Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:06:58.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arresting John Entick: The Monitor Controversy and the Imagined British Conquests of the Spanish Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

David Stiles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the events surrounding the Monitor controversy, which stemmed from radical criticism of the crown's conservative approach to the war between Spain and Great Britain in 1762. While some observers wished to quickly bring the war to an end, others expressed more radical plans for the destruction of the Spanish Empire. When the crown retaliated against prominent agitators with a round of arrests designed to silence their dissent, the result was a succession of legal cases that culminated with Entick v. Carrington in 1765. In their arguments, the plaintiffs expressed concern that the British Empire was seemingly in danger of evolving into an oppressive, allegedly “Spanish” style of polity. These legal processes and the precedents they set were critical to the development of protected space for political dissent in the British Empire, and affirmed a more broadly participatory model for the future development of imperial policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 934 - 959
Copyright
Copyright © The North American Conference on British Studies 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a useful recent work on Wilkes, see Cash, Arthur H., John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty (New Haven and London, 2006)Google Scholar.

2 “John ENTICK, (Clerk) v. Nathan CARRINGTON and Three Others.” The legal citation for this case is: Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] High Court of Justice (EWHC) KB J98 (02 November 1765). It can be found, and is perhaps best known, as case 1029 in vol. 19 of Howell's State Trials, more properly known as Howell, Thomas Bayly, ed., Cobbett's complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors from the earliest period to the present time (London, 1809–1826), 1029–76Google Scholar.

3 For a good summary of Entick v. Carrington's presence in US law, see Galloway, Russell W. Jr., “The Intruding Eye: A Status Report on the Constitutional Ban Against Paper Searches,” Howard Law Journal 25, no. 3 (1982), especially 374–77Google Scholar.

4 The most recent example of legal literature that includes a significant analysis of Entick's case is Dripps, Donald A., “‘Dearest Property’: Digital Evidence and the History of Private ‘Papers’ as Special Objects of Search and Seizure,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 103, no. 1 (2013): 49–109Google Scholar.

5 Pagden, Anthony, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500–1800 (New Haven and London, 1995), 128Google Scholar.

6 The traditional view of the Glorious Revolution stems from the nineteenth-century work of Thomas Babington Macaulay, and held that it was effectively a non-revolutionary event, one that confirmed sensible English tradition and did not seek to make major changes in English society. See Macaulay, Thomas Babington, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second (London, 1848)Google Scholar.

7 See Pincus, Steven, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven and London, 2009)Google Scholar.

8 This point is abundantly clear from the work of various scholars, including Bowen's, H. V.The Business of Empire: The East India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756–1833 (Cambridge, 2006)Google Scholar; Wilson's, KathleenThe Island Race: Englishness, Empire and Gender in the Eighteenth Century (London and New York, 2003)Google Scholar; and Pincus's, Steve “Reconfiguring the British Empire,” William and Mary Quarterly 69, no. 1 (2012): 63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is also emphasized in the final chapter of Armitage's, DavidThe Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Colley, Linda, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (New Haven and London, 2009), 112Google Scholar.

10 Gould, Eliga H., The Persistence of Empire: British Political Culture in the Age of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill and London, 2000), 108Google Scholar.

11 Humphreys, Jennett, “Entick, John (c.1703–1773),” Rev. Wilson, Penelope, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, Brian (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8824, accessed 13 Sept. 2009.

12 We know of Entick's involvement with Freemasonry principally by way of the handbook that he published on (and for) the Masons in 1754, and its subsequent updates, which list him as being a prominent Masonic official at numerous meetings throughout the late 1750s and early 1760s. See, for example, pages 281–82 of The Constitutions of the ... Masons ... collected ... by J. Anderson and revised ... by J. Entick. A new edition, with alterations and additions by a Committee appointed by the Grand Lodge. (Appendix to the Constitutions, etc.), (London, 1767–76).

13 Entick, John, A New Naval History: Or, Compleat View of the British Marine (London, 1757), iGoogle Scholar.

14 Monitor, or the British Freeholder, No. 355 (8 May 1762), 2139–40. The writers for this publication simply signed with a letter or two. This issue was signed by “Z.”

15 Ibid., 2142.

16 Brewer, John, Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III (Cambridge, 1976), 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Nobbe, George, The North Briton: A Study in Political Propaganda (New York, 1939), 32Google Scholar.

18 Monitor, No. 373 (11 September 1762), 2251. Signed by “Q.”

19 Monitor, No. 376 (2 October 1762), 2264. This issue was unsigned and appears to have several authors.

20 Monitor, No. 378 (16 October 1762), 2280. Signed by “O.”

21 Bedford's antipathy to Pitt's aggression is very clearly stated in his correspondence with his brother-in-law, Granville Leveson-Gower. See Lord Bedford to Lord Gower, Woburn Abby, 27 June 1761, The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Public Record Office (PRO) 30/29/1/14, f. 25.

22 Baugh, Daniel, The Global Seven Years War, 1754–1763 (Harlow, UK, 2011), 617–18Google Scholar.

23 Entick, John, The General History of the Late War (London, 1763)Google Scholar.

24 Anonymous, A Letter to the Earls of Halifax and Egremont (London, 1763), 6–7Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., 9.

26 Ibid., 30.

27 See Dripps, “Dearest Property,” 61. Akhil Reed Amar also points out the importance of the Wilkes and Entick cases to American patriots in his article “Lord Camden Meets Federalism—Using State Constitutions to Counter Federal Abuses,” Rutgers Law Journal 27, no. 4 (1996): 845–46Google Scholar. In his view, Lord Camden was to the Court of Common Pleas what Earl Warren would later be to the Supreme Court of the United States: an activist chief justice who paved the way for major changes.

28 Baugh, Daniel A., “Great Britain's ‘Blue-Water’ Policy, 1689–1815,” International History Review 10, no. 1 (1988): 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article provides an excellent, broad analysis of British naval policy in the long eighteenth century.

29 This discussion is drawn from Baugh, “Great Britain's,” 37–41.

30 Baugh, “Great Britain's,” 57.

31 Baugh notices that this is an aberrant moment in Britain's blue-water policy, and he tells us that Pitt wanted to create a much more powerful Britain, but he does not offer an extensive discussion. See Baugh, “Great Britain's,” 58.

32 Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 41Google Scholar.

33 Paterson was appointed to this post in 1746, and clearly still held it in the early 1760s, but it is not known when he died. For more, see Sambrook, James, ‘Paterson, William (fl. 1716–1760)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar, http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101068281/William-Paterson, accessed 12 July 2014.

34 William Paterson to an unspecified recipient, Barbados, 2 November 1761, Bodleian Library, Oxford University (Bodleian), Western Manuscripts (WM), North Manuscripts (MS. North) b.6, f. 17.

35 Ibid., f. 17 verso.

36 “Of a War With Spain,” William Paterson to his superiors at the Board of Customs, Barbados, 24 November 1761, Bodleian, WM, MS. North b.6, f. 19.

37 Ibid., f. 20.

38 Ibid., f. 19.

39 For a brief encapsulation of Ellis' life and career, see Cornish, Rory T., “Ellis, Henry (1721–1806),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, Brian (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8694, accessed 10 Sept 2009.

40 Bodleian, WM, MS. North b.6, “About the Havana,” Henry Ellis to the Earl of Egremont, King's Bench Walks, 16 January 1762, f. 28.

41 Ibid., f. 38 verso.

42 Albemarle to Egremont, Headquarters near the Havana, 21 August 1762, TNA: PRO CO 117/1, f. 137.

43 Albemarle to Egremont, Havana, 7 October 1762, TNA: PRO CO 117/1, f. 149-50.

44 Declaration by Lord Albemarle, Havana, 4 November 1762, TNA, PRO, CO 117/1, f. 251, and Declaration by Lord Albemarle, Havana, 24 December 1762, TNA: CO 117/1, f. 254-55.

45 Bedford to Egremont, Fontainebleau, 11 October 1762, TNA: PRO SP 78/253, f. 149.

46 Entick, John, The General History of the Late War, vol. 5, 3rd Edition (London, 1772), 365Google Scholar.

47 Peter Collinson to the Earl of Bute, 5 February 1762, Bodleian, WM, MS. North b.6, f. 47–50. For more on Collinson and his connections (he was personally acquainted with Lord Bute through his work as a botanist), see Chambers, Douglas D. C., “Collinson, Peter (1694–1768),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, Brian (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5964, accessed 10 Sept 2009.

48 Alexander Wright to the Earl of Bute, 20 February 1762, Bodleian, WM, MS. North b.6, f. 158.

49 Wright discusses this matter extensively in Alexander Wright to the Earl of Bute, 20 February 1762, Bodleian, WM, MS. North b.6, f. 60–78.

50 Alexander Wright to unknown recipient (probably Lord Bute, based on previous correspondence), Bath, 30 April 1762, Bodleian, WM, MS North b6, f. 100v–01.

51 Ibid., f. 95.

52 Ibid., f. 100v–01.

53 James Vaughn describes the territorial expansion of the EIC in the Bengal region in the 1750s and 1760s as being the result of “neo-Tory” imperial policy making, which was emerging as a direct response to the Whiggish ideology of an empire based on free association and exchange. See Vaughn, The Politics of Empire: Metropolitan Socio-Political Development and the Imperial Transformation of the British East India Company, 1675–1775 (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2009). See page 3 for an overview, and chapter 5 for a more complete development.

54 For a complete description of Draper's plan, see William Draper, “Rough Sketch of an Expedition to M[anil]a, mentioned to Lord A[nson] on the 8th, 11th, and 12th Inst,” January 1762, Rhodes House Library, Oxford, North Papers, Brit. Emp., S.I, f. 157–58, as printed in Cushner, Nicholas P., ed., Documents Illustrating the British Conquest of Manila, 1762–1763, Camden Fourth Series, vol. 8 (London, 1971)Google Scholar.

55 Secret Committee of the East India Company to the Earl of Egremont, East India House, 14 January 1762, TNA: PRO, CO 77/20, as printed in Cushner, Documents Illustrating, 15–17.

56 Letter from Major General Lawrence, 31 July 1762, in “Extracts of the East India Company's Advices relating to the Inconveniences they suffered from the Manilha Expedition,” TNA: PRO, T 1/422, f. 27–28.

57 This internecine conflict is vividly described in Matthew Horne to (Smith?), Manila, 4 October 1763, India Office Records, Orme O.V. 27., British Library (BL), 98–100.

58 Letters and Papers of James Bean . . . 1762–64, India Office, MSS EUR E 336, BL. This unorganized archival box is focused on the period of the British occupation of Manila. It is made up of loose bundles of letters without folio numbers, and it includes this account of the Drake/Bean visit to Cochinchina.

59 Schnapper, Eric, “Unreasonable Searches and Seizures of Papers,” in Virginia Law Review 71, no. 6 (1985): 877–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Huckle v. Money, 95 Eng. Rep. at 768. The original legal citation was (1763) 2 Wils KB 205.

61 Wilkes v. Wood, in Cobbett's complete collection of state trials, vol. 19, 1153–54. The legal citation is 98 Eng. Rep. at 498. Also see Schnapper, “Unreasonable Searches,” 878.

62 Wilkes v. Wood, 1167–68.

63 Leach v. Money, in Cobbett's complete collection of state trials, vol. 19, 1027. The legal citation is 97 Eng. Rep. at 1088. Also see Schnapper, “Unreasonable Searches,” 879–80.

64 Entick v. Carrington.

65 Schnapper, “Unreasonable Searches,” 881–83.

66 Dripps, “Dearest Property,” 66.

67 Entick v. Carrington. Also quoted in Dripps, “Dearest Property,” 67.

68 Cuddihy, William and Hardy, B. Carmon, “A Man's House Was Not His Castle: Origins of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” William and Mary Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1980): 374–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article gives an extensive history of common law decisions that relate to both Entick v. Carrington and the US Constitution's fourth amendment, which is closely linked to Lord Camden's 1765 ruling.

69 Entick v. Carrington.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 For a more extensive discussion, see Marcus, Philip H., “A Fourth Amendment Gag Order—Upholding Third Party Searches at the Expense of First Amendment Freedom of Association Guarantees,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47, no. 1 (1985): 265–66Google Scholar.

73 For example, see Marcus, “A Fourth Amendment Gag Order,” 263. Also see Amar, “Lord Camden Meets Federalism,” 845. As previously mentioned in note 9, for more on how Entick v. Carrington was directly incorporated into US law, see Russell W. Galloway, Jr., “The Intruding Eye,” especially 374–77.

74 Spadafora, David, The Idea of Progress in Eighteenth-Century Britain (New Haven and London, 1990), 211Google Scholar.