To what extent was Pitt's repressive policy the main reason for his success in resisting the radical challenge to 1801?

Pitt went to war with France in 1793, this caused a widespread loyalist reaction amongst the British. The war helped to influence many to have negative anti french views, this hatred of the French Revolution created a anti-revolutionary movement in England. This response to the war helped Pitt, as he was trying to prevent revolution from happening in Britain. There was a loyalist riot in 1794 in Manchester where chants about church and kings were to be heard, subsequently ‘Church and King’ clubs formed. The loyalists advertised their cause through pamphlets that supported the king. Suppport for the king spread, the government were extremely happy with the outcome, they even allowed and encourages a loyalist militia to form and by 1800 there were 100,000 members. This show of support for the king that followed the war with France was a strong opponent against the radicals.

Problems within the radicals caused a divide in their goals and the path they thought was necessary to take to reach them. This could be seen when looking at some of the radical groups. Disunity in cause could be seen by looking at two figures that were part of the radical movement; Tom Paine focused solely on men’s rights, whilst Mary Wollstonecraft focused on rights for women. The London Corresponding Society believed in achieving their goals peacefully, however the Society for Constitutional Information’s leader (John Jebb) believed that ‘public agitation’ was the most effective way of reaching their goals. This lack of unity of cause and ways of achieving their aims considerably weakened the radical movement.

Another factor that weakened the radical movement was the lack of genuine support for them. Food shortages started to become less frequent, the shortages were a source of anger for many of the people, and was a reason to join the radical movement, many stopped attending meetings. This change of support for the radical shows that people were not completely behind helping them change things, but just stuck with them to get issues that affected them sorted. The radical movement needed the full support of the majority of the population (lower classes) to be strong enough to succeed, once the lower classes were able to eat, support for the radicals decreased.

Division was not only felt amongst the radicals, there were divisions in the Whig party over the French Revolution. This effectively lead to two camps within the party; the first led by Edmund Burke, the second led by Charles Fox, who supported the French Revolution. Burke had a more conservative view as he believed that revolution would lead to an unstable government, and believed that there should be ‘evolution’ not revolution. The emergence of anti-revolution support from within the Whig party (Burke), strengthened Pitts. This open support from the Whig party made people more likely to support Pitt than the radicals.

For Pitts repressive policies to have been the main reason for his success would have to mean that without them the radical challenge couldn’t of been resisted. I believe that this statement is false. The radical movement couldn’t of caused major change to have happened as they were not united or popular enough to do so. The support that the French revolution brought about from within government helped many to not believe or want to join the radicals, it was also the loyalist reaction proceeding Britain waging war on France acted as a strong opposition to the revolutionaries and gained support. Pitt’s repressive policies was a factor , but not the most important one. I believe that it was a combination of all the factors that helped Pitt resist the radical challenge to 1801.