Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:04:13.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religion and Reform at the Polls: Nonconformity in Cambridge Politics, 1774–1784

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

James E. Bradley
James E. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most studies of eighteenth-century Nonconformity have concentrated upon the Dissenters' political ideology, and their contribution to the emergence of liberal thought is now established. Such well-known reformers as Richard Price and Joseph Priestley, and less prominent ones like William Smith and Robert Robinson of Cambridge, all illustrate the importance of Nonconformity to the Commonwealthman tradition. Two related issues, however, call for further investigation: the influence of the leaders' progressive ideology upon the laity's political behavior and the Dissenters' relation to Whig party politics and reform. The most widely accepted view of the political impact of Nonconformity was advanced by W. E. H. Lecky and G. M. Trevelyan. Both historians assumed that the laity's behavior was an accurate reflection of the beliefs of the elite, and they proceeded to make large claims for the importance of Nonconformity to the English “party system.” In the Romanes Lecture of 1926, Trevelyan advanced the thesis in its classic form: “from the Restoration to the latter years of the Nineteenth Century, the continuity of the two parties in English politics was very largely due to the two-party system in religious observance, popularly known as Church and Chapel.” Within three years of Trevelyan's writing, the Whig interpretation of party was demolished by Lewis Namier, and with the dismantling of the notion of a two-party system, there seemed little reason to pursue the more refined issue of religion and party. Only recently has the topic been taken up again, and this research suggests that there may have been a significant connection between Nonconformity and party politics at both the national and the local level.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 1984 , pp. 55 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I wish to thank Kenneth Parsons of Girton, Cambridgeshire, for assistance in consulting the manuscripts at St. Andrew's Street Baptist Church. This study deals with “Old Dissent,” thus excluding both Quakers and Methodists neither of which had well established meetings in the borough of Cambridge during this period. Watts, Michael, The Dissenters (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar provides the best recent survey. More specialized treatments include Robbins, Caroline, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman (New York, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Bonwick, Colin, English Radicals and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1977)Google Scholar. On the leaders, see Cone, Carl B., Torchbearer of Freedom: The Influence of Richard Price on Eighteenth-Century Thought (Lexington, 1952)Google Scholar; Thomas, D. O., The Honest Mind: The Thought and Work of Richard Price (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar; Gibbs, F. W., Joseph Priestley (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Davis, Richard W., Dissent in Politics, 1780–1830: The Political Life of William Smith, M.P. (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Hughes, Graham W., With Freedom Fired: The Story of Robert Robinson, Cambridge Nonconformist (London, 1955)Google Scholar.

2 Trevelyan, G. M., “The Two Party System in English Political History,” in An Autobiography & Other Essays (London, 1949) p. 198Google Scholar; see also Trevelyan, 's History of England (London, 1926) pp. 450–51, 501,534Google Scholar. Earlier, Lecky had worked out the details of the alliance. Lecky, W. E. H., A History of England in the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed., London, 1879–1890), I, 2–4, 207Google Scholar; V, 154. But, Fryer, C. E., “The Numerical Decline of Dissent in England Previous to the Industrial Revolution,” The American Journal of Theology, 17 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, concluded that “Neither upon the ground of numbers nor of political influence can the Dissenters be assigned any such anatomical importance” [as the “backbone of the Whig party”], p. 233. Robbins, agreed; “all political activity for and by Dissenters was negligible,” Commonwealthman, p. 258Google Scholar, as did Smith, R. A., Eighteenth Century English Politics (New York, 1972) p. 69Google Scholar, but the latter qualified his view by reference to national politics. Bebb, E. B., however, remained convinced of the political importance of the Nonconformist vote, and referred to Dissenting voters in Nonconformity and Social and Economic Life 1660–1800 (London, 1946)Google Scholar.

3 SirNamier, Lewis in England in the Age of the American Revolution (1930, 2nd ed., London, 1961) pp. 32, 171–79, 195–8Google Scholar; “Monarchy and the Party System” in Personalities and Powers (London, 1955) pp. 32–35Google Scholar; and “Country Gentlemen in Parliament, 1750–84” in the same volume, pp. 64–65. The question of the propriety of the term “party” to describe either national politics or local politics in connection with national policy before 1784 is the subject of much controversy. See Cannon, John (ed.), The Whig Ascendancy: Colloquies on Hanoverian England (New York, 1981) chaps. 3 and 4, and the references thereGoogle Scholar.

4 Ditchfield, G. M. “The Parliamentary Struggle Over the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,” English Historical Review, 89 (1974), 551–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ditchfield re-asserts the importance of this lobby in “Repeal, Abolition, and Reform: A Study in the Interaction of Reforming Movements in Parliament of 1790–6,” in Bolt, Christine and Drescher, Seymour (eds.), Anti-Slavery, Religion, and Reform: Essays in Memory of Roger Anstey (Hamden, Conn., 1980) pp. 104, 115–16Google Scholar, and takes issue with my tally of Dissenting M.P.s. I had, however, excluded Quakers and those whose denominational affiliation was unsure, although I did not make the last point clear enough. “Whigs and Nonconformists: ‘Slumbering Radicalism’ in English Politics, 1739–89,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 9 (1975), p. 1, n. 1; p. 15, n. 51Google Scholar. If all who were even marginally within the Dissenting fold are included, the total does not rise above 2%. For religion and party in the early eighteenth century see Speck, W. A., Tory and Whig (London, 1970)Google Scholar.

5 SirNamier, Lewis, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (1929, 2nd ed., London, 1957) p. 113Google Scholar; Namier, , “Monarchy and the Party System,” p. 238Google Scholar. “Here [i.e. Bristol] as in most places, whatever popular party feeling there was, had a religious colouring,” The Structure of Politics, p. 90, and p. 137Google Scholar. This theme is followed up in SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, (eds.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790 (hereafter, Commons, 1754–1790)(London, 1964), I, 113–18Google Scholar.

6 Butterfield, Herbert, George, III, Lord North, and the People, 1779–80 (London, 1949) p. 284Google Scholar. Christie, Ian, Wilkes, , Wyvill, , and Reform (London, 1962) pp. 113, 229Google Scholar.

7 See Phillips, John A., “The Structure of Electoral Politics in Unreformed England,” Journal of British Studies, 20, no. 1 (1981), 76–100Google Scholar, for a recent reappraisal of the deferential model. See also O‘Gorman, Frank, The Rise of Party in England, 1760–82 (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Brewer, John, Political Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar and Dickinson, H. T., Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (New York, 1977)Google Scholar, as good examples of revisionist work that reasserts the importance of ideology in eighteenth-century politics. The introductory survey of the History of Parliament for 1754–1790 by Brooke is the most pesuasive defense of the deferential model available, Commons, 1754–1790, I, 1–204Google Scholar.

8 See Speck, W. A., Gray, W. A., and Hopkinson, R., “Computer Analysis of Poll Books: A Further Report,” (hereafter, “A Further Report”) Bulletin of The Institute for Historical Research,48 (1975), 64–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and O'Gorman, Frank, “Fifty Years After Namier: The Eighteenth Century in British Historical Writing,”; The Eighteenth Century, 20 (1979), 111–17Google Scholar.

9 For a good general discussion, see Vincent, J. R., Poll Books: How Victorians Voted (London, 1968)Google Scholar, and for their availability, Sims, John (ed.), A Register of Published Parliamentary Poll Books (University of Leicester Occasional Publications, 1983)Google Scholar. The number of poll books in manuscript is enormous; see, for example, the list in Speck, W. A., Tory and Whig, pp. 132–35Google Scholar.

10 For Staffordshire, for example, only 2% of the available registers are dated before 1730, and in Shropshire only 4%. But in the former, 16%, and in the latter, 21% date between 1730 and 1790. Lists of Non-Parochial Registers and Records in the Custody of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (London, 1859) pp. 62–64, 67–69Google Scholar. For the best general treatment, see Steel, D. J., Sources for Nonconformist Genealogy and Family History (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

11 The printed poll books for Abingdon for the 1734, 1754, and 1768 elections all distinguish Dissenting voters. See Bodleian Library, Oxford, The Poll (Abingdon, 1734)Google Scholar; Oxfordshire Record Office, Oxford, The Poll (Abingdon, 1754)Google Scholar; and Guildhall Library, London, The Poll (Abingdon, 1754)Google Scholar. The manuscript poll book for Shrewsbury for 1747 also lists all Dissenting voters, Shropshire Record Office, Shrewsbury, S.P.L. Deed 19163. Many poll books distinguish the Anglican clergy and some list Dissenting ministers, most often as simply “minister” or “clerk.”

12 On Norwich and Northampton, see Phillips, John A., Electoral Behavior in Unreformed England (Princeton, 1982) pp. 287, 293,296,299Google Scholar. For the counties, see Speck, W. A. and Gray, W. A. “Computer Analysis of Poll Books: An Initial Report,” Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, 43 (1970), especially pp. 110–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar where the politics of Anglican clergy are examined and p. 68 of “A Further Report.” On record linkage, see Wrigley, E. A., (ed.), Identifying People in the Past, (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Phillips, John A. “Nominal Record Linkage and the Study of Individual Level Voting Behavior,” Laboratory for Political Research, University of Iowa, 1976Google Scholar.

13 “Presbyterian” was often used mistakenly for known Baptists. British Library, William Cole, Additional Manuscripts, 5846, f. 122, and 5823, f. 98b; and Dr. Ewin, Add. MS 35626, f. 152a, consistently confused the three denominations. We are fortunate in having the accounts of both Cole and Ewin concerning the Dissenters, for Cole was a hostile critic, while Ewin was always friendly. See Ewin to his patron, Lord Hardwicke, 22 March, 1780, Add. MS 35626 f. 125.

14 County Record Office, Shire Hall, Cambridge, St. Andrew's Street Baptist Church Book, ff. 4, 17. The church could raise only £3.60 per quarter for Robinson's support. PRO, Chancery Lane, London, Registers of the Cambridge Congregational Church, Registrar General (hereafter R.G.) series, 4/3870, R.G. 4/12. Kenny, Courtney S., “A Forgotten Cambridge Meeting House,” Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society, 4 (1909–1910), 228Google Scholar. Smith, Andrew A., “Non-conformity in Green Street, Cambridge,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England, 14 (1968), 64Google Scholar. There was thorough-going cooperation between the Baptists and the Congregationalists. Baptist Church Book, ff. 26, 55; Congregational Register, R.G. 4/3870, p. 32; Robert Robinson, Miscellaneous Works of Robertson, Robert, (ed.), Benjamin Flower (Cambridge, 1807), IV, 181–87Google Scholar; Select Works of the Rev. Robert Robinson of Cambridge, (hereafter, Select Works) (ed.), Robinson, William (London, 1861), xlixGoogle Scholar.

15 Baptist Church Book, f. 71. Lovegrove, D. W., “Particular Baptist Itinerant Preachers During the Late 18th and Early 19th Centuries,” The Baptist Quarterly, 28 (1979), 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Baptist Church Book, ff. 69, 4, 17. See also Josiah Thompson, (ed.), “History of Protestant Dissenting Congregations,” (hereafter “History”) (1772--) MS 38.7–11 microfilm copy from Dr. Williams's Library, London, I, 151–80.

17 Smith, “Nonconformity in Green Street, Cambridge,” p. 64. In 1715, the Congregationalists and Baptists combined in Cambridge numbered 1, 100 and the Presbyterians 300. John Evans, “List of Dissenting Congregations and Ministers in England and Wales (1715–1729),” (hereafter, “Evans List”) MS 38.4 microfilm copy from Dr. Williams's Library, London, pp. 9–10. For the latter period see Josiah Thompson, “List of Protestant Dissenting Congregations in England and Wales (1772–1773),” MS 38.6 microfilm copy from Dr. Williams's Library. For the borough population, see Cam, Helen, “Quo Warranto Proceedings at Cambridge, 1780–1790,” The Cambridge Historical Journal 8, (1946), 146Google Scholar.

18 Bradley, James E., “Whigs and Nonconformists: Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists in English Politics, 1714–1790,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California, 1978) pp. 136–41Google Scholar and Appendix I. In 1715 the total is based upon the estimates of fifteen of the twenty-two congregations. “Evans List,” pp. 9–10. Watts estimates roughly 6% for the early period as well. The Dissenters, p. 509. The figure for 1774 is based upon Thompson's “History,” I, 150–52 and the totals are compared to estimates for the county population in 1701 and 1781. See Deane, Phyllis and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth, 1688–1959: Trends and Structures (2nd ed. rev., Cambridge, 1967) p. 103Google Scholar.

19 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 356.

20 “Poors Book„ 2 vols., at St. Andrew's Baptist Church, Cambridge, and the Baptist Church Book ff. 26–36 with indices compiled by Kenneth Parsons of Girton. Seven members were farmers and seventeen others plied their trade outside the borough. In 1774, of the eleven trustees, only three lived in Cambridge. “Trust Deed,„ St. Andrew's Street Baptist Church, 1774.

21 Add. MS 5823, f. 98b; Sir John Cotton is quoted in Butterfield, George III, p. 284; the last opinion is that of Dr. Ewin, Add. MS 35626, f. 117b.

22 Sedgwick, Romney, (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1715–1754 (London, 1971), I, 200–202Google Scholar; Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 217–21Google Scholar. The borough was last contested in 1737; the county in 1727; and the university in 1734.

23 Baptist Church Book, f. 26. See Short, K.R.M., “The English Indemnity Acts, 1726–1867,” Church History, 42 (1973), 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 219Google Scholar.

25 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 210Google Scholar; II, 169, 681.

26 Gray, J. Milner, Biographical Notes on the Mayors of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1922), p. 49Google Scholar.

27 “A single sheet addressed to the Corporation of Cambridge, on the general election. 1774,” listed with other works in the Baptist Church Book, f. 18. On Robinson's political thought, see Hughes, , With Freedom Fired, and Bernard Nutter, The Story of the Cambridge Baptists and the Struggle for Religious Liberty (Cambridge, 1912)Google Scholar. At this early date Ebenezer Hollick and Richard Foster, both members of Robinson's church, also led the Dissenters. Add. MS 5823, f. 98b; the Baptist Church Book ff. 33, 27.

28 The Cambridge Chronicle (15 Oct. 1774).

29 This is a theme that needs considerable research. There is a good deal of evidence for the political union of Dissenters and low-church Anglicans in the Evans List. Such an alliance is depicted at Exeter, Abingdon, Hertford, and Bristol. See the “Evans List,” pp. 31, 48, 49, 147.

30 Add. MS 5846, f. 222; Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 75, 219Google Scholar; II, 167. The Cambridge Chronicle (15 Oct. 1774).

31 Cambridge Central Library, The Poll(Cambridge, 8 Oct. 1774), compared to William Cole, Add. MSS 5855, f. 140, 5813, ff. 131, 252; 5846, f. 223; the Baptist Church Book, and the Congregational Register, R.G. 4/3870. People in both the poll book and the lists of Dissenters are matched by given name, surname, and occupation.

32 Add. MS 5813, f. 131. where the wealth of these Dissenters is alluded to. Stephen Harrison and Richard Foster, who voted for Byde and Meeke may have been as wealthy as the others, (Cole calls Harrison, “rich,” Add. MS 5813 f. 252) but neither of them held office at this time. Moreover, Harrison petitioned against the colonists in 1775. So of all the Dissenters who can be identified as voters in 1774 and 1776 only one, Richard Foster, behaved consistently with his Dissenting principles. Add. MSS 5813, f. 252; 5846, f. 223; 5855, f. 140.

33 Four generations of the family of Purchase held the office of Mayor at Cam-bridge, beginning in 1760, and at least the first two were “professed” Presbyterians. Gray, , Biographical Notes, p. 48, 51, 55–57Google Scholar. Four other Dissenters also held office, for a total of at least six in the period 1760–1790. See Add. MSS 5855, f. 140; 5813, ff. 131, 137.

34 Robbins, , Commonwealthman, p. 233Google Scholar. Much has been written on the law, but in the area of the frequency of occasional conformity to qualify for office, there has been a frank capitulation. Henriques, Ursula, Religious Toleration in England, 1787–1833. (Toronto, 1961) p. 16Google Scholar.

35 Bradley, , “Whigs and Nonconformists,” pp. 111–15Google Scholar, has some of the data, though most of it will appear in another article in preparation. See also Watts, , The Dissenters, pp. 482–85Google Scholar.

36 The scarcity of Dissenting freemen may be indirectly related to legal repression. When Patrick Beales applied for admission to the common council, he was denied on the basis of not being sacramentally qualified. Helen Cam, “Quo Warranto Proceedings at Cambridge, 1780–1790,” pp. 156–57. There was however, no sacramental qualification for freemen and this concern for the letter of the law appears to be exceptional at Cambridge.

37 Ibid, p. 148; Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 219Google Scholar.

38 The Poll (Cambridge, 7 Nov. 1776)Google Scholar; The Poll (Cambridge, 6 Sept. 1780)Google Scholar. Four Anglican clergy voted for Keene, in 1776.

39 Cole thought there was still a clear political issue at stake in 1776 and that the Dissenters were acting as “violent Whigs.” Add. MS 5823, f. 183b. But the poll and Dr. Ewin prove him wrong. Add. MS 35626 f. 18b, 21. The Cambridge Chronicle (28 Sept.; 9 Nov.; 16 Nov. 1776; and 9 Sept. 1780).

There appears to have been a greater economic cleavage than a religious cleavage in the elections of 1774 and 1776. Classifying the resident electors by vote and by occupational data in the poll books gives the following results:

This categorization is based upon a simplified version of Joseph Massie's schematization of the various “ranks” and “degrees” of people in England in his several pamphlets of 1756–65. See Peter, Mathias, “The Social Structure in the Eighteenth Century: a Calculation by Joseph Massie,” The Economic History Review, 10 (1957), 43–45. On the use of occupational data for socio-economic stratification, see Peter H., Lindert, “English Occupations, 1670–1811,” Journal of Economic History, 40 (1980), 694. The results appear to suggest that more government supporters came from the upper ranks, though the numbers are too small to be very convincing. The figures for 1776 are less to be relied upon since there were fewer specific occupational data; in this election, aldermen were listed as merchants (10 total), common councilmen as shopkeepers (18 total).

40 The petitions of 1775 have attracted little attention, though recently, six of the boroughs which sent addresses and petitions were studied. See Phillips, John A., “Popular Politics in Unreformed England,” The Journal of Modern History, 52 (1980), 61, Table 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Phillips thoroughly defends the idea that the petitions do reflect consistent political opinion. London petitions were examined by Sainsbury, John, “The Pro-Americans of London, 1769–1782,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 35 (1978), 447–48Google Scholar; those from Manchester, by Marshall, Peter, “Manchester and the American Revolution,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 62 (1979), 168–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and others from the west midlands by Money, John, Experience and Identity; Birmingham and the West Midlands, 1760–1800 (Manchester, 1977) pp. 199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Clark, Dora Mae in British Opinion and the American Revolution (New Haven, 1930) pp. 132–34Google Scholar, touches on the American petitions. Sainsbury, Marshall, Money, and Phillips have attempted to identify individual petitioners, yet none have focused upon their religious convictions.

41 The coercive petition is printed in full with the signatures in the 2 Dec. 1775 issue of The Cambridge Chronicle. The original is at the Public Record Office at Kew, H.O. 55/10/16. The conciliatory petition is printed in the 9 Dec. issue of The Cambridge Chronicle. The petitions were compared to the list of Dissenters provided by Cole, Add. MS 5855 ff. 140–41; the Baptist Church Book and the Trust Deeds of 1764 and 1795 of St. Andrew's Street Baptist Church, and the Congregational register, R.G. 4/3870.

42 The Cambridge Chronicle (18 Nov. 1775).

43 The occupation of petitioners who were also resident voters can be derived from the 1774 poll book, but the number is too small to make firm generalizations about the social status of the petitioners. It does tend to give the impression that government supporters were drawn from the higher ranks, oppositionists from the lower.

44 The Cambridge Chronicle (9 Dec. 1775).

45 Were the petitioners manipulated, either from above or below? The political consistency of people who voted and petitioned at Cambridge is impressive and comports well with what Phillips found for other, larger boroughs. Phillips, “Popular Politics,” p. 611. Of the twenty-six voters who petitioned for coercive measures in 1775, twenty-three had voted for the government candidates in 1774. In addition, six more coercive petitioners voted in 1776 and all six voted for the government candidate then. Of the twenty-six voters who petitioned for conciliatory measures in 1775, twenty-two had voted for the opposition candidates in 1774. This suggests that the political views of at least those petitioners who were also voters, were strong and consistent.

46 The use of circular letters and the discussion of possible correspondence with the Western Association of Baptist Churches in 1777 must have prepared Dissenters for their involvement with the Yorkshire Association movement. Stell, C. F. “The Eastern Association of Baptist Churches, 1775–1782,” The Baptist Quarterly, 27 (1977), 16, 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, does not treat the political issue.

47 See The Cambridge Chronicle (19 Feb.; 11 March; 8 April 1780). In the Feb. 12 issue Robinson's work is advertised. Robinson bases his thought on Sidney, Locke, Montesquieu, and Beccaria. A Political Catechism (2nd ed., London, 1782) p. 49Google Scholar.

48 Ewin to Hardwicke Feb. 1780, Add. MS 35626, ff. 117–18. Ewin consistently equated Presbyterians with Dissenters. The list of names given by Ewin are compared to the lists of Dissenters noted in n. 41 above.

49 The other Dissenters are Purchase and Joshua Finch (aldermen), and Harrison, (common councilman). See Add. MS 5855, f. 140. Baptist Church Book, ff. 27, 35.

50 The Cambridge Chronicle (11 March 1780). Cole lists the 100 names and identifies eighteen Dissenters, seven and possibly eight of whom can be confirmed from the church book. Add. MS 5855, ff. 140–42. From the church book and registers it is possible to match five more for a total of twenty-three. The eight from Robinson's congregation are Richard Foster, William Hollick, William Lyon, Charles Finch, John Gifford, Ebenezer Hollick, Sr., Ebenezer Hollick, Jr., and William Curtis. Baptist Church Book, ff. 27, 33,15, 35,54, Trust Deeds of 1764 and 1793 at St. Andrew's Street Baptist Church, and R.G. 4/3870, pp. 19, 21. The first six were trustees.

51 22 March 1780, Add. MS 35626, f. 125.

52 This meeting is discussed in detail in Butterfield, George III, pp. 284–88.

53 Add. MS 5855, f. 144. Compare The Cambridge Chronicle (1 April 1780).

54 Add. MS 5855, f. 143. Ewin also reports at length concerning this meeting and agrees that “the Dissenters were very Active and Busy in this Business.” Ewin to Hardwicke, 26 March 1780. Add. MS 35626, f. 133. For the leadership of Robinson see Add. MS 5855 f. 142.

55 Signatures of the petition of March 25 do not survive. The Baptists on the Committee of Correspondence were Ebenezer Hollick, Sr., Ebenezer Hollick Jr., William Hollick, Richard Foster, and William Nash. The Cambridge Chronicle (1 April 1780), and the Baptist Church Book.

56 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, II, 259, 489Google Scholar.

57 There is only one exception to this in Cambridgeshire, namely at Royston, Old Meeting. Some church books date from the period before 1780, but these have never been collected in a central repository.

58 See the “Evans List,” pp. 9–10.

59 The County Poll (14 Sept. 1780), Cambridge Central Library; compared to the Baptist Church Book; The Congregational Register, R.G. 4/3870.

60 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, I, 218Google Scholar. The Cambridge Chronicle (15 April 1780). Cole bears out the notion that the Dissenters backed Manners. Add. MS 5855, f. 134.

61 Ewin to Hardwicke, 27 April 1780, Add. MS 35626, f. 151.

62 Add. MS 35626, f. 159b.

63 11 May 1780, Add. MS 35626, f. 159.

64 15 May 1780, Add. MS 35626, f. 161.

65 One Dissenter, Edward Haylock, voted for Gideon and he is the only one listed as “Gentleman” in the group.

66 Twenty-three out of the 129 “clerks” that are distinguished in the poll. Thirty-four voted for Manners and Yorke and forty-two for Yorke and Gideon, which, once again, underscores their conservative position.

67 Christie notes that only forty people ultimately signed this petition and believes this is a sign of the waning interest in reform. Wilkes, Wyvill, and Reform, p. 114. This is probably accurate, but by this date the Dissenters may have felt that they had won their point. The petition itself appears not to have survived; twenty signatures at an early stage of signing are found in Cole, Add. MS 5855, f. 152. Nine of the ten Dissenters are isolated by Cole. See also, Baptist Church Book, ff. 27, 31, 33. The meeting was set for June 1, then postponed to June 8. The Cambridge Chronicle (1 June 1782).

68 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, III, 273Google Scholar.

69 Baptist Church Book, f. 33; The Cambridge Chronicle (1 June 1782); Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, III, 273Google Scholar.

70 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, III, 273Google Scholar; The Cambridge Chronicle (15 June 1782).

71 Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, III, 682–85Google Scholar.

72 This lack of organizational development contributed to Christie's conclusion that the Dissenters were ineffective in furthering reform. Wilkes, Wyvill, and Reform, pp. 113, 168.

73 Quoted in Butterfield, George III, p. 337.

74 Add MS 35381, f. 39.

75 Add MS 35381, f. 52.

76 Robinson, Robert, A Political Catechism, p. ivGoogle Scholar.

77 The Cambridge Chronicle (5 Oct. 1776). Harrison, “Grocer and zealous Presbyterian, rich and lately left off Business,” was made common councilman in 1778. Cole, Add. MS 5813, f. 252.

78 On Purchase, see Add. MS 5813, f. 137; Add MS 35626, f. 122. Namier, and Brooke, , Commons, 1754–1790, III, 170–173Google Scholar. Cam, “Quo Warranto Proceedings at Cambridge, 1780–1790,” pp. 150–54.

79 Select Works, p. lxxxiv; Hughes, With Freedom Fired, p. 48. That it was started in early 1783 can be determined from the notice in The Cambridge Chronicle (19 June 1790). This explains why it was not influential in the borough election of 1780 on which point, see Christie, Wilkes, Wyvill, and Reform, p. 120.

80 See The Cambridge Chronicle (11 June 1785), where it resolves support for Pitt's motion on parliamentary reform. See also 16 May 1789; 16 Jan. 1790.

81 The Cambridge Chronicle (11 May 1789). Ebenezer Hollick, however, spoke in favor of Adeane, and further opposition was not pressed against him.

82 Baptist Church Book, ff. 27, 31, 33, 54, and 89; The Cambridge Chronicle (11 June 1785; 19 June 1790).

83 Quoted in Hughes, , With Freedom Fired, p. 48Google Scholar.

84 Select Works, p. lxviii. In 1798 there were only eighty-seven members, as against 120 in 1774. Baptist Church Book, f. 43.

85 The Cambridge Chronicle (16 Jan. 1790; 19 June 1790.

86 The Cambridge Chronicle (26 June 1790).

87 Cooper, Charles H. and Cooper, John W., (eds.), Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge 1852,1908), IV, 445, 459Google Scholar. At least one Dissenter, Joshua Finch (and possibly aldermen Newling and John Purchase, Jr. were Dissenters) received very lucrative leases and places in Cambridge local government. It was John Purchase, Jr. who took the place of John Mortlack in 1817. Cam, “Quo Warrento Proceedings at Cambridge, 1780–1790,” pp. 163–64.

88 Thus evidence from poll books and non-parochial registers survives for a significant proportion of some twenty-eight boroughs in which the Dissenters influenced elections.

89 Perkin, Harold, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780–1880 (London, 1969) p. 71Google Scholar.