england revolution

Template for change

No violent political revolution has occurred in Britain since the civil wars of 1642-51. Yet in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries virtually every other state in Europe has experienced at least one forcible overthrow of government and its replacement by another, from the French Revolution of 1789 to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Why was Britain different?
The fall of the Bastille prison in Paris on 14th July 1789 is a key event in European history. It symbolised the beginning of a revolution in France, leading to the overthrow of the old regime and the execution of King Louis XVI, his wife and many leading members of the French aristocracy. Within a few years, as the new order struggled to assert itself, Napoleon Bonaparte emerged in France as one of the most extraordinary military and political leaders in history.

Britain, however, seemed impervious to revolutionary change.

Under Napoleon's leadership, the French political, education and legal systems were fundamentally remodelled. Despite the reappearance - for a time - of the French monarchy, the Revolution reconfigured not only France but also the political contours of Europe as a whole. While the entire authority structure in France was overturned, the heady ideals of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' - proclaimed by the French revolutionaries and drawn from the European Enlightenment of the 18th century - seemed to offer a template for change across the whole of the continent, and beyond.
Britain, however, seemed impervious to revolutionary change. Though every other aspect of British life in the 19th century was transformed by industrial, social and cultural development, the country's rulers seemed somehow to avoid the mistakes of their continental counterparts. When Britain was at the peak of its imperial power at the end of the 19th century, historians charted the country's rise to greatness over the preceding hundred years or so. They were inclined to stress British genius for avoiding fundamental conflict between classes and social groups, and the country's ability to manage evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, political change.
On this analysis Britain's transformation was a major force for good. Its commercial and industrial revolutions offered the country's increasing population jobs and greater prosperity. In an age of widespread religious belief, many discerned the hand of God directing the progress of the British nation, first protecting it from invasion and then helping with its commercial and territorial expansion. In 1894, the famous imperial politician, Lord Curzon, could claim that Britain ruled, under God, over 'the greatest empire for good that the world has seen'.

Top

Political repression

The execution of Louis XVI during the French Revolution  © But how exceptional was Britain? Did it avoid revolution by divine intervention, by good management and wise statesmanship - or simply by luck? Historians nowadays are far less likely to ascribe Britain's largely peaceful progress in the 19th century to divine intervention. Some have argued that the threat of violent revolution was indeed real and that Britain escaped it, not by the hand of God but by the skin of its teeth.
The French Revolution inspired reformers in Britain as much as it frightened the British Crown and landowning classes. It is worth remembering that the Hanoverian dynasty, which provided Britain with its monarchs from 1714 to 1901, was only rarely popular, and was frequently criticised for its lack of understanding of the British people. Anti-government cartoons in the 1790s often included the most scabrous, even treasonable, representations of King George III.

The French Revolution inspired reformers in Britain...

In that decade, a number of political movements emerged to press for parliamentary reform. Some, like the London Corresponding Society, were organised and directed by skilled craftsmen and depended on the support of working people. They embraced political objectives drawn directly from French examples. They wanted to replace royal and aristocratic rule with representative government based on the Rights of Man - the influential political pamphlet by Thomas Paine.

From 1794, radical political leaders could be arrested without trial.

The government of William Pitt the Younger, already at war with revolutionary France, was thoroughly alarmed by the prospect that revolutionary ideas might be exported to Britain, and it responded to these ideas with political repression. From 1794, radical political leaders could be arrested without trial. In 1795, during a period of high food prices and severe public agitation, stones were thrown at the King's carriage as he went to Westminster to open a new session of parliament. In the fevered atmosphere of the time, such actions could easily be interpreted as portending revolution. Within weeks, a parliament dominated by fearful landowners had passed legislation that redefined the law of treason, and that made it almost impossible to hold public meetings in support of reform.

Top

Disaffected radicals

William Pitt the Younger, whose government responded to revolutionary ideas with political repression  © Pitt's policies succeeded, at least on one level. Throughout the remainder of the wars with France, which went on until 1815, support for reform never again approached the heights of 1795. Support among all ranks in society for what was increasingly seen as a patriotic war also boosted the government. However, the most determined of the disaffected radicals were merely driven underground, and in the years 1796-1803 government spies found evidence of revolutionary conspiracy.
Much of this evidence centred around Irishmen. Radicals in fact attempted revolution in Ireland in 1798, against British domination of their lands. Had the hoped-for substantial French support for the insurgents been forthcoming, the endeavour might have come much closer to success. In the event, the most important consequence was the creation of a new 'United Kingdom' of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, to which substantial numbers of Irish folk were never reconciled. The Society of United Irishmen was undoubtedly a revolutionary organisation, whose objective was the forcible overthrow of the British government, linked through a series of secret networks to cells of English revolutionaries.

...the most determined of the disaffected radicals were merely driven underground...

No doubt the numbers of such revolutionaries were small. However, few, if any, revolutions succeed because of weight of numbers - whatever the new revolutionary regimes might claim after they have installed themselves securely in power. Neither the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia, nor the Chinese revolution of 1949, could plausibly claim to have a democratic mandate. Assassins and revolutionaries may fail many times against superior forces. If they succeed once, however, they have achieved their objective. British politicians were well aware of this.

Top

Revolutionary activities

A painting of the Peterloo Massacre by George Cruikshank, 1819. A crowd of 60,000 had gathered in St Peter's Fields, Manchester, to hear speeches supporting parliamentary reform. Eleven were killed and 400 injured after a Yeomanry charge.  © Against the lowering and portentous backdrop of revolution in France, the most important influence on the political lives of two generations of politicians from the younger Pitt (1759-1806) to Robert Peel (1788-1850), all threats of revolution were taken seriously. The authorities hastily assembled an extensive spy network. Both the Irish-inspired Despard Conspiracy of 1803 and the so-called Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820 to blow up Lord Liverpool's cabinet - to take only the best-known examples of revolutionary activity in the period - were forestalled. Their leaders were executed amid a blaze of publicity designed to confirm the government's control of the situation. Beneath the surface, however, and despite overwhelming evidence of support from the propertied classes, politicians were more concerned than they could admit.

...because support for radical parliamentary reform never disappeared...

This was because support for radical parliamentary reform never disappeared. During periods of economic turbulence, such as 1815-20 and during the so-called Reform Act crisis of 1829-32, masses of people could appear on the streets in support of either democracy or republicanism. The most famous such occasion was in August 1819 when a large crowd assembled at St Peter's Fields in central Manchester to hear a pro-reform speech from Henry 'Orator' Hunt, the most gifted radical speaker of his day. Fearing uncontainable disorder, and perhaps even revolution, the Manchester authorities over-reacted. They sent in troops to disperse the crowd by force. Eleven people were killed and the radicals were given a huge propaganda boost by referring to the event as 'Peterloo', in a grim analogy with the Duke of Wellington's famous victory over Napoleon at Waterloo four years earlier.
During the European revolutionary wars of the 1790s British government propaganda could - just about - confect George III as the symbol of the nation. His eldest son, George, however, first as Prince Regent from 1810 and then as George IV from 1820 to 1830, provoked more contempt than respect. The early 19th-century monarchy was unable to inspire national unity. Indeed, it was part of the problem.
The claim that Britain came close to revolution in 1830-32 is by no means fanciful. Support for parliamentary reform reached unprecedented heights. 'Political unions' were formed in most large towns to press for radical change. The wife of the Russian ambassador wrote to her brother: 'We... in England, are just on the brink of a revolution.' In November 1830, the Duke of Wellington's Tory government was forced to resign after the Duke had asserted - against mountainous evidence to the contrary - that the people of Britain still had confidence in the unreformed political system that ruled their lives.

Top

Parliamentary reform

Tory governments since the 1790s had provided a strong thread of anti-reformist continuity. The Whig government that followed it under Earl Grey, however, came into office with plans for parliamentary reform, and a succession of Whig leaders proclaimed that reform was necessary to secure the state. The presence of this pro-reform government heightened expectations outside parliament, but although Grey might have been committed to reform, support from some of his senior ministers, such as Melbourne and Palmerston, was decidedly lukewarm.

During the winter of 1831-32, the nation stood on a knife-edge.

Meanwhile, it rapidly became clear that opposition to reform remained strong in the House of Commons and overwhelming in the House of Lords, and this led to the Whigs' first reform bill running into the parliamentary sands. A general election held in 1831 gave the Whigs an unassailable majority for reform in the Commons but it did little to change opinion in the Lords, and the Lords' rejection of the Whigs' second reform bill in October led to widespread rioting throughout Britain. For a time, the authorities lost control of Derby, Nottingham and Bristol. Castles and country houses were hastily reinforced against attack.
During the winter of 1831-32, the nation stood on a knife-edge. In the spring, the Lords showed signs of renewed recalcitrance, and the King, as a desperation measure, invited the Duke of Wellington back to form a government. In response, reform leaders made plans to bring the country to a halt by having their supporters withdraw funds from the banks, using the slogan: 'To stop the Duke, go for Gold'.
The crisis was averted. The Lords backed down and the Reform Bill was passed. But what if the Lords had stood firm? Historians will always debate 'might-have-beens' and no one can prove things one way or the other. However, the potential for revolution in 1831-32 is clear. Public support for parliamentary reform had never been greater. Outside London, no professional police force was in place and the mechanisms of control available to the authorities were old-fashioned and creaky. There was as yet no railway network to move troops rapidly to areas that were out of control. Revolutions have been mounted elsewhere on less.
The Whigs' perception that a measure of concession to popular opinion was necessary in the interests of national security was undoubtedly correct. But if they had not won over the King and the Lords in 1832, then the potential for a revolutionary response certainly existed. So, Britain avoided political revolution in the 19th century, but it is far from clear that it was bound to do so. In 1831-32, to adapt a phrase used by the Duke of Wellington about the Battle of Waterloo, it had been a pretty 'near run thing'.

Top

Find out more

Books
Threats of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by M I Thomis and P Holt (Macmillan, 1977)
Revolutionary Britain: Reflections on the Threat of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848 by E Royle (Manchester University Press, 2000)
The Great Reform Act of 1832 by E J Evans, (2nd edition, Routledge, 1994)
The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870 by E J Evans (3rd edition, Longman Pearson, 2001)
Britain before the Reform Act by Eric J Evans (Longman, 1989)
William Pitt the Younger by Eric J Evans (Routledge, 1999)
The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction by William Doyle (Oxford Paperback, 2001)