History AS: Repressive Tories

'Never a serious threat.' How far do you agree with this view of the radical challenge in the period 1812-1822?

The radical movement had a large amount of support which called for Parliamentary reform and was also extremely critical of Lord Liverpool's Government. Liverpool's measures against the radicals combined with the beginnings of an economic recovery made it more difficult for the radical movement to succeed. However its sheer number of supporters, inspirational leaders and a nation prepared to listen always made it a constant danger and threat to the establishment.

Inspirational leaders such as William Cobbett who disseminated radical ideas through his Political Register, with his pamphlet Number 18 selling 20,000 copies made the radical threat more serious since for the first time a person was harvesting the popular discontent and turning it into a political argument threatening the stability of the Government. The movement shared ideas and convictions creating a large group of radicals fighting for the same objective. Moreover, Henry 'Orator' Hunt drew support through his speeches attracting about 60,000 people to St. Peter's Field in 1819. These figureheads harnessed the underlying discontent of the population, caused by the economic downturn, drawing support for the movement making it dangerous for the Government because of its numbers but also it had charismatic leaders who transformed the general feeling of discontent into a genuine radical movement and challenge therefore it was obviously hugely threatening for Liverpool's administration since it posed a problem to law and order. The huge meetings could always turn violent and therefore there was always the potential for issues arising relating to law and order in the form of riots or protests. This undermined the Government since they are supposed to keep the country safe, if it looks like they are failing at that task they are failing as a Government in the eyes of the general population and not just the radicals. If this occurred, Liverpool would lose his authority which would, in turn, encourage the radicals exacerbating the already existing threat.

The radical message was that Liverpool's Government was corrupt only looking out for themselves at the expense of the rest of the nation. These ideas were brought to the fore with the Corn Laws of 1815 which protected domestic agriculture as the price of grain would be kept artificially high since it prevented the importation of relatively cheap grain. The Commons was packed with landlords therefore the radicals used the Corn Laws as evidence that cabinet was out to safeguard their interests while the cost of living rose for many people especially in the cities such as Manchester and Birmingham. This gave the leaders, Cobbett and Hunt, more weapons to attack the Government with and therefore would be able to draw upon more support since they could provide more evidence for this self-interested regime. Therefore potential for civil unrest was made greater as more of the population was becoming radicalised making the movement larger and more concerning for Liverpool and his administration.

The economic effects of the War with France which had just finished in 1815 were felt by the majority of the population. Industry began to decline as the Government terminated contracts since weapons, uniforms and other items needed for war were no longer necessary. This caused widespread unemployment in the cities such as Birmingham and Manchester which were based around industry. In March 1817, several thousand weavers decided to march to London to deliver a petition to the Prince Regent so that he would solve the depression in the cotton trade. This shows how difficult their economic situations were that they took time off work to protest demonstrating that the economic crisis caused anger within the population. Moreover the 300,000 returning soldiers just glutted the labour market further. Many people didn't even have jobs as a result but those who did were being paid less as the employers had a larger pool of workers to choose from. The unemployment and the increase in the cost of living made people prepared to listen to the radical ideas and believe in them. This not only increased the audience for Cobbett and Hunt but made their followers’ convictions stronger making the movement even more of a threat as the radicals would be prepared to go further to bring down or at least undermine the established regime.

However, there were only really two ways Liverpool's Government could lose power; one way would be the Whigs taking power (intra-Parliamentary danger) or a national uprising toppling the established regime (extra-Parliamentary threat) . The former was made impossible by the Whigs as they alienated themselves from their natural support base of people calling for Parliamentary reform by playing politics. Their image as the party of reform made them the obvious Parliamentary leaders for the radicals to look to. However, they supported the Corn Laws of 1815 and the Repeal of Income Tax of 1816, in an attempt to make the Tories' jobs near impossible which would hopefully result in them gaining power. This just made the Whigs untrustworthy figures in the eyes of the radicals discrediting them to such an extent that it would no longer be feasible for them to form a Government or be figureheads of the movement. Therefore in terms of an intra-parliamentary threat the radical movement was never a threat to Liverpool and his Government since the natural parliamentary leaders of the radical movement had divorced themselves from it.

Moreover the likelihood of a violent populist uprising was substantially reduced by Liverpool's repressive legislation. Firstly, it deterred people from joining the radicals with the suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1816 and the Seditious Publications Act of 1816 restricting meetings to a maximum of 50, introduced after the Spa Fields Riots. This discouraged people from taking to the streets in support of the movement whilst also removing the leaders of the movement. William Cobbett fled to America in 1817 in fear of persecution and Henry Hunt was arrested in 1819 at the Peterloo Massacre and sentenced to 30 months in prison in 1820. The radical movement had no one to turn to as a leader; it didn't have the Whigs or any other extra-parliamentary leaders. In addition, these leaders never agreed on their methods with Cobbett preferring peaceful means and Hunt wanted a more aggressive approach. The movement was much less potent than it could have been since the two figureheads didn’t combine their strength disagreeing causing splits within the movement. Therefore the radicals shot themselves in the foot making the movement less of a threat since it was neither cohesive nor co-ordinated in its efforts.

Moreover the economy began to recover from 1819 onwards as Government finances stabilised. This increased confidence in the economy since the currency was back on the gold standard after the Bullion Committee’s recommendations of 1819. Now the people who were protesting because of economic reasons abandoned the radical cause and that it why after 1819 there is no real threat posed by radicals. This shows that the radicals were fuelled by the economic situation and highlights the weaknesses within the radical camp. Economic booms and downturns are cyclical events therefore as soon as the economy started to recover; the radical message would become less attractive and made the movement less of a threat as the numbers supporting it would start to decline. The radicals’ convictions were not motivated by ideologies posing no threat at all to the system and the Government since their anger was directed towards policies which had caused their suffering, Corn Laws 1815. Therefore it could be argued that the radicals never had strong enough convictions to overthrow the Government so the radical challenge could be viewed as never being a serious threat especially since the economy would sort itself out.

However, even though the Government did limit the potential of the movement by 1819 it does not mean that the radical movement was never a threat. Since the Government reacted harshly, it shows there was definitely a danger or had the potential to be incredibly threatening. There were armed rebellions with the Pentrich Rebellion in June 1817 where Jeremiah Brandreth led rebels with pikes against cavalry. It was put down easily but it symbolised a much greater issue as people were now prepared to violently attack the regime. The 60,000 people at St. Peter's Field in Manchester in 1819 shows the huge popular backing it had. The feelings of uprising combined with the large backing of the movement made it extremely dangerous for Liverpool since it posed a law and order issue undermining his authority and that of the established regime therefore it was always a threat to the Government even though it never succeeded.