Introduction

Posted at the center of town, “The Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses” stated that all coffeehouses must forfeit the selling of coffee, chocolate, sherbet, and tea.^[1] News of the royal edict’s demands traveled quickly between coffeehouses until the proclamation became known across England. The decree proclaimed on December 29^th, 1675, went into effect on January 10^th, 1676, causing the coffeehouse owners to act quickly out of fear and economic ruin. Not only would their business be sent into economic turmoil, but it would also render their investments and stocks, with merchants abroad, void and worthless. In a move to save their business, they drew up a petition. They sent two representatives to deliver it to King Charles II and his privy council a few days before the proclamation went into effect.^[2] Despite King Charles II's suspicious feelings towards all dissenters since his coronation, he responded to the proclamation the next day, issuing “An Additional Proclamation Concerning Coffee-Houses.” This new royal edict extended the implantation of the previous proclamation by six months under the condition that coffeehouse keepers pay hefty fines and penalties.^[3] When six months had passed, nothing happened—all business as usual. King Charles II took no action until the following month. He issued another extension, but this too expired with no subsequent actions from the monarchy. The coffeehouse businesses continued after the extension expired, and only a few coffeehouse keepers faced punishments.^[4]

So why did coffeehouses appear to get a free pass? In reality, the coffeehouses never got a “free pass,” rather a culmination of reasons explain their success of preventing suppression. In the past, many historians from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries argue for the coffeehouse’s inevitable success as a democratic and social institution over monarchical rule.^[5] Some late nineteenth-century authors like Edward Robinson, attempt to understand the coffeehouse in a new way through the consideration of social and political factors.^[6] Robinson’s analysis, however, only directly focuses on the relationship between the coffeehouse patrons and the monarchy.^[7] In 1956, Aytoun Ellis in The Penny Universities temporally argues that coffeehouses lost their democratic community when they changed from inclusive public places to exclusive clubs in the eighteenth century. His work implies that seventeenth-century coffeehouses hosted patrons that valued democratic relationships.^[8] Markman Ellis, in the twenty-first century, shifts the historiographic narrative by using a cultural methodology. He argues, with the aid of various cultural aspects of the coffeehouse community, including pamphlets, customs, auctions, and debates, that coffeehouses held significant value in the public sphere and, therefore, possessed enough communal support to resist suppression by the monarchy.^[9] Building on this approach, Brian Cowan expands the history of the coffeehouse to consider the context in which the seventeenth coffeehouses existed under the restoration of King Charles II and later monarchs.^[10] Unlike Aytoun Ellis and earlier works, the latter two authors reject the idea of the inevitable success of the coffeehouse.

Following the lead of these latter two authors, applying a more vigorous social and political approach that analyzes the monarchy, coffeehouse keepers, and coffeehouse patrons as influential actors in the success of the coffeehouse will result in a more comprehensive understanding of the coffeehouses’ perseverance. Charles Tilly’s work Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties describes several conditions that indicate declining social and political power. His methodology relies on a social contract theory where the maintaining mutually agreed upon socio-political roles of society’s members determines how a successful society operates. Although Tilly’s work often models an ideal democratic society, understanding King Charles II’s attempt to suppress coffeehouses within this framework reveals how he inadvertently demonstrated his limited monarchical power. Therefore, the monarchy’s rash actions violated the social and political agreements between the king, the coffeehouse keepers, and the coffeehouse patrons and explain the survival of the coffeehouse in England while also indicating declining monarchical power under King Charles II (1660-1685).

Emergence of the English Coffeehouse

Oxford established the earliest coffeehouses; however, several authors place more historical significance of coffeehouses to the first one in London, founded by Pasqua Rosee, funded by Levant merchant Daniel Edwards in 1650.^[11] In London, coffeehouse keepers initially marketed coffee to society through pamphlets. They described it as a medicine that would aid many ailments and help keep the mind sharp.^[12] As the coffeehouse gained more patrons, the cultural and social importance of the coffeehouse emerged. Several satirical works explain that men would “trifle away their time” or waste away the day simply talking.^[13] Both men and women would spend time in coffeehouses to conduct social and financial exchanges. Coffeehouses also served as auction houses and provided a place for reading clubs, political discourse, trade exchanges, stock trading, and to get the daily news.^[14]

Since the coffeehouse began to grow in popularity during a time of political transition in England, King Charles II held anxieties about the people of England meeting in a readily available public place to exchange their political thoughts. No doubt, these exchanges happened in taverns or alehouses, yet Charles II’s concerns focused on the coffeehouse. Charles II’s fear of seditious ideas in writing and speech stems from the events in the previous decade before his rule. King Charles II lived through the English Civil War and the execution of his father, King Charles I.^[15] While the complexities of the English Civil War will be lost here, the conflict centered around King Charles I’s defiant actions when standing trial and his claim to ordained authority from God.^[16] More clearly, Charles I believed that “regal power came from God, not the people, and the king was answerable only to God for his conduct.”^[17] When Charles I stood trial before parliament, he denied any misconduct despite the parliament’s plea. While monarchical power stood in opposition to parliament, regicide was not the goal. His punishment would have been minimal due to his monarchical status, however, refusing to answer to the court legally labeled King Charles I as a traitor of the country and warranted his execution.^[18] In King Charles I’s place, his son, King Charles II, continued fighting in the English civil war until his defeat in 1652. After the Cromwellian interregnum (1652-1660), parliament asked King Charles II to return to power in 1660.^[19]

The Aggressor: King Charles II

Upon King Charles II’s restoration, he hoped he would resume political power equal to his father before his execution. However, due to the Cromwellian interregnum and parliaments increasing power, King Charles II’s power fell short of his expectations. Additionally, the growth of protestant culture during the interregnum also caused some hesitation to accept unregulated rule from a king sympathetic to Catholicism. Even the Tories (political supporters of the king) were more likely to support Protestantism over the monarchy.^[20] Whether King Charles II thought he resumed divinely granted power or in hopes of reestablishing it, when he acted authoritatively, he disrupted the unspoken social agreement with his subjects.^[21]

In the twelfth year of King Charles II’s reign, he began to violate the otherwise innocuous relationship with the coffeehouse community through issuing the “Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government” on June 12^th, 1672. This decree set out to criminalize seditious conversations and publications about the monarchy. This proclamation applied to “not only … coffee-houses, but in other places and meetings, both public and private.”^[22] It begs the question then, why name coffeehouses outright? While the king acted out of his own self-interests, he also received advice from his close advisors that resented the coffeehouse as an establishment. Notably, the Earl of Clarendon encouraged King Charles II’s fears by agreeing that “coffeehouses allowed ‘the foulest imputation [to be] laid upon the government.”^[23] However, King Charles II and his advisors never went to these establishments, and negative reports would unfavorably skew their knowledge against coffeehouses. Besides the rumors that ran throughout the royal court, the only other source of information came from the reports delivered to the Secretary of State, Sir Joseph Williamson by “intelligencers.”^[24] Since these royal spies conducted most of their research in coffeehouses, a major social hub, the king only received negative statements of conversations seemingly all stemming from one type of establishment. Often these intelligencers reported inconsequential people who lacked political influence, and these reports also excluded many other non-political discussions that occurred in coffeehouses. Therefore the monarchy and his advisors had a limited understanding of the public function of coffeehouses. Nevertheless, valid or not, King Charles II set out to suppress the coffeehouse because he thought “dissenters, in particular, were great frequenters of coffeehouses.”^[25]

The majority of the coffeehouse society worked around the 1672 proclamation by not reporting any violators to the government. King Charles II, in an attempt to reaffirm his power set out to issue another “Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government” (by the exact same name) in 1674. While using different words, the message remained the same between the two proclamations. Coffeehouses, however, are not singled-out, perhaps attesting to the controversy of his initial declaration.^[26] The reissuing of this proclamation attests that King Charles II did not possess as much authoritative power as he initially thought. Ultimately, King Charles II wished to remove the influence of his subjects and parliament from governmental affairs altogether. While not an absolute monarchy, this does not mean that the system was democratic. The act of citizens meeting in a common public space frequently, however, probably enticed fears of a revolution against the monarchical institution. King Charles II faced the problem that “a proclamation was only capable of reinforcement of existing legislation: there was no institution which could punish its breach.”^[27] This limit reveals that the monarchy, without parliament, possessed restricted “governmental capacity” to control its subjects within its domain—a key element of governmental decline. ^[28] King Charles II’s subjects also ignored his 1674 proclamation. The monarch, no doubt, felt that his proclamations exposed his inability to control his subjects, especially in the coffeehouse.

Additionally, King Charles II sought to respond to the seeming omniscience of the coffeehouse, where news traveled fast and frequently. Being on the losing end of a power struggle for information between himself and his subjects, about the happenings going on in his own domain no less, is cause for concern. Tilly indicates that “knowledge gives political, financial, and existential advantages to its holders,” and “allows its holders to reproduce the institutions and relations that sustain their advantages.”^[29] Since King Charles II perceived the possessors of knowledge to be the coffeehouse patrons, he sought to snuff out their place of meeting once and for all. “The Proclamation for the Suppression of the Coffee-House,” issued December 29^th, 1675, states the “coffee-houses be (for the future) put down and suppressed” and outlawed the retail sale of coffee, chocolate, sherbet, or tea by January 10th. Additionally, the proclamation stated to “recall and make void all licenses at any time heretofore granted.” Further, anyone operating without a license will receive a fine of five pounds per month and “the severest punishments that may by law be inflicted.”^[30] In the short span of twelve days, the proclamation expected the coffeehouse keeper to abandon their current business and livelihoods.

As King Charles II probably sat back and thought that he had rectified the situation, days before the proclamation went into effect, the coffeehouse keepers submitted their petition to the council. The council then had to prove that the proclamation reflected the law of the land. Their discussion centered around the legitimacy of the declaration and its goal. The committee questioned if the king could legally revoke the coffeehouse keepers liquor licenses, as compared to all holders of liquor licenses, by naming the four non-alcoholic products they sold at coffeehouses. The licensing laws, however, proved to be challenging to work with due to unclear language. It appeared that the king had the authority to prevent the reissuing of licenses; however, not all governing bodies agreed. Theoretically, under the Test Act enacted a year earlier, the governing bodies across England and all members of parliament took an oath to support the king.^[31] However, King Charles II’s attempt to get governing bodies to comply with monarchical authority did not serve its purpose in the case of the suppression of coffeehouses. The problem arises from the non-expired licenses that many coffeehouse keepers possessed who resided in London. Since the government granted coffeehouse keepers the legal right to sell these liquors, it would be improper to revoke them after their purchase. During the meeting, council member Sir Edward Turnor suggested that perhaps if coffeehouse keepers sold their coffee like other vendors and had their patrons come-and-go rather than sit all day, they could continue their business.^[32] Other members, however, argued that this revoking this right would then cause a problem with understanding the differences with similar gatherings in taverns, which might end with public disdain.^[33]

As the council meeting revealed the faulty legality of the king’s proclamation, the king “and the council [were] soon deeply involved in figuring out a face-saving way of rescinding the proclamation while retaining its original intent of chastising the seditious activities that were thought to take place in the coffeehouses.”^[34] In quick succession, King Charles issued two more proclamations. On January 7th, 1676, King Charles II issued “A Proclamation for the better Discovery of Seditious Libellers” which detailed the king’s criminalization of subversive pamphlets and books—something within his authority. He offered rewards for the discovery of the printers and authors of the works for twenty and fifty pounds, respectively.^[35] The following day he issued “An Additional Proclamation Concerning Coffee-Houses,” which claimed to acknowledge the pleas of the coffeehouse keepers in their petition. He recognized the possible financial burdens and losses that the coffeehouse owners would face by giving up their investments on such short notice and thereby extended the enactment date by six months.^[36] Since he intended to save face with this proclamation, he only drew attention to the coffeehouse keepers’ investments and hardships. By focusing on the coffeehouse keepers and “the duties [they] already paid,” he attempted to divert attention away from his limited authority to revoke licenses or products already approved by the government. ^[37]

King Charles II also attempted to disrupt the relationship between coffeehouse keepers and their patrons. In order to foster mistrust, King Charles II required all coffeehouse business owners to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. The conditions found at the bottom of the proclamation mandated that coffeehouse keepers must “prevent and hinder all scandalous papers, books or libels concerning the government or the public minister thereof from being brought into his house, or to be there read, pursued of divulged; And to prevent and hinder all and every person and persons from declaring, uttering and divulging in his said house.” In addition to these conditions, it also required the coffeehouse keepers to report all instances or libels within two days to a governmental official that could correspond with the king.^[38] Undoubtedly, King Charles II wanted to deter the dissenters that he thought frequented the coffeehouse by enlisting the coffeehouse owners as a type of spy.^[39] King Charles II’s approach to eradicate the licentious speech and libels from coffeehouses should hold a lot of merit. It disrupts one of the critical societal sustaining elements in Tilly’s theory, “increase[ing] the likelihood of conflict in the relationship.” ^[40] These steps could then lead to the decline of the coffeehouse without direct legal force since the patrons would feel unsafe in an establishment that would be looking for treasonous speech—or so King Charles II thought. King Charles II employed a good strategy, but it fell short of success. It became clear that the coffeehouse keepers and patrons valued their social relationship more than their social contract with the king (this idea will be explored more in the sections about the coffeehouse keepers and patrons).

King Charles II attempted to assert his power and suppress the establishment of the coffeehouse to prevent uprisings against his rule. He faced problems establishing his authority because of the political climate set by his father’s execution. Despite the limitations he faced, he attempted to continue a form of absolute monarchy even though parliament had increased its political power. In his attempt to suppress the coffeehouse, he revealed just how limited his authority had become. Ultimately, he failed to police his territory authoritatively, another sign of declining power, according to Tilly.^[41] When it became evident that he could not control the coffeehouse, he attempted to undermine the coffeehouse by turning the patrons and coffeehouse owners against each other to cause social disorder. However, this too revealed King Charles II’s declining monarchical authority.

Coffeehouse Keepers as the Middleman

Like most arguments and disagreements in life, someone gets caught in the middle. In this case, the coffeehouse keepers of London found themselves in the middle. Largely bystanders in this state of declining monarchical power, coffeehouse keepers only acted as an advocate of their patrons through self-preservation. The coffeehouse keepers had to maintain two sets of transactional relationships: the one with the state and monarchy, and the other with their patrons and customers. According to Tilly, transactional relationships require both parties to both give and take to create a harmonious “cultural ecology” that would sustain a society built on “solidarity-sustaining social ties.”^[42] As King Charles II continued to declare more and more proclamations, he made it increasingly difficult for coffeehouse keepers to maintain solidarity-sustaining social ties with their patrons and the king simultaneously, which eventually led the coffeehouse keeper to petition against the monarchical power. The coffeehouse keepers’ move to preserve their own business revealed the limited power of the monarchy to police its territory and caused the members of the public to unify together against the state, which both indicate declining governing authority, according to Tilly.^[43]

The edicts “Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government,” issued in 1672 and 1674, targeted the relationship between the coffeehouse keeper and the coffeehouse patrons. The king attempted to persuade the coffeehouse owners to take responsibility for their patrons’ actions through the issuing of punishment to the speakers and hearers.^[44] Certainly, this would have driven their customers away and presented a situation of financial hardship should they have enforced the king’s proclamation. However, the coffeehouse keepers tried to maintain the cultural ecology with their patrons by not reporting instances of dissent. This tactic worked well since the patrons did not often report other patrons. In a way, the transactional relationship that existed between the coffeehouse keepers and their patrons required “protected consultation.”^[45] While Tilly uses protected consultation to explain democratization (or de-democratization), the coffeehouse keepers fulfill the role of governing agents, since “subjects (the coffeehouse patron) enjoy relatively broad and equal access to those agents (the coffeehouse keepers),” and “subjects receive protection against arbitrary action by governmental agents.”^[46] The coffeehouse keepers had to appeal to their patrons since the patrons had relatively free access to a multitude of coffeehouses within the city of London, fulfilling the first requirement of a democratic establishment. The coffeehouse keeper and their patrons met the second condition by continuing the transactional relationship they had: patrons would spend money and become returning customers, and the coffeehouse keeper would provide a safe and welcoming atmosphere that encouraged social interactions. Coffeehouse patrons and keepers recognized this expectation as early as 1661 found in A Character of Coffee and Coffee-Houses by M.P. Apparent critic of the coffeehouse, M.P. emphasized the talkative nature of coffeehouse patrons through descriptions of excess and even noted its detrimental effects on their lives. Comically he states that “men of such contrary judgments as here meet, cannot justly be feared to agree in a conspiracy. And in truth they talk too much, to be look[ed] on as dangerous, and active persons.”^[47] So while the patrons and the coffeehouse keepers knew that the vast majority of their customers could not and would not become a threat to the government, the monarchy did not possess the same understanding. This additional insight into the reality of the patrons allowed coffeehouse keepers to reasonably assume that if they made no reports at all, their business would continue unhindered.

Tensions placed on the coffeehouse keepers to maintain their transactional relationship with both the monarchy and the patrons became increasingly complicated with the issuing of the “Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses” and later the “Additional Proclamation Concerning Coffee-Houses” in 1675 and 1676. With this first proclamation, King Charles II violated the transactional relationship with the coffeehouse keepers. He threatened the livelihoods of the coffeehouse keepers that seemed to be secured through the legal contracts with the state through the excise tax and their liquor licenses. ^[48] Since the coffeehouse keepers gained steady profits from their business, the vast majority did not rely on cheating the system or smuggling due to a reasonable excise tax, though undoubtedly smuggling occurred on occasion. It is only in the eighteenth century that taxes increased, which encouraged the smuggling of coffee under King Charles II’s successor and brother, King James II.^[49] Since many followed the proper legal process, the coffeehouse keepers expected to receive support from the government to conduct their business. The cultural ecology, that is the give-and-take, between the state and these merchants dates back to the first coffeehouses in England in the 1650s. So, king Charles II upon upsetting this mutualistic relationship and threatening the livelihoods of coffeehouse keepers, the owners took coordinated action in hopes of preserving their business.

The coffeehouse owners moved to petition the 1675 proclamation to maintain their business out of fear of economic ruin and to hold the monarchy accountable for the liquor licenses that had not expired yet. Markman Ellis posits that the public viewed the coffeehouse as a symbol of free speech; therefore, they fought for its survival.^[50] This argument, however, seems more apt for the coffeehouse patrons rather than the coffeehouse keepers. Similarly, Cowan articulates the monarchy’s fear of political conflict of dissenting earls and other noblemen that visited some of these coffeehouses and other coffeehouse patrons.^[51] Both authors leave the coffeehouse keepers’ motivations outside of their focus. Since the coffeehouse keepers wanted to maintain business, their petition focused on the promise of the government through licenses that had not yet expired, while potentially jeopardizing their relationship with their patrons. When the coffeehouse keepers put their petition forward, many keepers held anxieties about the effectiveness of a petition. Additionally, the representatives that delivered the petition feared that they would face trial for resisting King Charles II’s proclamations. Markman Ellis best describes the brief and humble transaction as follows: “The coffee-men kneeled at the open end of the table and placed their petition reverently on the board. And then it was over: without speaking, the coffee-men were signaled to withdraw.”^[52] Upon reviewing the petition and the laws, the privy council found it lucky that the coffeehouse keepers did not assert a stronger petition. This allowed the king to attempt to reestablish his authority by forcing coffeehouse keepers to swear they will turn in any “scandalous papers” and hinder patrons from spreading news or libels.^[53] One of the stipulations of his “Additional Proclamation” warned that the closure of the coffeehouse would be enforced in approximately six months giving the owners plenty of time to manage and sell their investments and goods “without great loss.”^[54] After seven months, the king extended the date again for another six months but never issued any other edicts concerning coffeehouses.^[55] Even though the first “Additional Proclamation […]” placed more responsibility on the coffeehouse keepers to supervise the actions within their business, it indicated that the coffeehouse keepers could hold the king accountable for laws already in place. Additionally, this compromise on a public scale revealed King Charles II’s limited monarchical authority.

Through his proclamations, King Charles II showed he willingly violated the agreements of the state with the coffeehouse owners, which resulted in a decline of support from coffeehouse keepers towards the monarchy. While some coffeehouse keepers complied with King Charles II’s authoritative demands, most continued to allow patrons to discuss whatever they desired. Clearly, the authority within the coffeehouse belonged to the owner and not the king. This indifference further indicated the inability of the king to police the happenings within the owners’ businesses. The lack of authoritative follow-up King Charles II promised in the “Additional Proclamation” serves as the most significant evidence of his concession. Meanwhile, the consequences of the proclamations strengthened the relationship between the coffeehouse keepers and the customers, since the owners inadvertently defended their patrons’ right to talk freely.

Problematic Coffeehouse Patrons

The coffeehouse patrons, while seldom sharing interactions with political and governing bodies directly, influenced the continued success of the coffeehouse through their economic support. The various communities that met in coffeehouses, especially scientific and political ones such as the Rota Club, the Royal Society, and even tory societies that supported the king played a role in the preservation of coffeehouses.^[56] Aytoun Ellis describes how The Rota Club often met at Mile’s coffeehouse and served as an “armature parliament”—that is, a parliament-like system that discussed governmental policies.^[57] The Royal Society focused mostly on education and drew in many patrons seeking to discuss intellectual ideas. Aside from these formal societies, the coffeehouse also served as a place for auctions, trade and other forms of business to take place.^[58] When the king began his attack on the coffeehouses, the community of coffeehouse patrons ignored his threats, possibly understanding the sheer size of his seemingly impossible task. Whether patrons visited one coffeehouse or many coffeehouses, for social reasons or financial reasons, visiting these establishments daily became essential for the patrons’ lives. After the initial two proclamations, the “Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses” turned these patrons into resistors of the monarchy and his type of rule. Patrons responded to the 1676 proclamation with far more vigor than the first.

The community of the coffeehouses did not need these unifying labels to rally under to maintain a tight-knit community. Coffeehouses served as a meeting place for other public events like auctions. The auctioning of paintings and books generally indicates a wealthy and educated society. In “A Curious Collection of Original Paintings,” not only are the artist and works listed in full for several pages, but the document also suggests its distribution to several neighboring coffeehouses such as, “Mr. Manships,” “Mr. Ric. Parkers,” “Marine coffee-house,” and many more. This detail suggests an expansive and cooperative community between several coffeehouses and patrons.^[59] Additionally, a catalog for a book auction follows a similar format. It also indicates other suggested coffeehouses for its circulation to draw as many individuals to the sale. The directory easily exceeds two-thousand books, varying in genre and language (mostly Latin and English).^[60] Since the coffeehouses put on such events, it demonstrates that coffeehouses drew intellectually and politically aware patrons since less than a third of the population was literate.^[61] Therefore, these events indicate an interconnected community that enticed educated and wealthy people into the coffeehouse culture.

Historians have already covered that some coffeehouse patrons held land and high political statuses, such as the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Duke of Buckingham.^[62] Several members of society knew that these two would meet with their supporters in coffeehouses to discuss how to change out the current parliament, and even hoping that they “would give the king no money.”^[63] One particular event caused a bit of a worry for the coffeehouse owner, Thomas Garraway, since these individuals loudly proclaimed banned seditious speech. With the support of a trustworthy patron, however, Garraway made a report to the Secretary of State that did not incriminate any persons involved. Events like these frequently transpired, especially for noteworthy guests.^[64]

These communities helped the coffeehouses persevere through their vital support even after the various proclamations against the establishment. Additionally, their maintenance of speaking freely also directed the monarchy’s blame away from the coffeehouse keepers. This support not only incentivized the coffeehouse keepers to continue their business, but it also demonstrated to the monarchy that the licentious speech ran deep in the community, independent from the coffeehouse keepers. King Charles II had “intelligencers” in various coffeehouses across England that reported the status of these patrons and the news.^[65] The right to speak freely, as Markman Ellis concludes, was embedded in English society due to the numerous reports of seditious speech, even after the proclamations.^[66] While Markman Ellis’s conclusions may be up for debate, the persecution of meeting and speaking freely in the coffeehouse caused the patrons to unify against the monarchy. They did not launch attacks against the monarchical institution. They only wanted to restore the status quo, or the cultural ecology, that the proclamations disrupted.

No doubt, the decrees caused unrest in society, and conspiracies like the “popish plot” (a plot to kill the king) began to take form in the following years because of the general population’s resentment of King Charles II and the thought of his Catholic successor, James II.^[67] This event and other later events are not causes of the coffeehouse resistance, but they are a part of growing resentment toward the monarchy and Catholicism. The patrons saw King Charles II’s proclamations as a senseless attack on harmless institutions that served purposes other than political resentment. The edicts also threatened the livelihoods of traders and merchants that used coffeehouses as meeting places to conduct business because coffeehouses had powerful connections and circulated accurate information.^[68] The threats to the livelihoods of the coffeehouse patrons share similarities with the coffeehouse keepers’ and once again indicate the declining monarchical support from the patrons. Therefore, when King Charles II issued the “Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses,” he attacked the fundamental connecting structures of society, which divided the patrons and keepers from the monarchy.^[69]

Then the attack on the coffeehouse set forward negative sentiment against the monarchy (even before the popish plot) by violating the transactional relationships between the king and his subjects, upsetting the cultural ecology. The reasons patron to patron undoubtedly varied, but each had many reasons to resent the monarchy for attacking their social life constructed around coffeehouses. Markman Ellis suggests that the “defense of the coffee-house, it was understood, was a defense of freedom of speech,” thereby giving the general public a reason to fight fiercely for its right to stay open.^[70] Aytoun Ellis similarly argues that “in coffee-houses that the great struggle for political liberty was really fought and won.”^[71] Cowan, however, explains that the reasons ranged from concerns of free speech to the political agenda of the elite to economic concerns, which provides a more complete picture of the complications.^[72] Whatever reason upset the patron, at the core of each issue, King Charles II attacked the very way of life that the patrons had previously enjoyed during the Cromwellian Interregnum and broke the solidarity-sustaining social ties. text

Conclusion

King Charles II’s desire to prevent public ridicule of his rule prompted him to target the coffeehouse. His attack on the coffeehouse accounted for King Charles II’s declining monarchial power because he upset the cultural ecology and transgressed the solidarity-sustaining social ties. Several instances since the proclamations indicated poor authoritative control. It also revealed to the public that King Charles II possessed limited authority to enact new laws, constraining his power to merely enforcing pre-established laws.^[73] Even though a few patrons and keepers faced chastisement for violating the proclamations, the vast majority continued their business uninterrupted and without consequence.

Despite King Charles II’s efforts to reaffirm his power, his proclamations from 1672-1676 reveal his declining political authority. With the use of Tilly’s five circumstances that indicate declining political authority King Charles II’s waning power becomes clearly understood. King Charles II’s first proclamations show an “action that threatened the survival of crucial connecting structures within populations.”^[74] This threat applied to the coffeehouse keepers and the coffeehouse patrons, though both in their unique ways. Unfortunately for King Charles II, coffeehouse keepers generally abided by the laws and governmental regulations to operate a successful and legal business.^[75] Only after the proclamations, did they begin their resistance to monarchical power by neglecting to report patrons and pamphlets that spread seditious ideas. Following this, the coffeehouse owners petition and the issuing of the new proclamation fit three other conditions. The petition showed “resistance […] from well-organized segments of their [King Charles II’s] previous followers.”^[76] King Charles II’s attempted to reiterate his power through the “Additional Proclamation […]” by including several stipulations, such as hefty fines of five-hundred pounds, the requirement for owners to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and report any “scandalous” activity spoken or brought in print to their establishments within two days. However, the revisal of the king’s proclamation had social and political ramifications.^[77] The “Additional Proclamation […]” signified King Charles II’s inability to “enforce previously constraining agreements,” or “police existing boundaries” in coffeehouses in Great Britain and Ireland.^[78] These reasons also applied to the relationship between the king and the coffeehouse patrons since patrons continued their regular gatherings and, in some cases, openly slanderous speech against the monarchy. These proclamations led many of King Charles II’s subjects to decrease their political support for King Charles II, even Tories.^[79] Ultimately, all of the proclamations brought awareness to King Charles II’s limited power in these short few years. Perhaps he could have recovered some authority if he had not issued another proclamation in July of 1675, extending the closure of coffeehouses again. Little did he know, he extended the forced closure of coffeehouses indefinitely. Cowan explains that the events that transpired under the rule of King Charles II set a precedent that other Stuarts would be forced to follow.^[80]

Since coffeehouse owners are not political governing bodies, the significance of these events must be confined to just an analysis that demonstrates the declining political authority of the monarchy. However, this approach indicates that social and cultural methodologies can be applied readily to political events that reveal the significance of pre-existing cultural and transactional relationships. Although it could be tempting to draw out implications for the future of the governing system, it easily becomes teleological. Aytoun Ellis’s argument that King Charles II’s blunder in this situation marks the coming of democracy is too far-reaching.^[81] However, understanding this moment in light of future coffeehouse legislation and proclamations shows a lasting understanding of legal toleration by King Charles II and later monarchies despite their various protests to coffeehouses.^[82] So while these events did not establish an early history of democracy, they did secure the survival of the coffeehouse as a public meeting place where patrons could continue to talk and gather over a hot cup of coffee.