Diacritica 25-2_Filosofia.indb - cehum - Universidade do Minho

QUEEN CAROLINE AND THE PRINT CULTURE OF REGENCY RADICALISM
The writers of the radical press
161
Th e radical representation of the Aff air materialized chiefl y in the periodicals
and the satire of the London radical press. Th e periodicals pursued
the goal set by Cobbett in 1816: to enlighten, to educate, to mobilise. For
their editors, political progress was synonymous with intellectual progress
and with the free fl ow of information and comment. One of the arguments
against the method of prosecution of the Queen was precisely its secrecy.
Cobbett exclaimed in the PR: ‘Th e Queen sends her message, and demands
publicity. She demands that her accusers be named [...]. And what, then,
when it was proposed by the Ministers to refer evidence to a secret committee?’
(PR, vol. xxxvi: 903).
Carlile, Cobbett, and Wooler came from the artisan class and moved
to London in their youth. Th ey exhibited the self-confi dence of the autodidact.
Chambers (one of the Cato Street conspirators) said at his trial that
he used to read Cobbett’s PR, which Judge Garrow strongly condemned.
Cobbett’s response illustrates this self-confi dent awareness:
While the despised ‘Lower-Orders’ have been gaining real political knowledge
[...] the High-Blooded, who suck their ideas from the muddy and polluted
pools of the daily and the monthly and quarterly press, have remained in their
original ignorance [..] which, had they duly read my little book, they would
have naturally expected, or, rather, which they would have taken care to prevent
(PR, vol. xxxvi: 756-7).
Th e radical press derived most of its energy from this attitude of selfconfi
dent ‘unrespectability’ that climaxed during the Queen Caroline aff air.
Richard Carlile (1790-1843) came to London in 1813, soon aft er his marriage,
and took up work as a tinsmith. Th e post-war crisis and the agitated
London atmosphere attracted him to politics, and in 1817 he was dedicating
himself full time to radical politics. He began editing Th e Republican in
August 1819. In October, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in
Dorchester Gaol and to a fi ne of £1,500 on charges of blasphemy and seditious
libel, but the Republican did not stop publication, being edited by his
wife, Jane, a remarkable woman. When the ‘Vice Society’ attempted to close
his shop by indicting his wife, he wrote:
I take this opportunity of repeating my thanks to the Vice Society, for the
extensive circulation they are again giving my publications. I hear from London
Diacritica 25-2_Filosofia.indb 161 05-01-2012 09:38:27