Signatures of conservatism: Petitioning, popular politics and campaigns against reform in Britain, 1780-1918
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/hp.46.06Abstract
Accounts of mass petitioning in Britain have generally focused on the deployment of petitions within progressive, reformist or liberal campaigns. Classic examples include anti-slavery, radicalism, Chartism, free trade, and women’s suffrage. Yet the new forms of mass collective petitioning that emerged in the late eighteenth century are best regarded as neutral technologies. Many of the largest petitions of the nineteenth century came from conservative, tory, loyalist, anti-reform or reactionary campaigns. The defence of the established churches consistently mobilised tens of thousands of petitions, and millions of signatures, as did opposition to granting rights to Catholics and Dissenters. To give another example, protectionist interests resisted free trade. These campaigns reveal that conservative petitioning was generally reactive, responding to proposed changes. In addition, the practice of petitioning within such movements made greater use of established bodies, such as clergy and the church, and was rather slower to develop new forms of association and adopt the new modes of mass petitioning than their opponents. For example, conservatives continued to emphasise the respectability and quality of signatures and petitioners, even after numbers had become increasingly important in the public debates over petitions on key issues. The use of petitioning was also significant in maintaining conservative identity. Overall, the engagement of conservatives shows how they adapted, if not to democracy, then to popular politics in the nineteenth century.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Henry Miller

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors whose contributions are accepted for publication in this journal, accept the following terms:
a. The authors retain their copyright and guarantee to the magazine the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License Attribution-Noncommercial-No derivative works 4.0 Spain, which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (e.g. deposit in an institutional repository or archive, or published in a monographic volume) provided the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
PLAGIARISM AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Plagiarism is understood to include:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.



