John Reeves (activist)

For the Australian politician and judge, see John Reeves (judge).
For the English naturalist, see John Reeves (naturalist).
Portrait of John Reeves by Thomas Hardy, 1792.

John Reeves (20 November 1752 – 7 August 1829), was a British judge, public official and conservative activist. In 1792 he founded the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers to campaign against the ideas of the French Revolution and their British supporters. Because of his counter-revolutionary actions he was regarded by many of his contemporaries as "the saviour of the British state".[1]

Life

Reeves was educated at Eton College and Merton College, Oxford, being elected in 1778 as a Fellow of The Queen's College, Oxford. In 1779 he was called to the bar and held the public offices counsel to the Royal Mint; clerk and secretary to the Board of Trade and superintendent of Aliens. He was a Chief Justice of Newfoundland for a year until returning to England in 1792 to accept the post of paymaster of the metropolitan police (Receiver of Public Offices). He was also elected as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1789 and the next year was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. In 1793 he was appointed as high steward of the Manor and Liberty of Savoy and the King's Printer in 1800.

The Association

Reeves campaigned against Jacobinism by founding at the Crown and Anchor tavern on 20 November 1792 the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers. The Association was "staggeringly successful, outstripping even the Constitutional societies", with more than 2,000 local branches established before long.[2] They disrupted radical meetings, attacked printers of Thomas Paine's works, initiated prosecutions for sedition and published loyalist pamphlets.[3] The Crown and Anchor association met for the final time on 21 June 1793.[4] These loyalist associations mostly disappeared within a year "after successfully suppressing the organizations of their opponents".[5] The leading opposition Whig Charles James Fox denounced the Association's publications and claimed that had they been printed earlier in the century they would be prosecuted as treasonable Jacobite tracts due to their advocacy of the divine right of kings.[6] In a speech on 10 December 1795 Fox described the Association as a system designed to run the country through "the infamy of spies and intrigues".[7]

Reeves was upset that he had received "not one single mark of civility" from William Pitt the Younger's government for his loyalist activities.[8] Thereafter Reeves held an animosity towards Pitt and was a supporter of the Addington administration in the early 19th century.[9] William Cobbett claimed in 1830 that Reeves told him that he hated the Pitt administration and its principles and that bitter experience had taught him that one must either kiss or kick the government's arse.[9]

Thoughts on the English government

In 1795 Reeves anonymously published the first of his Thoughts on the English Government, addressed to the quiet good sense of the People of England in a series of Letters. Reeves claimed that "I am not a Citizen of the World...I am an Englishman".[10] In a controversial passage Reeves likened the monarchy to a tree:

...the Government of England is a Monarchy; the Monarch is the antient stock from which have sprung those goodly branches of the Legislature, the Lords and Commons, that at the same time give ornament to the Tree, and afford shelter to those who seek protection under it. But these are still only branches, and derive their origin and their nutriment from their common parent; they may be lopped off, and the Tree is a Tree still; shorn indeed of its honours, but not, like them, cast into the fire. The Kingly Government may go on, in all its functions, without Lords or Commons...[11]

In 1795 a group of Whigs, Fox among them, persuaded the Attorney General to prosecute Reeves for "libel on the British Constitution" due to his tree metaphor and a parliamentary committee was set up to determine the authorship of the Thoughts.[6] Former Whig MP Edmund Burke claimed that the prosecution of Reeves was a pretext for the spread of Foxite views.[12] Burke claimed that the tree metaphor was "slovenly" and that he should not of criticised 18th century Whigs but that Reeves was still a person of "considerable Abilities" whose argument in the Thoughts, "with a commonly fair allowance, is perfectly true" and "neither more nor less than the Law of the Land".[12] In November 1795 Burke wrote to William Windham that the Reeves case was ironic because he was being criticised by people whose views endangered all three parts of the British constitution:

Heraldry of the constitution! Whether the Lords and Commons or the King should walk first in the procession! Which is the Root, which the Branches! In good faith, they cut up the Root and the Branches! A fine Business of Law Grammar, which is the Substantive, which the adjective. – When an author lays down the whole as to be revered and adhered to, – at any former time would any one have made it a cause of quarrel, that he had given the priority to any part? especially to that part which was attacked and exposed? My opinion is, that, if you do not kick this business out with Scorn, Reeves ought to Petition and to desire to be heard by himself and his Council.[13]

Reeves was acquitted of libel although the jury censured him for writing a "very improper publication".[14] Reeves published anonymously the Second Letter in 1799 and in 1800 the Third and Fourth Letters of his Thoughts.

In 1801 Reeves published Considerations on the coronation oath where he supported the King's opinion that the coronation oath prohibited Roman Catholics from Parliament and his dismissal of the Pitt government in 1801. Reeves also claimed that presbyterianism rather than popery was the greatest threat to Church and state.[15]

Publications

Notes

  1. ↑ A. V. Beedell, 'John Reeves's Prosecution for a Seditious Libel, 1795-6: A Study in Political Cynicism', The Historical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), p. 799.
  2. ↑ Boyd Hilton, A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People? England 1783–1846 (Clarendon Press, 2006), p. 69.
  3. ↑ Hilton, pp. 69-70.
  4. ↑ Philip Schofield, ‘Reeves, John (1752–1829)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, accessed 26 April 2009.
  5. ↑ Robert Eccleshall, English Conservatism since the Restoration (Unwin Hyman, 1990), p. 35.
  6. 1 2 Eccleshall, p. 36.
  7. ↑ L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (Penguin, 1997), p. 139.
  8. ↑ J. J. Sack, From Jacobite to Conservative. Reaction and orthodoxy in Britain, c. 1760–1832 (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 104.
  9. 1 2 Sack, p. 104.
  10. ↑ Sack, p. 181.
  11. ↑ Eccleshall, p. 66.
  12. 1 2 Eccleshall, p. 40.
  13. ↑ Eccleshall, pp. 40-1.
  14. ↑ Eccleshall, p. 37.
  15. ↑ Sack, p. 227.

References

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, January 13, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.