I’m very pleased to announce that my article entitled ‘Women, politics and the 1723 oaths of allegiance to George I’ has been accepted for publication by The Historical Journal. You can find a copy of the accepted manuscript version of the article below. The final version of the article will appear in The Historical Journal in due course. I am grateful to Cambridge University Press for permission to reproduce the accepted manuscript.
I’ve written an article on the £100000 tax on Catholics in the September issue of BBC History Magazine. This was the measure that prompted the imposition of the oaths to George I in 1723. The effectiveness of the tax has been debated by historians but in this short piece I argue that it did reveal the capacity of the state to keep watch on its Roman Catholic subjects (whether rich or poor, male or female). You can download a copy of the article from the link below. I’m grateful to BBC History Magazine for permission to reproduce my essay.
An Mp3 recording of my seminar paper on women and the 1723 oaths.
I’ve been taking a look at the York city roll again with the aim of producing a breakdown of the proportion of married women, spinsters and widows who signed the list. Information on the occupation of married women’s husbands also offers some indication of the economic status of the women subscribing. Work of this kind has already been done by Simon Dixon in a paper on the Exeter rolls which he kindly shared with me. The detailed and already transcribed York list seemed to offer a good comparison.
As I’ve indicated in previous posts, a desire to protect property and/or the right to inherit/administer property could explain why widows and the wives of gentlemen appear on the lists. What did it mean, however, that the wife of Thomas Plaister, labourer, also signed the list 5th December 1723? (YCA F12, f 146v) Was her subscription the product of political pressure, spousal direction or personal conviction?
I’ll put up the statistical findings here in due course but looking at the roll again also prompted questions about identity. While most women on these lists are given some form of identity, whether as widow, spinster or wife, women do appear on roll without any additional description, such as Elizabeth Jeele who subscribed the York list on 24 September 1723 (YCA F12, f. 141v). Was the lack of a description of Elizabeth an indication of poverty or marginality in some way? If the former, how did she pay the subscription fee of 3d?
More intriguing still are two women (or, I should I say possible women) who appear on the list with seemingly male titles. On 19 December, one Cornelia _ayley[?] Esqr subscribed the York roll, while on 21 Dec an Eliz. Aldridge was listed as ‘Baker’. In the case of Aldridge, while Brian Jones’ transcription identified the forename as ‘Eliz’, my own transcription had the abbreviation as ‘Clir’, which might suggest a male forename instead (Clifford)? Both Jones and I transcribed ‘ayley’ as Cornelia, however, and reviewing the image again, this still looks the most plausible reading of that name. Have we or the scribe made a mistake, or was a women really being described
as an Esqr on one of these lists?
In other news, I will be speaking about the 1723 oaths on 12 March in Liverpool not 11 as indicated in an earlier post. I’ll try and record this talk as the podcast technology didn’t work for the IHR paper.
It also appears as if there may be a 1723 oath roll for New York held in the archives of the New York Historical Society.
I have written a short article on the 1723 oath returns to be found in London Metropolitan Archives which has now been posted on the LMA website.
The article will also appear in the LMA’s newsletter.
I will also be delivering a talk on 1723 oaths at the University of Liverpool’s Eighteenth-Century Worlds seminar on 11 March 2015.
I’ve identified another oath roll in TNA Exchequer papers: E 169/84. This is a list of Quaker asservations with around 35 names on it, including both men and women. The subscriptions were taken between 30th Oct and 28th Nov 1723.
I will be giving a paper on my research on the 1723 oaths in London on 15 October and in York on 28 October. The London talk will be recorded as part of the IHR’s podcast series. I have also produced a short article on the 1723 oaths for the London Metropolitan Archives autumn newsletter, out Oct/Nov.
A new, updated version of the finding list will be published shortly.
The 1723 oaths to George I are the last example of the tendering of a test of loyalty en masse in early modern England. In the introduction to the finding list, I pondered why this practice ended in the early eighteenth century. Some indication of the possible intellectual changes which may have brought mass oath-taking to an end can be found in the text of a charge to the Grand Jury of Gloucester delivered at the Midsummer sessions 1723 by the Whig Parliamentary diarist Sir Richard Cocks.
Given the timing of the charge, Cocks was clearly intent on reminding the grand jury of the importance of the work of the special sessions of that year, gathering subscriptions to the oaths to George I. But though homilies on the importance of oaths were commonplace in a legal context (whether delivered in ‘charges’ of this kind or assize sermons), Cocks’ reasoning was noticeably different from earlier treatments of the obligation of sworn statements. References to God or the binding power of oaths on the individual conscience are largely absent from Cocks’ text. Instead, political obligation is directed by law and by reason.
Addressing the issue of the king’s title and hereditary right, Cocks imagines the hypothetical case of a man renting land. If a ‘busy body’ were to tell the tenant that their good, kind landlord did not, in fact, have the title to the property that they leased but that it belonged instead to another who had a reputation for treating his tenants harshly what rational individual would switch landlords? Similarly, even if the Pretender did have a better hereditary title, Cocks argued that reason dictated it was better to give our loyalty to the king who could be trusted to govern within the laws and protect Protestantism (George I).
Cocks was also a religious controversialist but, in this charge, the confessional identity of the monarch is important primarily because this is now regulated by law (through the 1701 Act of Settlement). So, a Catholic Pretender cannot be our rightful monarch because he is legally disqualifed. Parliamentary statute is absolute: once again indulging in a hypothetical, Cocks argued that the public’s duty of allegiance to George I would also be ended if he were to convert to Catholicism.
In this short charge, there is no room for extended discussion of the fine distinctions between de facto and de jure rulers, nor is there space for a casuistic exploration of the obligation of promises made before God. In Cocks’ view, law and reason are all and Parliament is paramount.
Cocks had begun his charge asking, seemingly rhetorically, ‘What Obligation can Art or Invention imagine, or find out, to supply the Place of Oaths?’ Yet, in his short ‘Charge’ he had laid out a theory of political obligation in which sworn bonds were subordinate to rational choice directed by the sovereign lawmaker, Parliament.
For Cock’s charge see
‘A Charge Given to the Grand-Jury Of the COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, AT THE Midsummer Sessions, 1723’ by Sir Richard Cocks – 2nd edn.
in Charges to the Grand Jury 1689-1803, ed. G. Lamione, (Camden 4th series, vol. 43, London, 1992), pp. 175-89.