British Republicans 3: Richard Carlile 2 - Methods of Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover he went on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Algernon Sidney (1623-1683)

Algernon Sidney is far from being a household name and is probably less well known even among scholars than his uncle Sir Philip Sidney, author of Arcadia. Among those who are familiar with the younger Sidney, he is generally famed less for his published works than for two facts about what he wrote. First, his own words were used to convict him of treason in 1683, resulting in his execution. The manuscript of the work that became the Discourses Concerning Government was said to have been on Sidney's desk at the time of his arrest in May 1683 for his alleged involvement in the Rye House Plot. Those manuscript pages were subsequently used as a 'witness' against him at his trial, held later that year. Secondly, when working as a diplomat in Denmark, Sidney wrote the following inscription in the signature book of the University of Copenhagen:

MANUS HAEC INIMICA TYRANNIS

EINSE PETIT PLACIDAM CUM LIBERTATE QUIETEM

('This hand, always an enemy to tyrants, seeks a little peace under liberty.'). (Jonathan Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic, 1623-1677. Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 133).

Next year marks the four hundredth anniversary of Sidney's birth. Though originally planned for April 2020, only to be disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the conference held in the French town of Rouen in April 2022 might now be seen as an early celebration of that anniversary. The conference was organised by Christopher Hamel and Gilles Olivo. Christopher has recently produced a modern edition of the 1702 French translation of Sidney's Discourses by Pierre August Samson, to which he has added a rich scholarly introduction that surveys the reception of Sidney's thought in eighteenth-century France. This was the first conference I have attended in-person - and my first trip abroad - since January 2020. As such it was a particular pleasure to be able to attend.

As always, what I offer here are my own reflections on the papers delivered rather than a full account of every paper. Three themes in particular struck me as I listened to the contributions: the relationship between theory and practice in republican thought; the value of adopting a European perspective to English republicanism; and the views of Sidney (and others) on prerogative power and its relationship to popular sovereignty.

Theory and Practice in Republican Thought

Algernon Sidney, after Justus van Egmont, based on a work of 1663. National Portrait Gallery, NPG 568. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Scholarly accounts of Sidney's thought have tended to place emphasis on his writings, and in particular the Discourses Concerning Government and Court Maxims. While not dismissing the importance of these writings and the ideas contained within them, Tom Ashby's excellent opening paper focused on Sidney's actions and writings as a diplomat working on behalf of the English Commonwealth and Free State. He expertly demonstrated how the letters that Sidney wrote to King Charles Gustavus of Sweden, and King Frederick of Denmark, in August 1659 effectively embody his republican principles in the way in which he presented himself  to, and engaged with, his royal correspondents. Sidney's role as a martyr has long been central to the understanding of him and his ideas, but his role as an agent of the English republic has received far less attention, and the glimpse into this that Tom offered suggests it has the potential to greatly enrich our understanding of Sidney's thought. I eagerly await the opportunity to read his finished thesis - and the publication of the article he is preparing on these letters. 

As I noted in my own paper, political action (negotium) was crucial for republican authors. I argued that figures like Sidney and James Harrington (as well as their later editors, printers, and translators) used the literary and material dimensions of their texts not merely to convey ideas in a passive form but to encourage readers to engage more deeply with those ideas and even to venture into action.

Encouraging political action was, of course, also central to the Leveller movement, which has been richly studied by Rachel Foxley, John Rees, and others. Rachel's paper, which compared the ideas of the Levellers on the nature and role of parliament with those of Sidney, also touched on questions of the interaction of thought and practice. Specifically, Rachel explored the ways in which Levellers - such as Richard Overton - in the 1640s and Sidney in the 1680s grappled with the pressing problem of the relationship between a sovereign people and its representatives; and how (if at all) those representatives might be made accountable to those they represented.

One of the problems of engaging with ideas in action that was discussed in response to these papers is whether this makes it harder to identify a coherent - and consistent - political theory. The question of whether a consistent political theory can be constructed from the various petitions and pamphlet writings of the Levellers has already been addressed by Rachel and others, but the question is equally applicable to Sidney. Christopher noted this in his introduction to the conference, asking whether it is possible to talk of coherence when Sidney himself did not complete or publish either of his major works. Building on this, Tom's paper raised the question of whether it is appropriate to treat Sidney's diplomatic letters as texts in the history of political thought. It certainly seems as though there would be value in doing so, not least because - as Tom pointed out - they provide a useful counterpart to the Court Maxims. In that dialogue Sidney attempts to persuade the people of his ideas on government, whereas in his diplomatic correspondence his aim is to persuade kings. Moreover, as both Rachel's paper and that by François Quastana made clear, the problem of consistency also arises in the Discourses. Because Sidney's aim in that text is to refute the arguments of Robert Filmer, he sometimes ends up contradicting himself. Rachel showed this very clearly in relation to his arguments about representation. In some places he presents representatives as servants, and so insists that those who elect them must be able to instruct them. Elsewhere his views reflect a more aristocratic understanding of representatives, arguing that they must be given the freedom to make their own decisions, and that they cannot be held to account by their constituents. Similarly, François showed that while Sidney castigates Filmer for drawing a parallel between kings and fathers, he himself draws a similar (and equally problematic) parallel between brothers and citizens.

The Value of a European Perspective

Since the motivation behind this conference was the publication of Christopher's excellent edition of the French translation of Sidney's Discourses, it should come as no surprise that the importance of adopting a European perspective to English republicanism was another theme that was raised by various participants. Again Tom's paper was pioneering in this regard showing (as Gaby Mahlberg's recent book on the English Republican exiles has also done) just how much material is available in foreign archives on the English republic and English republicans. 

A typical Rouen building. Image by Rachel Hammersley

As other papers made clear, the European approach is important not just with regard to individuals but also texts. François reminded us how much both Filmer and Sidney owed to French political models; including both, on the one hand, the writings of Jean Bodin and, on the other, those of the monarchiens. In her paper, which offered a stimulating comparison of the reception of the ideas of Sidney and Harrington in eighteenth-century France, Myriam-Isabelle Durcrocq made the important point that studying the French reception of the works of these thinkers not only reveals much about French Huguenot and Enlightenment thought, but also illuminates English republicanism itself. It draws our attention to the different preoccupations of Sidney and Harrington (which led to their works being celebrated in France at different points in time and by individuals facing very different concerns). This highlights the fact that there was not just one single strain of English republican thought, but rather several distinct varieties.

Prerogative Power and Popular Sovereignty

Of course, as Myriam-Isabelle rightly noted, while Harrington and Sidney diverged on various points, two principles on which they firmly agreed were, first, the evils of arbitrary power (or the power of one) and, secondly, the sovereignty of the people. One reflection of this in Harrington's work (as she reminded us) is that Harrington called his popular assembly the Prerogative tribe, alluding to the fact that the prerogative power lies not with any king or prince but with (as Harrington puts it in Oceana) the 'king people'. Sidney embodies a similar idea in his engagement with the Kings of Sweden and Denmark in the letters discussed by Tom. Not only does he clearly believe that, as a representative of the English commonwealth, he can speak directly and on equal terms with royalty, but he also warns Gustavus to adjust his behaviour and to act in the interests of the common good rather than arbitrarily for his own personal gains - or risk republican violence being launched against him.

Algernon Sidney by James Basire after Giovanni Battista Cipriani, 1763. National Portrait Gallery, NPG D28941. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence.

The attitude to prerogative power was also, as Alberto de Barros pointed out in his paper, a fundamental dividing line between Sidney and John Locke in their respective responses to Filmer's Patriarcha. While both were critical of the prerogative power of kings, Locke was willing to accept that it might legitimately be exercised under two distinct circumstances. First, at moments of crisis or emergency; and, secondly, when the law is silent on a particular point and interpretation is therefore required. Locke was clear, however, that in these cases the prerogative (in order to be legitimate) must only be used to advance the common good. Sidney, by contrast, was adamant that any power that operates above the law is illegitimate; that the very existence of a royal prerogative would undermine liberty and constitute a violation of the common good.

As I hope this blogpost demonstrates, I learned a huge amount from all the papers at this excellent event; as well as from our stimulating and fruitful discussions, which continued over drinks and meals. As I sat on the train leaving Rouen (somewhat reluctantly), I was struck by a parallel between the ideas I had been having about the conference discussions and my experience of attending a conference for the first time in two years. Sidney not only thought and wrote about republican principles, but also embodied them in his engagement with rulers such as the Kings of Sweden and Denmark, developing and extending his thought in the process. Similarly, in attending this conference I moved from contemplation of his thought to engagement with others, was led to interact with individuals coming from different countries and intellectual traditions, and ultimately had my perspectives challenged - resulting in a richer and deeper understanding of Sidney and his ideas.