Hibbert, Christopher. King Mob. (Longmans, Green and co., New York, l958), pp.1-172.

In his King Mob, Christopher Hibbert successfully advances the thesis that rioting which brought the city of London, England to the point of anarchy during the first week of June in l780 attained the proportions which it did due to the lack of a law enforcement system ready or willing to prevent such mob violence. Hibbert argues throughout his account that, had the Lord Mayor of London or the justices of the peace taken action and ordered the soldiers to fire upon the unlawful mob, the rioting would never have produced the "King Mob" which ruled London for that fearsome week. Lord George Gordon, as President of the Protestant Association and champion of the anti-Catholic cause, became as much a victim of this flaw in the English system as were those Englishmen whose churches, homes and places of business were burned by the mob.

Hibbert penetrates deeply into the causes of the rioting. To the superficial observer, Lord Gordon and the Protestant Association are the cause of the rioting. Hibbert, however, is not satisfied with this explanation. The book begins by tracing the rise to Parliament of Lord Gordon. Pig-headed and temperamental, he found no opportunity for advancement in the British navy and sought election to Parliament. Once in Parliament, Lord Gordon proved himself to be a major nuisance to his fellow MPs, but finally found what he thought would be the key to his public success. In the championing of the anti-Catholic cause, Gordon hoped to establish a name for himself.

Heading the effort to defeat the Catholic Relief Bill, Lord Gordon opportunistically lead the peaceful march of respectable Protestant English petitioners on Parliament. He proved himself therein to be neither a lover of humanity nor a mere product of his own Calvinistic background. He was, indeed, tinged by a touch of megalomania.

As the temper of the demonstration rapidly became more bellicose, MPs arriving at the House of Parliament were shamelessly abused. Lord Gordon watched as the original group of petitioners was joined by girl prostitutes, beggars and street boys. The Protestant cause was quickly obscured in drunken revelry as "No popery!" was shouted by those who had no idea of what "popery" entailed. The mob was to riot often during that week and each successive time they acted with greater ferocity. Catholics and non-Catholics alike displayed blue cockades on storefronts and on the doors of their private dwellings in an effort to prevent the wrath of the mob from descending upon them, their loved ones and their property.

Evidence that this is a quality historical monograph is provided by the immediate incorporation of primary source material in the account of the initial stages of the rioting. Hibbert includes the comments of first-hand witnesses, such as the account of Lord Bedford, who defends the petitioners against criticism that even they were a group of rabble as follows - "The greater part of it [the original group of petitioners], however, was composed of persons decently dressed, who appeared to be excited to extravagance, by a species of fanatical frenzy." (p.36). The contents of the documents issued by Lord Gordon on behalf of the Protestant Association, to include the call to petition Parliament against the Catholic Relief Bill as well as later statements urging all Protestants to behave lawfully (so as to disassociate themselves from the rioters), are included in the text. Hibbert skillfully uses the editorial comments of certain prominent newspapers, first to cast doubt upon the sincerity of the demonstration and later to comment on the increasing threat posed by the mob violence.

Finally, after several days of rioting, when the mob had burned enough houses, destroyed enough places of business and finally threatened the bank, the King met with the Privy Council and issued a Royal Proclamation allowing the military officers of London to use their discretion in firing upon the mob. Whereas the civil officials had been loath to order the military to take action, it would now be possible to put down the riot. At this point, after much terrorizing of the decent folk of London and great loss of private property, the author includes his personal editorial comment in the form of a footnote quoting a Mrs. Montague - "I shall most willingly allow blue flags to be put on my house . . . I have learned by sad experience that in the land of Liberty one must illuminate and inscribe and wear the livery imposed not by the Government indeed but by the ungoverned." (p. 94). This reference being intended as a criticism, on behalf of the author, of the ineffective handling of the crisis by the civil authorities, who held swift and efficient action against the mob to be a infringement upon the rights of Englishmen.

As the rioting grew worse, the militia did its utmost to control the crisis. Firing upon a group of drunken marauding rioters, "the aim of the militiamen was so inaccurate that two innocent bystanders watching the scene in a doorway of St. Christopher's Church were shot through the neck." (p.97). Here, Hibbert criticizes the inefficiency of the militia as he had previously criticized the unwillingness of the civil authorities to act in ending the rioting. Even the prison warden could do nothing but look on as the rioters stormed Newgate Prison, releasing upon the inhabitants of London every type of criminal from debtors to thieves and murderers.

By the end of the week, however, after the King had nearly imposed martial law, "London, in fact, was beginning to look like a strongly defended garrison." (pp. ll3-114). Hibbert comes to the defense of law and order, clearly his cause in this book, by juxtaposing the violence of the mob just described with the objections of certain MPs who felt it a violation of the rights of all Englishmen for the government to resort to a military solution for the crisis. Anyone who would criticize such intervention after the account just given of the wonton destruction rendered by "King Mob" would appear, at least to the reader, to be quite in the wrong.

The author editorializes further by stressing the mindlessness of the rioting. He dismisses all accounts of American or French treachery as well as all claims of English treason. Defending the English gentlemen rumored to have been seen amongst the crowd against charges of conspiring with the mob or generally fomenting unrest, Hibbert presents a convincing argument. He says:

"The reasons for the appearance of these obvious gentlemen amongst the mob were undoubtedly less sinister than was generally supposed . . . they were not only well-dressed, they were also bored and idle, irresponsible and mostly drunk . . . they felt an urgent need for the exhilaration of danger and for the satisfaction of a hunger for violence." (p. 126).

In Hibbert's opinion, the rioters were "interested in destruction, not reform" (p. l27). According to Hibbert, it is in the reasons for the involvement of the poor in the rioting that one sees the driving force behind the rioting. Although granting the influence of strong anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment in the initiation of the rioting, Hibbert does not grant this consideration primary status in an explanation of the growth of the rioting. It was the disaffection of the masses that incited the production of a "King Mob". In Hibbert’s words:

"The poor were in revolt against authority. For as long as any of them could remember they had been insulted, frustrated and ignored; the victims of laws specifically directed against them; the lower orders in a society which shamefully abused them. They rose up incoherently in protest, unprepared and inarticulate, unsure even themselves of what they wanted or hoped to attain. Encouraged by fanatics and criminals, reckless and drunken, they themselves became criminals, and died to no purpose which they could name, rebels without a cause and without a leader." (p. 127).

As the above quotation shows, unlike the mob, Hibbert is himself very articulate and his account makes for interesting reading. The exciting nature of rioting which drew the crowds and fanned the flames of mob violence are captured in this account. The author's artful incorporation of primary source material makes the events seem all the more real and immediate to the reader. It is, however, the one weakness of the book that no secondary source material is incorporated in the text proper. Not even in the footnotes does one hear the voice of another historian, who might support of contradict Hibbert's own portrayal of the rioting. In Hibbert's defense, it might be added that at the time this book was published, there were perhaps few comprehensive accounts of the rioting in existence.

Despite what might be construed by some as Hibbert's authoritative interpretation of the causes and effects of the mob violence, the work is significant to the history of late 18th century England. It gives the reader insight into the attitudes of the King, MPs, local civil officials, the military and the common people of London at this time. The English Parliament is shown to be at odds with the King, witnessed by the fact that they oppose a military solution to the crisis. The local civil officials are exposed as lazy and corrupt. As far as the military is concerned, doubts are expressed as to whether the enlisted men (many of whom were probably impressed into service) would obey the order to fire upon the mob when given by aristocratic officers. Finally the poor are portrayed as downtrodden and suffering from their miserable lot.

After delivering all of these characteristics of late 18th Century England within the framework of an enjoyable narrative, Hibbert delivers his final message by bringing Lord Gordon back into the forefront. After being tried and acquitted for treason in connection with the rioting, Lord Gordon is ironically imprisoned for gross libel on Marie Antoinette. Serving his last days in prison as a proselytized Jew, Gordon had been neutralized as a public figure and has learned his lesson on the dangers of insighting public opinion. Further, England had established a precedent for the military suppression of mass violence. This might have had something to do with the fact that the English failed to take the lead provided by masses of French peasants in l789. It is ironic that, after becoming a victim of the mob which he himself unknowingly released upon London, Lord Gordon is imprisoned for libeling one who was to be victimized by totally unchecked mass violence at the end of that same decade in France.

As a work which sets the tone of English politics at the beginning of the 1780s, King Mob could well serve as an extra reading for students of French history and Political Science students studying the French Revolution, specifically those studying the question of why revolution occurred in France but not in England. It seems that Hibbert holds the English masses to be without leadership or direction. Had they gained that leadership and direction, the French Revolution might have seen the growth of a sister revolution in England. The stage for revolution had been set in England. Hibbert brings the immediacy of this possibility to the attention of the student of late 18th century English history.