• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How successful was Lord Liverpools government in defeating the radical demands in the years 1815 to 1827?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS LORD LIVERPOOL'S GOVERNMENT IN DEFEATING THE RADICAL DEMANDS IN THE YEARS 1815 TO 1827?" Lord Liverpool's government ruled at a time of huge national discontent, arguably exacerbated by policies introduced by the government. However, there are many reasons why this government could be considered unsuccessful in terms of defeating radicalism from 1815-1827. The government during this period is considered by some to be rather successful: the period of 1815-1821 was one of great turbulence. The initial response from the government to radicalism was one of harsh and repressive measures (the 'Reactionary Tories' phase). Examples of this emerged after 1816, such as the suspension of Habeas Corpus (allowing people to be arrested without trial) and the Six Acts of 1819 (which dramatically reduced the freedom of the people), following events like the revolutionary and treasonous Cato Street Conspiracy (1820) and the perfectly legal March of the Blanketeers (1817). Although seen by many to be excessively punitive, these measured helped to stamp out would-be revolutionaries, ensuring a modicum of stability and realising the government's main objective: to defend the country from both external and internal threats. ...read more.

Middle

However, a different interpretation of this government was a 'Cabinet of Mediocrity', an opinion accredited to future Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. There are also many reasons why some may believe this perception to be accurate. The government under Lord Liverpool, as previously stated, made no attempts to deal with demands for Catholic Emancipation and parliamentary reform, both issues of high importance to many of the discontented masses, including the radical minority. This passiveness on the part of Liverpool meant that when Canning (who was sympathetic towards Catholic Emancipation) succeeded him, the party was split between those willing to serve him (Canningites) and those who were not (Ultras). This led to a fracturing of the Tory party which would never be healed. Parliamentary reform was also an issue which split these two groups. So it could be perceived that Liverpool's passiveness on these matters (although they ensured peace in his time) led to an inevitable crisis when he left government, with differences of opinion in Parliament and increased pressure for radicals who wanted change. ...read more.

Conclusion

Hence, they did not act much differently to the repressive 'Reactionary' government, meaning that the government did not have much success in the 'Liberal' period in quashing radicalism. In summary, the government of Lord Liverpool was, in the main, rather ineffective in stamping out the threat of radicalism. Lord Liverpool ignored major issues such as parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, simply putting them to one side, until they resurfaced with a vengeance and radical demands thundered back. Furthermore, the heavy-handed nature of his government only served to increase popular discontent rather than stop it, and the continuity of the same individuals during both the 'Reactionary' and 'Liberal' period meant that there was actually no change, merely a new label on an old product. The government also got rather lucky that the economy turned for the better, as their protectionist class legislation (e.g. the Corn Laws) were the cause for widespread discontent, and the improved economy was nothing to do with them. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. How and why did Lord Liverpool survive the Radical Challenges of 1812 ...

    However a government spy called George Edwards had easily infiltrated them and acted as an agent provocateur, stirring up trouble making the threats more serious than they appeared, his information led to the arrest of the leader Arthur Thistlewood and four others as they gathered in Cato Street.

  2. How successful was Lord Liverpools government in defeating radical demands 1815-1827?

    This was a very clever political move as he kept both parties happy and is shown to be the best option as after his retirement the party close the question dividing and weakening the party. One further action of the government to deal with radical action was the 6 acts

  1. How do the poets in 'Charlotte O'Neils song' and 'Nothing Changed' show their feelings ...

    'Nothing's Changed' is a far more angry poem. Whereas the girl in the first poem is able to make a change to the way she is treated, the second poem seems to suggest that although things have changed politically, society is still divided. Only it it's money which divides people up now and not just colour.

  2. Why were the parliamentary armies more successful in 1644/5 than in 1642/3?

    His fighting had earned him an ambitious and ruthless reputation to which he again proved this by beating Lord Fairfax, the parliamentary leader in the battle of sea croft moor in March 1643 after earning his position as general lieutenant general of horse to the marquis of Newcastle.

  1. How far was Lord Liverpool's government a reforming one in the years 1822 to ...

    This is obviously unreasonable in every sense considering the majority were poor. Therefore, the government was not a reforming one to a large extent in relation to underlying economic problems and status. Having said this, I still stand by my initial statement.

  2. How Successful was Edward Carson in His Defense of Unionism During The Third Home ...

    The bad handling of this led to General Gough refusing to march north. They were summoned to London were he sought assurances that the army would not be used in anyway against the people of Ulster. The Curragh incident had greatly embarrassed the government as it now and made a

  1. How liberal were the Tories from 1821 to 1827?

    This was designed to protect British traders from competition from the Dutch, however this act proved to be more damaging than beneficial. Due to this act, other countries were now rejecting British ships from entering their ports, as a type of ?revenge?.

  2. How did Lord Liverpool deal with the threat of radical challenges?

    On 9 June 1817, Jeremiah Brandeth set out with 200 men to march to Nottingham?when they arrived they were met by army troops, not the supporters they were lead to believe would be then. 45 men were tried for high treason because of this rebellion, and 3 of them were executed.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work