The 1668 Bawdy House Riots (also called the Messenger riots
after rioter Peter Messenger) took place in 17th-century London over several
days in March during Easter Week, 1668. They were sparked by Dissenters who resented
the King's proclamation against conventicles (private lay worship) while
turning a blind eye to the equally illegal brothels. Thousands of young men besieged and demolished
brothels throughout the East End, assaulting the prostitutes and looting the
properties. As the historian Tim Harris
describes it:
"The riots broke
out on Easter Monday, 23 March 1668, when a group attacked bawdy houses in
Poplar. The next day crowds of about 500 pulled down similar establishments in
Moorfields, East Smithfield, St Leonard's, Shoreditch, and also St Andrew's,
Holborn, the main bawdy house districts of London. The final assaults came on
Wednesday, mainly in the Moorfields area, one report claiming there were now
40,000 rioters - surely an exaggeration, but indicating that abnormally large
numbers of people were involved. ... On all days the crowds were supposedly
armed with 'iron bars, polaxes, long staves, and other weapons', presumably the
sort of tools necessary for house demolition. The rioters organized themselves
into regiments, headed by a captain, and marching behind colors."
These were not the first anti-brothel riots in 17th-century
London. Between 1603 and 1642, Shrove Tuesday riots (mostly involving attacks
by apprentices on brothels and playhouses ostensibly to remove sources of
temptation during Lent) had occurred at least twenty-four times. They were to some degree tolerated and the
people involved had rarely been punished severely. However, the 1668 riots were different in
both size and duration, involving thousands of people and lasting for several
days. In their aftermath, fifteen of the
rioters were indicted for high treason, and four suspected ringleaders were
convicted and hanged.
Samuel Pepys recorded the events in his Diary on 24th and
25th March. He documented the attack on the property of brothel keeper Damaris
Page, "the great bawd of the seamen", "the most Famous Bawd in
the Towne." ] She was a deeply unpopular figure because of her practice of
press-ganging her dock worker clientele into the navy, and her bawdy house was
an early target of the riots. She
appeared before a local magistrate, Robert Manley, as a victim of the riots who
had lost significant property; she was one of the main witnesses brought
against Robert Sharpless, a central instigator of the riots. Her evidence was
notably given significant weight during the court case, despite being an
unmarried woman and a brothel keeper.
The Poor-Whores
Petition
During the riots, attacks were made on the court, the Duke
of York, and the bishops. Demands were made for religious toleration and
protesters' slogans included "Liberty of Conscience!" Rioters drew up 'mock Petitions' from the
'poor whores' which stressed support for whores by Catholics, and by Anglicans
leading the campaign against Nonconformist worship. And a satire made the point
explicit in the discussion of a bill to be passed in Parliament for a 'full
Toleration of all Bawdy-houses' but for the suppression of 'all Preaching,
Printing, Private Meetings, Conventacles, etc.' Prostitutes and brothel-owners such as Damaris
Page and Elizabeth Cresswell who had been affected by the riots published The
Poor Whores' Petition, a satirical letter addressed to King Charles II's
mistress Lady Castlemaine. It requested that she come to the aid of her
"sisters" and pay for the rebuilding of their property and
livelihoods, and sought to mock the perceived extravagance and licentiousness
of Lady Castlemaine and the royal court. The perceived immoral behavior of the
King, who had been engaged in a series of extra-marital affairs with
high-profile courtesans and the debauchery in his court were seen as one of
the causes of the riots. Pepys mentions
that the riots were perceived as anti-royal demonstrations by working-class
apprentices centered on Moorfields, with echoes of the Puritanism of the
Cromwellian era. He noted, "How these idle fellows have had the confidence
to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in pulling down the little
bawdy-houses, and did not go and pull down the great bawdy-house at
Whitehall."
Comments
Post a Comment