is evident the Post saw the spread of revolutions throughout Europe as inevitable, concluding that ‘the era of perfect liberty seems to be fast approaching […] it is now a question among politicians, which of the nations in Europe will be first to imitate the example of France by a total demolition of those feudal tenures which ignorance and folly have represented as essential to human society’.³⁴

If Gough’s model regarding Europe’s relationship with the French Revolution is correct, the initial enthusiasm of 1789 should have continued throughout 1790 and 1791 and begun to diminish in 1792 as French internal violence continued to escalate.³⁵ The Post however, remained enthusiastic about the French Revolution until at least 1794, but the accuracy of the coverage became increasingly unreliable, unclear and fragmented. Several challenges to the French Revolution emerged throughout 1790–1794, such as the role of Louis XVI, foreign aggression and the divisions between revolutionary movements but despite the difficulties facing French revolutionaries, the Post remained optimistic amid the chaotic scenes in France. In fact, much of the bloodshed and anarchy was omitted entirely, a tactic many revolutionary sympathisers, such as Rudé have used (during the Revolution and in retrospect).³⁶ It is impossible to gauge if the Post implemented a similar tactic, ignoring the worst qualities of revolutionary France for the sake of their own argument, but there seemed to be a tangible softening of coverage for violent events attributed to French revolutionaries. Many ← 18 | 19 → violent events committed in the name of the Revolution were treated by sections of the French population, as well as the Post, with indifference, such as the slaughter of prisoners and violence against the Roman Catholic Church in August and September 1792.37 The death of 250 prisoners in one Parisian prison received as much coverage by the Post as the arrest of a local Dublin handkerchief thief in the same issue: both stories receiving one column each.³⁸

The most controversial element of the French Revolution was unarguably the execution of Louis XVI and, given Louis’ liberal use of his veto prerogative to block the Legislative Assembly’s progress, as well as the Old Regime which he represented, it would be easy to assume that the Post would be critical of the monarch. However, coverage of the deteriorating relationship between king and executive body was unpredictable, if not surprisingly sporadic. The newspaper even on occasions defended the king, one time concluding that: ‘the will of the king is an integral part of the constitution in such circumstances, and ministers must respect it, or despise the constitution’.³⁹ It is clear that constitutionalism was of the utmost importance to the Post, but there was a difficult paradox that existed regarding the Constitution of 1791; it was bound to collapse because the king wanted it to, but removing the king from it could also destroy it.⁴⁰ The Post had supported the National Constituent Assembly and continued to support the Legislative Assembly through their relationship with the king, and one evening it reported with joy that ‘the session of this evening was one of the most splendid that has lately marked the progress of the Assembly. At its opening a deputation from the foreign residents in Paris, the Irish, English, Dutch … presented their address of congratulations to the Assembly, on the success of its labours, and in the prospect which it opened to the human race, of a new era of happiness and freedom’.⁴¹ Despite the progress that ← 19 | 20 → had been made by the Assembly, the constitutional monarchy failed and upon the execution of Louis XVI the Post responded with delight, reporting that ‘Yesterday evening the cause of liberty received a most honourable testimony of approbation from the citizens of Dublin. The expulsion of Despots and Despotism from France had been for some time a favourite wish of those people … Ample testimony at the general joy at the great events that have established liberty in France’.42 Regardless of the victory for freedom, the Post was not without sympathy for Louis however, referring to him as an unfortunate victim to a greater cause at the hands of an ‘exasperated people’.⁴³ Despite the Post’s earlier assertion that Louis XVI was an integral part of the constitution he was quickly forgotten in the coverage of events and contradiction became increasingly common. In the same week, or same issue on occasions, completely paradoxical accounts of Paris were included. In September 1792 ‘deplorable’⁴⁴ social unrest was covered simultaneously to reports of ‘perfect tranquillity in Paris’.⁴⁵ The newspaper struggled to produce a clear and consistent picture of events in France in 1792 and 1793, possibly because, as Morris believed, ‘radicalism was born of paradox, sustained by paradox, and in the end, confounded by paradox […] a selective memory invested this tradition’.⁴⁶ Despite this throughout the most controversial and violent aspects of the search for French constitutionalism the Post was still overwhelmingly supportive of Revolutionary France past Gough’s suggested 1792 date.⁴⁷

There could be several reasons for such contradictory and fragmented reports: selective memory, possibly because of the individual internal conflicts of the authors, or confusion surrounding the rapidly changing events in France. Another factor must be considered however: following the outbreak of war with Austria there was a physical breakdown in ← 20 | 21 → communication between Ireland and continental Europe. This may account for the continued enthusiasm for revolutionary France in Ireland, whilst the rest of Europe’s revolutionaries became disillusioned. Rossides believed that with radicalism, the role of communication was evidently significant but difficult to determine exactly how and why.48 The enormous expansion of the European economy had generated new kinds of individuals and had thrown them together, but they remained geographically separate, which created miscommunication and confusion. It was reported in the Post that ‘the stoppage of all intercourse between France and these Kingdoms through Dover and Calais packet boats, has caused great consternation in the commercial, and great surmises in the political’.⁴⁹ The newspaper received various accounts of what was occurring in Europe and was forced to concede that ‘the French and Austrian Generals send contradictory accounts of actions, of which there were many thousands of witnesses in both armies to contradict whatever is wrong in either statement’.⁵⁰ This led to numerous amendments and clarifications being produced within the newspaper. As time passed and hostilities between England and France heightened, a complete breakdown in communications occurred. This added fuel to the fire that was anti-British sentiment. Despite regular communication problems it becomes evident that whatever sources the Post used for its information, there was an inclination to trust French information over others. The Austrians were regularly referred to as enemies and derogatory language was used to undermine the quality of writing within Austrian newspapers as shown by the Post’s comment that ‘the following article, from the Austrian Gazette, published at Brussels, is evidently garbled’.⁵¹ In contrast, information obtained from the French military was optimistic and complimentary: ‘our accounts from the French army contain little news, but give us great hopes of news; and we are as impatient as if no ← 21 | 22 → news is good news were not peculiarly applicable to our situation’.52 Even when news was difficult to piece together, the Post continued to support the French Revolution and described information from the French military as ‘wisdom for the ages’.⁵³

Despite its continued support for revolution, there was an increasing amount of frustration evident within the writings of the Post. Constitutionalism seemed unworkable and several revolutionary movements had failed entirely. McDowell believed that whilst it is evident that many people in Ireland sympathised with the objectives, and methods, of the Atlantic and continental revolutions, it is also clear that the French Revolution provoked some feelings of trepidation.⁵⁴ This apprehension is not present in the Postscript of the Post, but if there were members of the public who were concerned about events in France the Post could do little to alleviate their fears.

Many of the revolutions occurring were failing or being brutally suppressed. The new French government struggled to find a constitution that universally satisfied their people, and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, efforts by the laity to shake the nobility out of its mental cul-de-sac had failed.⁵⁵ The Brabant Revolution became contained as well and coverage of it began to dwindle, failed revolutions received little attention in the Post. It was replaced with enthusiasm and encouragement for unrest in Switzerland and constitutional reform in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Regular updates from Warsaw appeared in the Post and the 1791 May Constitution was received positively by the newspaper. The Post lauded that ‘this new constitution of Poland totally changes its Government, by wresting the destructive sword of power out of the irregular hands of a turbulent Nobility, whose contentions, at every new election of a King, preserved a continual civil warfare in the bowels of the Kingdom; ← 22 | 23 → and to whom the greatest part of the country people, farmers, as well as labourers, were in a state of pure vassalage’.56 Despite the enthusiasm for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its search for a constitution, the nation was ruthlessly crushed by the forces of Russia.

Whilst the coverage of violence by revolutionaries had been limited, those who suppressed revolutions were depicted by the Post as monsters: Catherine the Great received some of the most scathing criticism: ‘to some it might have been sufficient, to have ascended a throne on the removal of a husband; to have reigned over a numerous people, and to have kept even a son, long after his arrival to manhood, out of inheritance belonging to him […] but ambition must be fed, if not satisfied’.⁵⁷ The newspaper covered the destruction of Poland’s constitution by Russia with anxiety: ‘the fact is atrocious; but the precedent is alarming. In the ruin of one helpless inoffensive nation, the other states of Europe […] ought to see an example and a warning of the principles and practice of ambition, which they may experience in their turn’.⁵⁸ Whilst the Post had welcomed the spread of revolutionary vigour, there was also a fear of the threat from foreign despots intervening in other country’s affairs. The parallels between Catherine’s relationship with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Oliver Cromwell’s treatment of Ireland were clear.⁵⁹ Esdaile concluded that Russia’s stranglehold over Poland meant that Catherine was able to maintain the archaic social and political structure that reduced the latter to a de facto Russian protectorate.⁶⁰ This familiar relationship with an oppressive external threat struck a nerve with the newspaper, as fear grew that perhaps the spread of revolution was not certain after all.