CROWD CONTROL: The Media's Manipulation of the 'Mob' - Not a Modern Phenomenon.

2020 has been a year of both staying inside and taking to the streets. It is not uncommon for a year to be dotted with protests, but the worldwide weight of some of the issues that have come to the fore these recent months, alongside some outrageously selfish rallies, have brought the questioning of our morals into the spotlight. From the murderous and vicious brutality demonstrated by police forces in reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement, to the anti-mask protest in Hyde Park at the height of a worldwide pandemic (treated less brutally by the police, it must be said), the worldwide lockdowns have meant that every issue has been thrust onto a global stage, magnified by the taking over of the coronavirus.

I am not here to discuss a specific modern protest; instead, I intend to compare the modern phenomenon of the protest against historical examples, with the main intention of proving that the media, the Conservatives, and many people in the older generation still think and act in exactly the same way, especially in regards to young people and fighting for what they believe in. The irony that these parallels draw is as interesting and humorous as it is frightening, that voices from superior positions (wealth, access, age, class) have always been able to manipulate others for their own benefit.

In 1646, an English ballad called ‘The World Turn’d Upside Down’ was published, with its front cover depicting images such as a horse driving a chariot and fish swimming in the sky.[1] This wasn’t meant to be a piece of progressive art arriving in the world nearly 400 years before the ‘invention’ of Surrealism, but rather a critique of Puritan beliefs surrounding Christmas. It illustrates a broader view held by many throughout the long 17th century that social disorder was rife and the world as they knew it was under severe threat – probably the same kind of people who now like to say, ‘political correctness gone mad’ and ‘you can’t say anything online nowadays’ after being critiqued for posting something medieval in morals. However, considering that this was a century that featured tyranny, a Civil War, a royal execution, England’s only ever republic ruled under the thumb of the army, a restoration, supposed absolutism and a foreign takeover of the monarchy, the country actually did pretty well in terms of riots. Except for 1628, London saw no food riots in this century (a big feat back in those days), and most of the other famous examples, as we shall see, were actually very legitimate.

'The World Turn’d Upside Down’ - not sure those glove shoes will catch on.

First things first, as much as we can see the roots of modern Conservatives in the 17th century Tories (of course, their views have evolved!), the Whigs (oppositional party at the time) cannot be paralleled with Labour, as the latter was founded in 1900. However, neither party would be what they are now without the tumultuous changes to Parliament in this era. The late 17th century features rapid growth in the importance of parties, namely the Tories and the Whigs, as democracy as we now know it started to form. New rules surrounding government came into play, such as the Triennial Act of 1694 that meant Parliament had to meet at least once annually, meaning that public opinion could not be ignored. This was something that was recognised, but not often liked, by the Tories.

Sir Roger L’Estrange and Nathaniel Thompson, both Tory MPs during the Exclusion Crisis (1679-81), demonstrated this when they said that their aim was ‘reducing the deluded multitude to their just allegiance.’ [2] Similar opinions were expressed by other elites, with the Marquis of Newcastle warning Charles II on his impending restoration that ‘every man is now become a state man.’ [3] This was in reaction to the knowledge that news could now reach the illiterate, thanks to the popularity of coffeehouses. John Bramston, a Tory MP, said that ‘When the Governement is fixed, obedience becomes necessarie to it, and conscience obleiges private persons to yield obedience, as well as prudence and safety to prevent anarchy, and the rable from spoilinge and robbinge the noble and wealthy.’[4] The Tories thus knew they had to get popular opinion onside in order to get into power and therefore maintain their own inherited wealth, whilst simultaneously being unashamedly disgusted by the existence of lower-class interaction with politics. The idea that poor people without a paid education could somehow shape their policy was seen as abhorrent. Considering all our leaders still seem to hail from Eton, Cambridge, Oxford etc. it would be hard to say we have come extremely far.

A rare depiction of a 17th century coffeehouse.

Despite their revulsion, the Tories utilised the crowd to their advantage and tried to win them away from the Whigs. For example, when the Whigs were burning pope effigies in November 1681, the Tories ordered local London apprentices to disrupt the protest and start their own demonstrations, as they wished to paint the Whigs as Catholic in order to drive the Protestant population to their own side.[5] Another example is during the aforementioned Exclusion Crisis when Nathaniel Thompson, famous for his disgust of using the mob, published extensive pamphlets aimed at actually winning over the rabble. In Spring 1680, he was even found to be organising unrest himself when plans for his Tory apprentice insurrection were discovered. Another instance during the famous Dr. Sacheverell case saw Tory gentlemen inciting crowds to destroy non-conformist (meaning not Anglican – hard to know in the ever-changing 17th century) meeting houses in 1710.[6] Even Tory individuals were set on using the mob for their own personal advancement, such as Sir William Batten, who wanted to spread rumours of Dutch atrocities in the second Anglo-Dutch War. He sought to use ‘the coffee houses’ as this is where it would ‘spread like leprosy’ – clearly he didn’t think highly of the establishments.[7] Everything was about advancing those already in power. Even within Parliament, ‘fake news’ was rife, accusing each other of taking French bribes and spreading false rumours, resulting in the exile and banishment of certain MPs.

There was also disgust and fear surrounding the apprentices (as mentioned, they helped the Tories with the Pope effigies). They were young men who had come to London from across the country, feared to be riotous and immoral. The former is probably true, the latter less so. One example that seems to sum up the apprentices is when they petitioned for extra holiday in the month so that they didn’t have to work on the Sabbath.[1] They did not riot, and they wanted something that seems pretty moral to me. Another example is when they were employed by John Pym (an MP on the side of Parliament in the Civil War) and others to protect Parliamentarians in 1642, or again when they were used by the Tories (who would have opposed Pym.)[2] This shows that whilst the apprentices were renowned for being riotous and immoral, they were usually going by the instructions of God or what they were told was right by the current leaders of the country. It is funny how they were seen to be something to fear simply because they were young and willing to stand up for something.

Apprentices rioting against brothels (1668) / students protesting against unfair A-level results (2020) - 'moral' protests

This isn’t the only parallel that pervades modernity. The mob was known at the time as the ‘many-headed monster’ and yet it was used by the elite whenever they needed it most. Everything was about extending the power of the party or the individual, only making certain policies and appearing certain ways in order to gain votes, not to actually better the country. Pamphlets with false rumours were spread, just as the media continues to twist events in order to fulfil a narrative that will both make money and spin people’s political allegiances. The youth was disregarded as a dangerous force of unnecessary change, but again, when the government or a group needed a tour de force of progression, they knew the youth were happy to fight for a cause which they believed in. As mentioned, there is no comparison with Labour for this era, nor is there as big a need to, considering they are not currently in power. What is scary is how political manipulation has existed whatever the century. The only thing we can take from this is to try and think for ourselves and to know that everything we are given – historical sources or a news article published four minutes ago – is written for a purpose.

We can blame social media for spreading biased information, but it appears that the nature of humans to steadfastly believe whatever is fed to them and rapidly accuse others of being wrong simply for their own advancement is something that comes naturally to the power-hungry or already elite. Try telling Charles I that social media created cancel culture!

The memes of history - everyone made do without social media.

‘A Party is, when a great Number of Men join together in Professing a Principle, or Set of Principles, which they take to be for the Publick Good, and therefore endeavour to have them established and universally professed among their own countrymen!’ ­– Anonymous, 1743 [10]

Back to Home

[1] https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/xjf97563eng/the-world-turnd-upside-down-title-page-of-a-pamphlet-1647-xjf97563-eng/ [accessed 15/03/2020] [2] Tim Harris, ‘Was the Tory Reaction Popular?’ The London Journal, (1987) 13:2, 106-120,, 106 [3] Steve Pincus, “‘Coffee Politicians Does Create’: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture.” The Journal of Modern History, 67:4 (1995), 807–834, 808 [4] H. T. Dickinson, ‘The Eighteenth-Century Debate on the Sovereignty of Parliament,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 26 (1976), 189-210, 193 [5] Harris, 106 [6] Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 16 [7] Pincus, 816 [8] Steven Smith, ‘Almost revolutionaries: the London apprentices during the Civil Wars’, Huntington Library Quarterly, (1979), 42:4, 313-328, 218 [9] Ibid., 325

[10] From The Detector Detected (Anonymous, 1743), as quoted in: Tim Harris, Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 1660-1715, (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1993), 5