Lord Liverpool's response to radical challenge

To look at how successful Lord Liverpool was in responding to radical challenge, you have to look at what were the radical challenges in this period, what was causing the unrest thought the country. Then you have to look at what Lord Liverpool did to resolve the unrest and stop the challenges. 1815-1820 was a time of unrest; however unrest was not generally revolutionary. Even if Liverpool’s actions were seen as repressive he had to nip revolution in the bud.

For example with the spa fields Meetings.

This was a series of mass meetings (mainly in London) and it was aimed to inspire people and to intimidate the authorities. As a result, parliament sanctioned the suspension of Habeas Corpus and passed A Seditious Meeting Act, which meant that people could be held without evidence or a trial for as long as the government needed and it meant that no groups larger than 50 people could gather or have a meeting and talk about politics or revolution.

However some critics say that this does not prove he was successful because the suspension of Habeas Corpus only lasted a couple of years.

This is just one way in which the government responded to radical challenges during this period. Some historians say that this was very successful and radical challenge drooped as a result, however some say that this forced these radical groups underground and just inspired more people. The government had to nip revolution in the bud because at the time the government had to many weaknesses that revolutionary groups could take advantage of like the fact that Britain was in national debt had risen by £64 million from 1739 to 1816, the government had to rely on yeomanry which was a small armed forced and if a riot got out of control then they would not be able to stop them and most importantly Liverpool did not have the benefit of hindsight.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Behavior

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

He did not know that there wasn’t going to be a revolution so he had to respond quickly and decisively to stop radical challenges/challenges growing. Unrest in the country was due to many reasons such as: the Corn Laws, the abolition of income tax, war time contracts had ended and the demobilisation meant that there was high unemployment.

Some historians say that Lord Liverpool did not address unrest, but he made it worse by introducing silly little policies like the Corn Laws. The Corn Law guaranteed protection for wheat prices for the agricultural or landowner interest from foreign imports of grain. The concept was not new. A similar law had been introduced in 1804 but to guarantee 80 shillings a quarter (£4. 00) per quarter tonne or £16 per tonne for producers before foreign grain was permitted to enter the British market seemed to government critics a little excessive.

The whole point of the bill, as far as the government was concerned, was to guarantee landowners profits at a level to which they had become accustomed during the war. Most people saw it as apiece of class legislation in that it saved the landowners from cheaper foreign grain, established prices and made it more expensive for the consumer. This did not help the situation at all, in actual fact this just manifested more unrest thought the country and revolutionary groups took advantage of this.

It is fair to say that the country was at a time of unrest; however some say that the government did not do anything constructive but just made the situation worse. the corn laws proves this but also the abolition of income tax in 1816 was a measure which benefited the rich but, because it led to a large increase in indirect taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, beer and salt, which was harmful to the poor. War time contracts had ended and farmers and manufactures found themselves over producing because there was not enough demand for products. This meant that people had to be fired and business went into liquidation.

With the demobilisation there was huge unemployment and this did not help as more and more people got tired of not having money and people were starting to starve. With all of these reasons causing unrest thought the country people stated to want change within the government. The government saw this as a problem and thought that there was going to be a revolution so their actions were to nip revolution in the bud. They felt they had to do whatever necessary to stop revolution. The historians that say the country was close to a revolution in the period 1815-1822 tend to emphasise the sheer volume of radical activity during this period.

However those historians say that they threat of revolution was just a huge exaggeration point to the lack of coordination between the individual instances of protest and the states continued ability to respond decisively to it. Most historians say that the popular protest which characterised the immediate post-war periods was essentially traditional a not political but were related to the economic distress at the time. Most historians agree that the activity was economically motivated. During the period from 1816-1821 there was a series of mass meetings which were organise by radical groups.

These were called the Spa Field Meetings. Most historians agree that the meetings were aimed at both inspiring the public and intimidating the authorities. The Spenceans were the organiser of the first few meetings. The Spenceans supported revolution but it is not clear as to whether plans were being made for revolution at the time of the Spa Fields Meetings. The first meeting saw a massive 20,000 people attend and was peaceful, however there were a few who after walked through Westminster and started smashing windows at high prices.

In the second meeting around 200 people marched towards the tower of London, looting a gun shop on the way. The March of the Blanketeers was a march organised by William Benbow in March 1817. The marcher’s aims were to present a petition to the Prince Regent, asking him to relieve distress in the northern textile districts. Around 4,500 ‘Blanketeers’ gathered in Manchester to protest in London. The ‘Peterloo Massacre’ was when a crowd of around 60,000 gathered at St Peter’s Field on 16 August 1819 to demonstrate.

Magistrates sent in the Manchester yeomanry at arrest the leader Hunt just after the meeting had begun. Because of the amount of people the yeomanry found it very hard to get to Hunt so the magistrates called in the regular forces to hep the engulfed yeomanry and in the panic a stampede followed and 11 people were killed and 400-600 were injured. All of these incidences were seen as a starting point for a revolution. We are now going to look at what the government did in response to these actions. It is commonly alleged that Liverpool’s government pursued repressive policies between 1815 and 1820.

It acted in an unnecessarily harsh manner in crushing popular protest by, for example, suspending Habeas Corpus, passing the Seditious Meetings Act and breaking up the march of the Blanketeers in 1817, massacring those at ‘Peterloo’ and passing the Six Acts in 1819. Much disorder was actually provoked by the government – either indirectly through policies which placed intolerable burdens upon the poor or directly through the practice of employing agent’s provocateurs who encouraged lawbreaking so that they could collect a reward by informing on the law breakers.

Following the Spa Fields meetings in December 1816, the government reacted by suspending Habeas Corpus. This meant that the government could hold someone suspected of radical or anti-government behaviour without trial for an indefinite period. Only 44 were arrested on suspicion of treason, of which 37 were detained when Habeas Corpus was partially suspended in February 1817. One of these was released soon after, whilst a second was discharged on compassionate grounds and a third died in custody. The remaining 34 had all been released by the time Habeas Corpus was fully restored in January 1818.

As Norman Gash said ‘It was not exactly a reign of terror’. The government did have good right to suspend Habeas Corpus and introduce the Seditious Meetings Act because at the first Spa Fields Meeting Act there were over 20,000 people who attended and went rioting around London. On the second meeting 200 people marched to the Tower of London and Looted a gun shop on the way. The government saw this as a wake up call and had to introduce these policies or a revolution would take place they had to nip revolution in the bud.

As a direct result of the Seditious Meeting Act, in the same month there where large scale gatherings for political purposes were banned. A small group of disorganised workers planned a march from St Peters field in Manchester to London to present their grievances to the Prince Regent in person. The protest was mainly peaceful and carried out in a legal fashioned in defiance of the government legislation. One marcher was killed in a heavy handed and needless display of brutality by the authorities in Stockport Cheshire. Local Magistrates declared that the initial gathering was seditious and dispersed it.

This just created more unrest and most people saw this as going to far, however other historians say that he had to nip revolution in the bud. How was Lord Liverpool to know that there was not gong to revolution? Lord Liverpool saw a large group of people marching at a time of unrest this was the only action he could take because he could not afford to do nothing. The ‘Peterloo Massacre’ has been called ‘a symbol of repression’ by some historians, however some people have said that this was not a decision made by Lord Liverpool but by magistrates and they did not set our to stop the demonstration but just to get Hunt.

Some historians say that the radical challenges in this period were such a threat that the government needed to take immediate action to deal with the threat and could not take any chances so repressive measures needed to be taken to ‘nip revolution in the bud’. However some historians say that these radical groups were regionally divided, had no weaponry and had poor organisation and end goals to be a serious threat. Looking at how successful Lord Liverpool was in dealing to radical challenges you have to remember how pitifully small Liverpool’s resources were for keeping the peace.

Lacking a sizeable standing army or an effective police force, Liverpool’s government was obliged to rely upon spies and informers. The government at the time did not have any really power so they had to nip revolution in the bud. There was huge unrest thought the country due to various reasons and this led to radical protests. All of the protests were seen by the government as a starting point for a revolution and so the government had to deal with them through repressive policies. Liverpool had to stamp any possible radical challenges and he did this successfully.