Disaffection and Everyday Life in Interregnum England by Caroline Boswell (review)

This work is a very welcome addition to the literature on the Commonwealth and Protectorate (1649–1660). Thoroughly researched, it shines a light upon the lives of ordinary people during one of the most turbulent and unusual decades in England's history. Boswell's book examines the intersection between microhistory and everyday life in a national context. It highlights that there was a vibrant political culture in England during the 1650s where disaffection and apathy towards the government was both commonplace and expressed in a variety of different ways. It approaches this subject by looking at key places such as marketplaces and alehouses that became ideal flashpoints as the policies of the Commonwealth and Protectorate came into conflict with tradition and societal norms. Boswell also explores the key figures such as the solider, the excise man, and 'the fanatic' who could be a channel for discontent by the populace. The book builds on the work of Sean Kelsey, Bernard Capp, and Christopher Durston and it crosses the boundaries of social, political, and cultural history whilst reflecting upon the interpersonal politics of individual actors and Royalist propagandists. The analysis is structured around a series of local case studies which show conflict and dissent in local social spaces that became amplified by Royalist propagandists creating further discontent towards the government.

Boswell highlights that marketplaces and streets were flashpoints of conflict between the English Commonwealth and traditional custom. In 1649 the English Commonwealth was newly proclaimed from market crosses up and down England, where unsurprisingly dissent and unrest had the potential to occur. By examining the attempted regulation of London's Cheapside in the 1650s she shows how long-standing historic tensions between local government came into conflict with national aspirations that threatened the very livelihoods of the Cheapside peddlers, thereby breeding resentment, anger, and dissent. Royalists hijacked discontent for their own ends. Interestingly, her research demonstrates that people were eager to tear down the emblems of the Commonwealth at the Restoration. When examining alehouses Boswell largely builds upon previous literature showing how drinking to the King's health and the presence of soldiers in alehouses led to conflict in local communities. However, Boswell newly uncovers evidence that shows the depth and the widespread social impact of these policies on everyday interactions and trades. Drink was consumed in a variety of different contexts on a regular basis, from celebrations, toasting, drowning your sorrows, or generally when meeting friends. It was also an essential daily staple that was subject to regulations and tax, leading to conflict with the working population. As Boswell shows, the attempt to root out drunkenness went beyond a simple reformation of manners and impacted upon everyone on a daily basis.

Individuals within the community representing the government, such as soldiers and excise men, could provoke dissent as well as provide a focus for the frustrations of the populace. These aspects have already been discussed in previous studies, but Boswell highlights that experiences and events differed depending upon locality, religion, gender, class, politics, and occupation, and they were not always negative experiences. Soldiers could be unwelcome due to free quarter and pay arrears but, as Boswell shows, they could also provide a much-needed boost to local economies damaged by war. Where the armed presence was oppressive, Royalist propagandists actively took advantage. Tax and excise men caused resentment and anger in local communities. As Boswell explains, the figure of the excise man exposes the collective justice mechanisms the community used to repel the outsider. Attacks on excise men were punishable offences, but notably this was also extended to language used against the taxman. During the Commonwealth and Protectorate Royalists actively tried to turn popular resentment against excise collection into argument for disestablishing the government itself. As Boswell highlights, this was fertile ground for support, since the excise man was portrayed as a hated...