The Black Act
In this time of protest against black face I recently came across info about the original black face protestors. In this case early 18thC poor and working-class people who blackened their faces to help evade recognition during night time raids on the property of the upper classes. Or, to be exact, on the property they felt the upper classes has stolen from them, by enclosing areas that had been commonly used areas for 100s or even 1,000s of years.
‘The Black Act’ was put into force in 1723 to provide more legislation and power to capture, trial and imprison these radical ‘blacks’, as they became known then. Much as the Beijing government has recently brought in the ‘national security laws’ to provide more legislation and power to capture, trial and imprison the protestors there involved in a ‘colour revolution’.
But an additional interesting point of this time, and one that seems very important for the development of democracy in the general, is the trial of John Huntridge in 1724, for abetting blacks. Despite those involved in the legal process all being upper class themselves, Huntridge was found innocent, partly because of the shoddy way evidence had been collected.
The historian EP Thompson thought this a significant development in the rule of law in Britain. What is meant was that the upper class of Britain agreed that they too had to obey the rule of law. They had only finally asserted their power over the royal family less than 40 years before, with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the UK itself had only been formed into its present state (more or less) 16 years before, with the 1707 Acts of Union. So this was really the beginning of the modern United Kingdom. The threat of a revival of Stuart royal absolutism was keenly felt (and the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745 etc proved that realistic).
Therefore, the upper classes felt that they had to submit to the rule of law themselves, even in cases such as this in which poor radicals were directly attacking their power and property, because to push aside these laws when it suited them, or corrupt them etc would weaken the legitimacy of their rule, and may have lead to a return of the Stuart kings and queens, who would take control back into their own hands (as with still the case with the royal houses in France or Russia or Austria, etc).
In addition it was thought important, claims Thompson, that all sections of the upper class abide by these rules, in order to prevent one part of the elite from becoming dominant and side lining the others.
In this time of protest against black face I recently came across info about the original black face protestors. In this case early 18thC poor and working-class people who blackened their faces to help evade recognition during night time raids on the property of the upper classes. Or, to be exact, on the property they felt the upper classes has stolen from them, by enclosing areas that had been commonly used areas for 100s or even 1,000s of years.
‘The Black Act’ was put into force in 1723 to provide more legislation and power to capture, trial and imprison these radical ‘blacks’, as they became known then. Much as the Beijing government has recently brought in the ‘national security laws’ to provide more legislation and power to capture, trial and imprison the protestors there involved in a ‘colour revolution’.
But an additional interesting point of this time, and one that seems very important for the development of democracy in the general, is the trial of John Huntridge in 1724, for abetting blacks. Despite those involved in the legal process all being upper class themselves, Huntridge was found innocent, partly because of the shoddy way evidence had been collected.
The historian EP Thompson thought this a significant development in the rule of law in Britain. What is meant was that the upper class of Britain agreed that they too had to obey the rule of law. They had only finally asserted their power over the royal family less than 40 years before, with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the UK itself had only been formed into its present state (more or less) 16 years before, with the 1707 Acts of Union. So this was really the beginning of the modern United Kingdom. The threat of a revival of Stuart royal absolutism was keenly felt (and the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745 etc proved that realistic).
Therefore, the upper classes felt that they had to submit to the rule of law themselves, even in cases such as this in which poor radicals were directly attacking their power and property, because to push aside these laws when it suited them, or corrupt them etc would weaken the legitimacy of their rule, and may have lead to a return of the Stuart kings and queens, who would take control back into their own hands (as with still the case with the royal houses in France or Russia or Austria, etc).
In addition it was thought important, claims Thompson, that all sections of the upper class abide by these rules, in order to prevent one part of the elite from becoming dominant and side lining the others.
So, we could see it as these 18thC ‘black protestors’ playing an important role in increasing democracy in the UK, of challenging elite control and helping to strengthen the fair practice of the police and legal system. Which looks rather like what people are trying to do recently! We will see what the long terms results of these modern protests are.
In contrast, the Chinese government in HK is not submitting to the rule of law, but making up new corrupt laws in order to further their power and control. Laws which they have no intention of applying to themselves, apart from the occasional show of rooting out corruption. We shall see if that assertion of absolute rule leads, perhaps 20 or 30 years later, to the emperors of the - pretend communist but actually state dictatorship - government in Beijing finally losing their heads.
More info:
https://www.amazon.com/Whigs-Hunters-P-Thompson/dp/0957000529?fbclid=IwAR1r95ZbcNDoNkyoQ3e1iXxMpMR-HaQ9TE9C6NNeXYW9O7g72OKii_UCZ1I
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=why%20nations%20fail&qid=1594386665&sprefix=why%20na&sr=8-1&fbclid=IwAR0umMcARZNc-Fx6J5CDByJPLe4C9osNYzJyctY3Lrty4alCO7J28Kcov6I
(page 302 onwards)