In 1789, the fall of the Bastille[1] foreshadowed revolution in France. Reactions were
mixed in Britain but many people were initially well disposed towards the
revolution. Pitt saw political advantages for Britain because it weakened
France’s colonial ambitions. Some thought France should become a
‘constitutional’ monarchy. Others saw it leading to reform in England. The
British believed themselves to be the freest people in Europe, thanks to the
1688 ‘Glorious’ Revolution,[2] and many foreigners flatteringly took the same view.
It is not surprising that the opening stages of the revolution looked like a
French attempt to copy Britain.
Reacting to revolution: the intellectual debate
The debate began with a ‘political sermon’ given by the
dissenting minister Richard Price on 4 November 1789. He pointed to the
1688-1689 Revolution Settlement as part of the dissenting agitation for repeal
of the Test and Corporation Acts. Many opponents of Dissent feared that much
more was involved than mere religion. In November 1790, Edmund Burke published
his Reflections on the Revolution in France. It was an Anglican
defence of the state and denied Price’s assertion that ‘the people’ had acquired
important rights in 1688-1689, especially the right to choose their own rulers,
remove them for misconduct and frame a government for themselves. Religion, not
some vague contractual notion, was for Burke at the heart of the civil society.
He celebrated aristocratic concepts of paternalism, loyalty and the hereditary
principle in which the great social institutions--the Church, the law, even the
family--confirmed the aristocracy as the ruling class and the protectors of
traditional values. The response was immediate.
Thomas Paine wrote the first part of Rights of Man as a
reply to Burke’s Reflections and it was published in February 1791. Part
Two was published in April 1792. It was only one of the thirty-eight responses
to Burke but was the most influential. It merged the debate about the revolution
with a programme of practical and radical reform. Paine put forward a simple
message. He denounced Burke’s idea of society as an association between past and
present generations and his view of the role of monarchy and aristocracy. Power
lay with the people and their rights. The impact of Rights of Man was
immediate. It was distributed in cheap editions (50,000 copies of Part One were
sold in 1791), read aloud and discussed. To his supporters, Paine was a heroic
figure. To his opponents, he became a symbol of the excesses of revolution. He
was frequently burned in effigy especially at the end of 1792 and the first few
months of 1793. In Nottingham, for instance, Paine was ritualistically killed,
stoned by ladies at a dinner and dance. Between 1792 and 1795, the circulation
of Paine’s work was one of the main reasons given for the passage of repressive
legislation.
The debate was not confined to a dialogue between Burke and
Paine. Many of the authors knew each other and their work may be seen as a
collective project. Paine, William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft produced a
number of innovative and utopian proposals between 1791 and early 1793--the
establishment of a welfare state, the withering away of the centralised state,
equality in relationships to remove the automatic obedience of employees to
employers and women to men. Thomas Spence’s Meridian Sun of Liberty cost
only one penny and was aimed at a different audience that Burke’s Reflections
at three shillings and Godwin’s Political Justice priced at a pound.
The extent to which the debate reached different sections of the public was
largely determined by the cost of the written material.
Government was concerned that ‘informed opinion’ was in the
hands of a closely-knit radical circle. While those individuals were addressing
each other, they represented no threat to established order. However, the
combination of growing political organisation with a supply of radical writings
to politicise the masses was another matter. A loyalist backlash began in
late-1792 with John Reeves and the Association for Preserving Liberty and
Property against Republicans and Levellers. It commissioned and circulated
popularly written anti-radical pamphlets to ensure the loyalty of the labouring
population. It maintained pressure on the radical writers while the government
controlled radical publishing, processes helped by the patriotic reaction to
the outbreak of war with France in 1793. With the publication of Godwin’s
Political Justice in February 1793, innovative radical thinking stopped.
Fewer pamphlets were published, repeated old ideas and tried to reassure a
moderate audience rather than developing new theories. The objective of many
radical thinkers was to attract the widest possible support for an
anti-government platform. The radical vision of communicating with a wide
audience had been established yet in practical terms, the reforming movement
achieved little. By 1800, European societies were destabilised and Burke’s fears
had apparently been realised.
Reacting to revolution: radical demands for reform
British reformers were roused into action by the events in
France. The dissenters’ campaign for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
was stimulated by events across the Channel. The Society for Constitutional
Information (SCI), founded in 1780, began to circulate radical propaganda and in
April 1792, some Whig reformers formed the Society of the Friends of the People
to campaign for parliamentary reform. However, the Corresponding Societies
marked a new departure for radicalism.
The French Revolution stirred people to political action and
provided them with an ideology through which to redress their grievances but the
economic conditions in the first half of the 1790s also played an important
role. The disturbed state of Europe in 1792-1793 led to economic depression in
Britain with widespread unemployment and lower wages. War interrupted trade. It
also placed increasing tax burdens on the middle- and lower classes. Economic
distress reached critical levels in 1795-1796 following harvest failure in 1794,
pushing up food prices at a time when the labouring population was already faced
with higher taxation and lower wages. It is, however, important not to see the
reforming movement simply in terms of a response to economic conditions. What
was different about the Corresponding movement was that it crossed the threshold
from traditional economic grievances to fundamental political demands.
Corresponding Societies
During the winter of 1791-2, popular radical societies emerged.
The London Corresponding Society (LCS) was the most important. Founded in
January 1792 by a small group led by the shoemaker Thomas Hardy, membership was
open to all who paid a penny at each weekly meeting. Though formed to discuss
the poverty faced by many of the labouring population and the high prices of the
day, the LCS quickly adopted a political programme for remedying their
grievances: universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and redistribution of
rotten boroughs to the large towns. The LCS spread rapidly across London and
developed a sophisticated organisational structure of divisions district
committees and general committee.
Two features described the LCS: its size and its social
composition. By late-1792, about 650 people regularly attended its
meetings. By late-1794, its total active membership was 3,000. By the spring of
1796, this had fallen to about 2,000, by the end of the year to 1,000, to about
600 in 1797 and to 400 active members before it was banned in 1798. LCS
membership was confined to a very small proportion of London’s working
population. To call the LCS a ‘working-class’ organisation neglects the extent
to which its membership was made up of individuals from the ‘middling’ and
professional classes as well as artisans and tradesmen. An analysis of 347
activists shows that only half were artisans and the rest were medical men,
lawyers, booksellers, clerks, shopkeepers and printers. There is no evidence
that it ever had much appeal to unskilled labourers or the very poor.
Provincial radical societies had begun to spring up before the
LCS was founded. The Sheffield Society for Constitutional Information was formed
in late 1791. Within a few months, it had grown from a few members to 2,500
members. In the autumn of 1792, the Sheffield SCI could bring 5-6,000 people on
to the streets to celebrate the French victory at Valmy and a similar number in
February 1794 to press for peace abroad and liberty at home. During 1792, the
number of societies mushroomed and regional differences became more obvious.
Manchester, with its factory workers, merchants and expanding population, stood
at the other end of the scale to Sheffield. It had been Tory since the 1750s and
this may account for the slow initial development of the Manchester
Constitutional Society founded by Thomas Walker as early as October 1790. In
Norwich, the radical cause developed along similar lines. A Revolution Society
established in 1788, was dominated by middle-class Dissenters, merchants and
tradesmen. It rivalled Sheffield as the pacemaker of radicalism. The textile
industry supported artisans of a particularly independent temper and Norwich’s
Dissent was rooted in a craggy, though surprisingly liberal, tradition. By 1792,
forty tavern clubs of shoemakers, weavers and shopkeepers had developed,
comprising some 2,000 members.
Organisation
How did the radical societies attempt to achieve their aims?
Weekly meetings and the spread of printed propaganda provided focus for their
activities. They corresponded regularly with each other and with groups in
France. However, their attempt to reach a mass audience was limited. There was,
however, no nationwide petitioning campaign. There were only 36 petitions in
support of Charles Grey’s motion on parliamentary reform in 1793. The reformers
seriously overestimated the amount of mass support and dangerously
underestimated the fears it would arouse in the authorities. Radical tactics
were very restrained. The bulk of the labouring population did not rally behind
parliamentary reform and few radical leaders appreciated the power of organised
labour. Some radicals did try to whip up food rioters in Sheffield in 1795 to
protest against the war and demand parliamentary reform and similar tactics were
used in the north-west in 1800. However, these were isolated examples and the
radicals made no attempt to co-ordinate popular riots. Most radical leaders,
with their middle-class background, were committed to non-violent action. When
the governing class refused to concede reform, resorting to repression and
persecution, most radicals lost heart or moderated their demands.
Reacting to revolution: the conservative response
The attack on popular radicalism came from three directions.
There was an attack on its ideology, a populist and loyalist reaction and a
legislative attack by Pitt’s government. The reform movement collapsed not
simply because of repressive actions but because the opponents of reform
developed a defence of the existing political system that was convincing not
just to those with property but also to large sections of British society.
Conservative ideology in the 1790s had considerable appeal. A
tradition of resistance to constitutional change in Britain existed in the
decades leading up to the revolution and events in France, especially after
1791, reinforced this tradition. Radicals at home were seen in the same light as
revolutionaries abroad. It was not difficult to persuade people that the radical
reform would destroy the established order as the revolution had in France.
French anarchy was contrasted unfavourable with British stability and
prosperity. Conservative apologists and propagandists appealed to British hatred
of France and fear of radical change. There was also an intellectual response
contrasting the stability of constitutional monarchy with the anarchy of ‘mob’
rule and democracy. Anti-radical propaganda, subsidised by the loyalist
associations, by government and by private individuals, took many forms.
Pamphlets and tracts like the Cheap Repository Tracts, many written by Hannah
More, between 1795 and 1798; pro-government newspapers like the Sun, the
True Briton and the Oracle; journals like the Anti-Jacobin
(1797-8) and its successor the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine, a
monthly that lasted until 1821; political caricatures and cartoons by artists
like Isaac Cruickshanks. James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson; and local
newspapers like the Manchester Mercury and the Newcastle Courant.
This concerted campaign was outstandingly successful and convinced the
majority of English people that the French Revolution was a disaster.
Loyalist associations emerged initially as a response to the
Dissenter campaign for repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts but the number of
Church and King clubs was given a major boost by the revolution especially the
Royal Proclamation against seditious writings on 21 May 1792. By September 1792,
some 386 loyal addresses had been received by the king and in November John
Reeves formed the first loyalist Association for the Preservation of Liberty
and Property against Republicans and Levellers (APLP). By the end of 1793, the
total number of APLPs may have reached 2,000 making them the largest political
organisation in the country. They spread from London first into the neighbouring
counties, then to the west, Midlands and finally the north. Active membership
was largely confined to men of property, though they were able to enlist support
from across society. They can be seen as far more successful and popular
‘working-class’ organisations than the radical societies. Loyalist associations
adopted the organisation and some of the methods of the reformers. They produced
a great deal of printed propaganda but were not content to rely upon persuasion,
resorting to intimidation and persecution to defeat their opponents. Calls for
loyalty and patriotism proved far more popular with the bulk of the population
than demands for radical change.
Government repression.
Pitt acted quickly against the threat pose by the radicals,
inaugurating what has been called Pitt’s ‘Reign of Terror’. The government was
convinced it faced a revolutionary conspiracy, a view reinforced by the
intelligence received from local magistrates and spies and believed it was
justified in taking firm action. In May and December 1792, two Royal
Proclamations were issued against seditious writings. The Home Office,
especially after 1794 under the strongly anti-radical Duke of Portland,
monitored the activities of the radical societies using spies as well as more
conventional methods like opening letters, receiving reports from local sources,
watching the activities of radicals abroad and infiltrating radical groups. Its
resources were very limited with a staff of less than twenty-five. After success
in the Scottish treason trials in 1793-1794, Pitt moved against English
radicals. Forty-one men, including Hardy, were arrested in late 1794 and charged
with high treason but after he was acquitted, further trials were abandoned.
The administration had little further success with treason trials during the
remainder of the decade but had more success with those for publishing seditious
libels. There were less than 200 convictions during the 1790s and whether this
constitutes a government-inspired reign of terror is open to debate.
Parliament was prepared to pass legislation in support of the
government though, in practice, this often turned out to be far less effective
than anticipated. Habeas Corpus was suspended from May 1794 to July 1795 and
April 1798 to March 1801 but only a few people were imprisoned without charge.
The Two Acts of 1795--the Treasonable Practices Act and the Seditious Meetings
Act--proved less than effective weapons despite the wide powers given to central
and local government. The Treasonable Practices Act was designed to intimidate
and no radical was prosecuted under it. The Seditious Meetings Act failed to
prevent the increasing number of meetings organised by the LCS. There was only
one prosecution under a 1797 Act rushed through Parliament following the naval
mutiny at Spithead and the Nore. It strengthened penalties for attempting to
undermine allegiance to the authorities and administering unlawful oaths. The
banning of the leading radical societies by law in 1799 was unnecessary,
largely because they were already in a state of collapse. The Combination Acts
of 1799 and 1800 banned combinations of workers completing the legislative
armoury of repression. Radicalism was increasingly driven underground. It did
not emerge as a mass movement until the last years of the French wars. Between
1794 and 1800, Pitt had successfully driven radical politics to the margins of
political life.
Government legislation was infrequently used but it
remained as a threat hanging over radicals, limiting their freedom of
action. Its effect was to intimidate and harass. It destroyed the leadership of
the radical societies, silenced the ablest propagandists and frightened many
into abandoning the reform movement. However, the collapse of the radical
movement was not simply a matter of repression by government or magistrates. War
revived latent deep-seated patriotism among the most people for whom radicalism
was only of peripheral importance.
[1] The Bastille was the royal palace and prison in the
centre of Paris. Its capture on 14 July 1789 by a Parisian mob marked the
beginnings of the French Revolution.
[2] The 1688 ‘Glorious’ Revolution occurred when the
Catholic James II was replaced by the Protestant William III and Mary so
preserving constitutional monarchy and the powers of Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment