1766+-+The+Manchester+Mercury+&+The+Vicar+of+Wakefield

Recap of 1766 Current Events According to The Manchester Mercury
Weekly British publication The Manchester Mercury primarily features news updates about the monarchy’s policies, the Royal Family itself, Parliament proceedings, trade developments, and criminal trials. The Mercury also reprints stories featured in the daily London paper since its own last edition, along with a hodgepodge of advertisements for boarding schools, books, and pamphlets.

According to Manchester Mercury issues published from January through June 1766, in this particular year Great Britain’s monarchy grappled with discord over its trade policies. At this time in Great Britain’s political history, the monarchy (whose policies largely received support in Parliament) sought to maximize the profits of businesses based in Britain by imposing a series of restrictions, including taxes, on the importation of certain goods. For example, the January 28, 1766 issue of the Mercury notes that because there has been a greater consumption of French brandy than British brandy, an additional duty will be placed on this imported good so that “Encouragement will be given to the Liquor of our own Production.” Many of these tariffs and trade restrictions applied not only to foreign countries, but were also frequently enforced in dealings with the British colonies in America and other countries within the British Empire, such as Ireland.

These trade policies especially caused dissent in North America, where according to the Mercury colonists increasingly rebelled against British rule. The Mercury edition printed on January 7, 1766 mentions riots in “Charles-Town,” South Carolina regarding the Stamp Act of 1765. A few weeks later, on January 21, the Mercury reports that Parliament approved the king’s commands that “Exertion of all the Powers of Government [be used] in the Suppression of Riots” among the colonists. The paper’s January 28 issue relays the colonists’ offers to back down and refrain from using force against British troops if Great Britain repeals the Stamp Act; however, the Mercury observes that, “All the eminent Lawyers (one excepted) are said to be clearly and strongly of Opinion that the British Parliament has an undoubted Right to lay Taxes in America.” Evidently, dissenting colonists also recently seized merchant ships from Great Britain carrying arms and ammunition to British soldiers. In March, Parliament finally repeals the Stamp Act, and tensions within the colonies seem to abate for the next several weeks. The paper less frequently touches on Ireland’s objections to Great Britain’s trade regulations, though it does note on March 4, “it is intended to be proposed to send an armed Force to Ireland, to prevent the obstinate People of that Country from cultivating Potatoes.”

Beyond trade issues, the Mercury also often reports on domestic crime. In particular, the paper spotlights the human-interest aspects of crime, reporting on scheduled executions, divulging the names of average citizens set to go to debtors’ prison, and recapping unusual crimes.

Summary of “The Vicar of Wakefield”
Oliver Goldsmith’s “The Vicar of Wakefield,” published in 1766, chronicles a mildly wealthy family’s economic downfall and eventual return to social grace. The novel’s narrator and protagonist, Mr. Primrose, is a minister and family patriarch who cherishes his wife and children above all else — including money and material goods. When the Primroses unexpectedly lose their savings, forcing them to sacrifice their beloved family home, Mr. Primrose un-begrudgingly accepts their turn in fortune, promptly leaving his post at their community’s church and relocating his family to a more affordable rental property a distance away. In spite of their changed circumstances, Mr. Primrose continues to prioritize teaching his children to act with humility, grace, and dignity, which he achieves through leading by example. Otherwise, Mr. Primrose conceives a series of plans for improving his family’s fortune, refusing to give up hope though his well-meaning plans are repeatedly deterred by various foes who crop up throughout the narrative.

One such foe, the family’s new landlord, initially presents himself as a benevolent comrade, when he is in fact scheming to deflower Olivia, the older of Mr. Primrose’s two beautiful, educated daughters. The family faces a divisive moment when Olivia disappears shortly before the day she is set to wed a local farmer. Rumors inform the Primroses that Olivia ran off with another man (who they later discover is none other than their dastardly landlord, who pretends to marry Olivia, sleeps with the young woman, and thereafter abandons her.) In the ensuing chaos, Mr. Primrose wrongfully ends up in jail alongside his oldest son, but the ever-perseverant and morally upright minister ultimately restores justice, repairs family fractures, and inspires repentance in various wrongdoers. The family even regains its lost fortune — and the three oldest Primrose children get happily married (all with their parents’ blessings).

Theater in 1766
According to “The London Stage,” England’s 1766-1767 theater season saw more than 521 performances at the city’s theaters and opera houses (1180). One of the major players in the London theater scene at this time was David Garrick, an actor, playwright, and producer. Garrick’s playhouse put on a total of 191 shows in the 1766-67 theater season, including four new original plays (1181). Another playhouse manager, John Beard, ran 76 shows in the same season, including three new original “mainpieces” (1181). Ten plays were also performed at the Haymarket, Marylebone, Sadler’s Wells, and the Chapel at Lock Hospital (1181). The season notably featured numerous productions of Shakespearean plays, including renditions of “Hamlet, “King Henry V,” King Richard III,” and “Romeo and Juliet,” among others. The season also saw multiple runs of “The Beggar’s Opera.”

In regards to more general trends in theater burgeoning during the 1766 to 1767 theater season, “The London Stage” notes that around this time actors increasingly donned costumes imitating current styles of dress instead of sporting historically accurate articles of clothing (1180). Furthermore, the book observes that theater reviews in 1766 frequently remarked upon “the noises and abuses of the upper gallery” (1180).

Takes on Tradition vs. Innovation in British Literature, Theater, and Newspapers of 1766
// Monarchy vs. Democracy //** : ** Like Mr. Primrose in “The Vicar of Wakefield,” the Manchester Mercury seemingly proclaims loyalty to the crown, but also embraces Enlightenment philosophies to some degree. At times, the paper appears quite sympathetic to the crown — for example, when Prince William, the king’s youngest brother dies. In its January 7 issue, the Mercury informs its readers that William has passed away, and accordingly relays the Royal Family’s instructions for how people should dress for the prince’s funeral processions. The paper then interjects that William was “a Prince ever to be regretted by those who had the Honour to approach him” and that he “won the Hearts of everyone” — both entirely subjective statements that, at least by contemporary journalistic standards (which the Mercury usually tends to follow) prove quite out of place in a news report. On the other hand, the paper also occasionally publishes material opposing monarchic principles. For instance, the same issue reporting the prince’s death also includes an excerpt from a speech by French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In this speech, Rousseau proclaims, “The English imagine they are a free People’s but they are mistaken [as] they are only free during the short Time of Chusing their Representatives in Parliament; and as that choice is determined, they almost always become slaves again” (416). In short, the passage printed in the Mercury critiques the British government’s current setup, informing citizens that under the monarchy and Parliament, they are more or less “slaves” to the system (rather than the free agents they may imagine themselves to be).

“The Vicar of Wakefield” also takes up the benefits and disadvantages the present style of government poses to average British citizens, but with more specific conclusions than those provided in the Mercury. Oliver Goldsmith appears to use “The Vicar of Wakefield” as a springboard for expressing ideas about politics and traditional family values. This becomes apparent when, in the middle of his quest to recover Olivia, Mr. Primrose happens to encounter an inconsequential stranger whose political views prove so objectionable that Mr. Primrose cannot resist arguing with him. After the stranger criticizes the king, Mr. Primrose launches into an indignant tirade in which he wholeheartedly defends Great Britain’s system of government. In response to the stranger’s assertion that democratic systems of government inherently offer more liberty than monarchies, Mr. Primrose insists, “I am for liberty. . . But. . . since then it is entailed upon humanity to submit, and some are born to command, and others to obey, the question is, as there must be tyrants, whether it is better to have them in the same house with us, or in the same village, or still farther off, in the metropolis. . . The generality of mankind. . . have unanimously created one king, whose election at once diminishes the number of tyrants, and puts tyranny at the greatest distance from the greatest number of people” (62). In this debate, some pieces of Mr. Primrose’s commentary are tinged with humor (stemming from Mr. Primrose’s over-the-top patriotism and haughty self-righteousness toward a man who turns out to be a butler posing as a member of the bourgeoisie). Nonetheless, Mr. Primrose’s overall message is still arguably serious. Mr. Primrose, while excessively idealistic, is nonetheless framed as a respectable man, the novel’s preface noting that as a priest, a husband, and a father, its protagonist acts as “the three greatest characters upon earth.” Moreover, one of the final statements Mr. Primrose makes in his argument with the butler crystallizes his broader, semi-comical statements about the value of the monarchy into a logically sound, thoughtful statement positing that while those “besiegers” who argue in favor of democracy, “are in dread of an enemy over them, it is but natural to offer the townsmen the most specious terms, to flatter them with sounds, and amuse them with privileges: but if they once defeat the governor from behind, the walls of the town will be but a small defence to its inhabitants” (64). In this scenario, Mr. Primrose asserts, the prevailing style of government would prove one in which “the laws govern the poor, and the rich govern the law,” and therefore, Mr. Primrose declares, “I am for, and would die for monarchy, sacred monarchy” (64).

// Family Values Vs. Economic Prosperity: // Mr. Primrose’s political ideals arguably feed into the novel’s greater dedication to what it construes as traditional British values. Mr. Primrose spends a bulk of the novel endeavoring to teach his children the value of a simple, honest, and humble life. Sometimes Mr. Primrose’s life lessons are delivered by way of a preposterous series of events. One such example occurs when Mrs. Primrose, Olivia, and Sophia, ignoring Mr. Primrose’s warnings against excessive vanity, insist on riding in a carriage instead of walking to church like their parishioners do — only to have their shoddily-assembled carriage break down repeatedly the very first time they take it.

However, much like in his political argument with the butler, Mr. Primrose still manages to deliver serious moral messages in between humorous events like this one. Mr. Primrose demonstrates a stanch dedication to the notions that one should favor simplicity over extravagance, and consequently that family unity inevitably offers greater pleasure than monetary or material wealth. When the family’s banker without warning flees town to avoid bankruptcy, taking the Primroses’ fortune with him, Mr. Primrose quickly accepts his changed circumstances, declaring that if the family sticks together, it will have no want for happiness. He cheerfully encourages his children to, “without repining, give up those splendours with which numbers are wretched, and seek in humbler circumstances that peace with which all may be happy” (7). Similarly, when the family’s new abode burns down a few years later, Mr. Primrose does not appear bitter (though the family has faced misfortune after misfortune at this point); he merely expresses gratitude that he managed to save his two youngest sons (the only family members unable to escape the fire on their own) at the last minute. He rejoices, “Here they are, I have saved my treasure. . . here are our treasures, and we shall yet be happy” (83) Mr. Primrose’s gracious attitude in response to grave situations encapsulates the novel’s apparent overarching view that Britons should look to traditional values, grounded in the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family, in the midst of Enlightenment-era philosophical queries about the relationship between the self and society. Mr. Primrose preaches that with his simple, family-oriented lifestyle, he is at the peak of happiness, observing, ““We had no revolutions to fear, nor fatigues to undergo; all our adventures were by the fire-side” (1).

// Capital Punishment Vs. Reformation: // The only vaguely radical idea in “The Vicar of Wakefield” emerges during Mr. Primrose’s brief stint in jail. The Manchester Mercury’s regular reports outlining convicted criminals’ prison sentences — or, in some cases, death sentences — suggest that Great Britain’s justice system in 1766 revolved around jail time and capital punishment. Mr. Primrose laments the state of his beloved Britain’s justice system, surprisingly diverging from what seems to be the traditional British school of thought on this topic. Shortly after his arrival to the prison, Mr. Primrose manages to reform most of his fellow prisoners’ unseemly, self-serving behaviors by instituting a behavior-based system of rewards and punishments. In regards to his fellow prisoners, Mr. Primrose remarks that, “It had ever been my opinion, that no man was past the hour of amendment, every heart lying open to the shafts of reproof” (96). After his system of rewards and punishments proves effective, Mr. Primrose reflects that, “It were highly to be wished, that legislative power would thus direct the law rather to reformation than severity. . . this, but not the increasing punishments, is the way to mend a state” (99).

// Theater Classics Vs. Contemporary Works // : Though “The London Theater” states that playhouses paid certain newspapers to plug “puff” pieces about their productions, The Manchester Mercury infrequently mentions theatrical performances; presumably, Manchester’s theater scene was smaller than London’s, accounting for this discrepancy — especially since each issue of the Mercury features numerous advertisements, including ones for novels and pamphlets (suggesting that the Mercury’s readership is indeed interested in the arts, and would consider attending theater performances if they had the opportunity). By contrast, “The Vicar of Wakefield” does briefly broach the realm of theater. When Mr. Primrose is searching for the missing Olivia, he runs into a theater troupe. In passing, he asks one of the actors whose plays are popular at present. Intriguingly, the actor’s response mirrors “The London Theater”’s accounts of the 1766-1767 theater season. The actor replies that, “Our [society’s] taste [in theater] has gone back a whole century, Fletcher, Ben Johnson, and all the plays of Shakespear, are the only things that go down” (60). As previously noted, London’s 1766-1767 theater season saw numerous productions of various Shakespearean works. Mr. Primrose indignantly wonders, “How. . . is it possible the present age can be pleased with that antiquated dialect, that obsolete humour, those overcharged characters, which abound in the works you mention?” (60). The actor comically returns, “The public think nothing about dialect, or humour, or character. . . they only go to be amused, and find themselves happy when they can enjoy a pantomime, under the sanction of Johnson’s or Shakespear’s name” (60). Therefore, per its usual pattern, “The Vicar of Wakefield” uses Mr. Primrose’s character as a channel for expressing controversial opinions, in this case about current theater trends.

Conclusions
In short, whereas The Manchester Mercury simply reports the state of the affairs in England sans much critical analysis, “The Vicar of Wakefield” directly weighs in on various aspects of British culture, including politics, crime, and theater. This disparity is arguably attributable to the distinct nature of these two mediums; whereas journalists risk persecution for stating unpopular or controversial opinions about the current political system or various other British traditions, a novelist has the capability of delivering messages through a character (whose perspectives may or may not align with those of the author himself).