The London Corresponding Society addresses the friends of peace and parliamentary reform (1793)

Author(s):  
Michael T. Davis ◽  
James Epstein ◽  
Jack Fruchtman ◽  
Mary Thale
2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Weinstein

In early November 1790, Edmund Burke noted the existence in England of “several petty cabals, who attempt to hide their total want of consequence in bustle and noise, and puffing, and mutual quotation of each other.” Burke's observation both informed and amused conservative opinion, but its condescension masked the seriousness of the situation that it described. Throughout Britain men were assembling into societies organized in celebration of French liberty and motivated by the prospect of parliamentary reform at home. While it was true that the leading members of these clubs sometimes indulged in “puffing” and “mutual quotation,” their commitment to reform was nevertheless deeply held. Joseph Priestley, for one, sacrificed his home, his laboratory, and nearly his life in defense of the cause; Maurice Margarot, Joseph Gerrald, and Thomas Muir sacrificed their freedom; sadly, Thomas Hardy sacrificed his wife and unborn child. For their equally obstinate devotion to reform, the Revolution Society, which took its name in commemoration of the Glorious Revolution rather than in envy of the French uprising, and the Society for Constitutional Information, a longtime reform leader reinvigorated after the fall of the ancien régime, became the objects of Burke's ridicule. But in his conviction that “contemptuous neglect” was the best method by which to defeat the “vanity, petulance, and spirit of intrigue” displayed by these societies, Burke exposed an embarrassing improvidence. For if, as he claimed, these associations were “inconsequential” in their own conduct, their agitation would eventually prompt the emergence of a new generation of populous and, therefore, menacing societies. By spring 1794, neither Burke nor Pitt would be able to ignore the reformers any longer. What were once “petty” had become “the mother of all mischief.”


1922 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 101-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwen. Whale

The Whig interpretations of the English Constitution based on the doctrine of executive responsibility to Parliament, as established by the Revolution of 1688 and Locke's vindication of that event, were crystallised and defined by eighteenth-century political practice, eulogised and expounded by Montesquieu and Blackstone, and asserted and elaborated by Junius and Burke. But they were subjected to criticism at least two decades before the Revolution in France stimulated political speculation and inspired demands for reform. Long before the outburst of reforming enthusiasm expressed in the activities of the Revolution Society, the London Corresponding Society and the Society of Friends of the People, which was kindled by the opening episodes of the French Revolution, there was in England a well-established movement for parliamentary reform.


Author(s):  
Susan Mitchell Sommers

This chapter places Ebenezer and Manoah Sibly in the dramatic political events of their day, especially the American and French Revolutions, and the Treason Trials of the 1790s. Ebenezer is frequently cited as a radical Whig, who opposed slavery and supported the American Revolution and other radical causes. Little is said about Manoah’s politics, other than that as a New Church minister, he was of necessity a loyalist. However, a close examination of Ebenezer’s writing, and especially the timing of the publication of his comments on the American and French Revolutions, reveals him as much more moderate than has been asserted, especially in discussions of his nativity for the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, Manoah’s work as shorthand taker for the London Corresponding Society and acceptance of Swedenborg’s dramatically radical theology reveal him as a profoundly radical thinker—and one who was moved to act on his convictions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document