The 'Men of Kent' and the Penenden Heath Meeting, 1828

THE 'MEN OF KENT' A ND THE PENENDEN HEATH MEETING, 1828 KATHRYN BERESFORD In recent years much historical debate has centred on questions of identity, a reflection of the tensions and uncertainties in contemporary society. National, gender and ethnic identities, for example, have all come under scrutiny. A feature of recent work by historians of the nineteenth century has been to highlight the subjectivity of such identities, dependent as they were on momentary reactions, shifting political alliances and the sheer transient nature of what conduct, appearance or belief was held to be 'English', 'masculine' or any such other categorisation at any particular moment. 1 An era of interest has been the late 1820s and 1830s, a period which encompassed the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829, and the Great Reform Act in 1832, the first of the three acts of the nineteenth century that widened the (male) franchise. During these years, what it was to be a citizen, to hold a stake in the government of Britain and the Empire, was hotly debated in provincial and metropolitan societies, meetings and newspapers, as well as in the formal arena of Parliament. Political claims made by hugely diverse groups and individuals, from conservative anti-Catholic agitators to radical reformers, were framed in the language of 'Englishmen' or 'Britons', categories that implied a sense of national belonging and a right to political agency for those who wielded them. At the same moments, such notions were defined against those who could not, or would not, be established as such: 'other' groups such as women, Catholics, the colonised people of the Empire, or merely their political rivals who, inevitably, were far less 'manly' or 'English'! However, the language of 'Englishness' and English identities was not generic. Any analysis of the debates in Kent in 1828 and 1829, leading up to the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, can but highlight the importance of regionally specific language, particularly the notion of the 'Men of Kent', to the establishment of regional, national and gendered identities, and related notions of citizenship and subject-hood, in the county as this time. Most historians who have done research related to Kent are aware of the 151 KATHRYN BERESFORD .I •' .. , ::-TO THE :)},.;. ,.1 􀀋· ( Fl'mn tlte Il.ent·Herald.) \ ; ' :,, . Do· not suffer· yourselves to be du; r the tools for nvcnging the quurrel o ne dr nt p11cDioou ns oCt lnellrogwy, ynonudrs enlv efesw.. t or nbnec omronduse. . · ._ tPhoeliitr picaiasnts c!o nTdh11icntk n wodh oju tdhgeey forroem, tihtn ht oiwnv i1te you to meet on the 24th 7-Reflect on hoy would net, ut this time, if the ques-_. ·ttinoxno twioen r7o tBo .n pveet itthioeny efover rt gheiv ernc clnr evsoat e'If iu' y our griova11cea,-or the remission 0£; · . ,: Y""'' favou1• i llnve they ever nskaif·" .. lfo<'Wr ne aretep,e•aa tl.li oof 11utho􀗬lvocs t1a-xeV\s, 'whnhti chhn vneo t/w" 􀗭" rtion dd o.Y Ow"it hd olwrcnl utuod t ih e eWnrhlhat 1 w-itnhre t bthe emy'ilsloe•t rnble Catholics of that miscrublc counlr.Y 1 lf ufter Ce11t11ries of misrr,lo nod Ouf'1nf1o1'ret&uBinoa11t,e G coouvuerlnr.)'m, ennret htbaov ei'.11 nt0 1l1e onfg'It{he nrets tool vb􀗮ed t htooJ irbsett lLoc 1r• atihsee tchoenh-dvitoiiocne soufg atihnastt nu net of tm·dy justice 1 nnIdf gitvhee yConle crgxyng, gwehraot osdp asrtenl yeomne nnolst ionf tthhoo h'roirtlh'Ocrss, pofr ebac\oho ,"lyl Qliruee nennd M Faargy;g otte,l"l _ · them 1101 to "bent' folse witness nguinst their neighbour.'' 'l'ho Cntbolic clergy ·abnuyil tto n uydou rr􀗯 pinntioreledr ntnhLe P Cnrhsuoruc/h e•s• , Gaon dtl, omuu atnJtdta di1o1o idn tli/k10e P rmouorm, e0r.1"11 'ol'fb teh Peirro ttietshteant Bishops wer􀗰 deprived, _of their seats in tho House.-of' Lo1•cls, in the reign of CharJcs. the 1st; the,r we1•c restored in the reign of Ohurles tl1c 2d-for whi<:b r􀗱􀗲l.orulmn. twc,,ty,s1:c Cr,tlwlic l'eors.vototf ! But mark the con trust I At this ". til)Je,about l,udfu dozen (iuthnlic Peers petition to be r􀗳sto,·ed to thoirhcrotfitary· asodavtoa;cnatned t bhueti r0 1c1a00us1•e t Iw o Protestant Bishops possea•justiccorgratitude euougb to ·. .''You r Catholic ancesto.rs instituted tfio "'l'rinl by Jury," nod wrung from 11UJthel ',Ch!Jn, ndY oofμ rn B tryumnsnwt ic"kl'tl lenagdneur sC dhou rnton,t" b lwuhshic tho tuenvocltwo tsh teoir t diiemspircer ojf1 1a"tforpo o1w1iintgli •, tho tro11cncs'1 blood:' , You w• teiproeu p eth1•seuiru dfoedll obwJ . tshuebsjee chtus,m uannod g"eflntglel1mtiellng t UoJ Jb etaor t thhoie rt ulm􀗴eoso sa niidi · • privutions'of tire lulu war, Ill 01•der to avert rrom yom'. homes nod fire-sides the bviusr)\r oarus ',)onf tohll'ee 'Fldrienngc pho Rrteiovool outfi yoonu. r fYvloluow m s·ou nbojewc tins twitiethd tbbyc tsoh ovscerx a abrnool por1011a, to '·''11.Y Lord ·this," nutl tbp "Duke of that," buvc been shut out of the 'rl\olrinsLis trBy-ut ,- -th􀗵refore "the llfen of J{ont are to call upon tbc King, ehlier to dismiss bi,..11-linis- •:, ,-:. tors,' or to obJige bis Premier to.i111brue ,his bnnds ,in the blood o􀗶 his inn􀗷cont. -'.·i :";. c􀗸1111try111en, · Sh::'":!lu/d the Duke or ,W ?lhng/on be either we11k or w1C_lcod enough . ,: .., .·,· },.,' •b. toe. l􀗹1eov esu, ,c.ihm nl,Jnl .tnheet,y 1 ss e1e1. ttoh eb feanctt, tthheu bt 1tdhdew Sg,e onl· otfh el {Menetn, o-wf hKo ecnotu ?ld- Wforimll ethrley wreoprledl , trtt.:.A,n}ene111y;r􀗺olll !heir:Vcry·doors, are ((n lhcs,: de􀗻enernle ?UfS) to be the 1.trst to ''.: ,, ;;J,'f.'.e>