Using your own knowledge to access how far the sources support the interpretation that the Radicals of 1815-20 failed because of repression.

down a whole Radical movement. However the spies often acted as agents provocateurs and would encourage reformers to come out into the open and take action, this increased the threat to law and order but allowed the government to arrest revolutionary’s and also seemed to justify the oppressive nature of the regime. One example of this is the Cato street conspiracy in 1820. George Edwards encouraged Thistlewood to kill members of the cabinet. Edwards was a spy who reported everything back to Lord Sidmouth. The conspirators were arrested on the spot by only 12 officers and were later hung and beheaded. Similarly in source B we are shown that the Radicals blamed their failures on the government and their spies. When Turner a conspirator of the Pentrich rising says that ‘Oliver brought him to this’, it makes it sound like Oliver, like Edwards, acted as an agents provocateur and encouraged them to take action. The overall effectiveness of the spies and the organisation of the government was a definite factor as to why the Radicals failed. Source C, which is the eyewitness account of the Peterloo Massacre, also supports this statement but in a different way. It shows the brutal and somewhat panicky way that the government dealt with radical meetings. It tells us that the government’s cavalry ‘waved their swords above their heads… women and tender youths indiscriminately cut down’. This is an example of the repressive and barbaric nature of the government. Although eighty thousand showed up to the open air meeting there was no disorder. The local volunteer troops known as the yeomanry decided to arrest the speaker Henry hunt, which is what lead to the massacre. The ‘Peterloo massacre’ was not popular and there were protests around the country. This may have increased radical popularity, although it did not matter as the government decided to introduce further repressive laws to limit Radical growth for instance the ‘six acts’. In source D similarly it depicts the over zealous governments attempts to stop the spread of Radicalism. It has no ulterior motifs. It was merely his take on the events that was released long after it happened. ‘Calvary entered the field at a brisk trot… panic seized the crowd’. Source D suggests that every aspect of the Radical meetings were controlled if the government believed that the radicals would gain respect and support they would brutally break up the meetings. Also if anyone fought back they could use this as a way of justifying the extremely repressive regime. Source E supports the view most by expressing collectively all of the repressive acts that the government inflicted not only on the radical groups but on the rest of England. In source E we are shown a cartoon that was published in a newspaper. It is very strongly for the statement that repression was the reason for the failure of the radicals. It depicts all of the repressive qualities of the government and their effects on England. John Bull, the symbol of England is shown gagged. This symbolizes that the government has silenced its opposition. The empty bookcase also is part of the six acts whereby magistrates could search houses without a warrant for seditious literature, also the extremely high stamp duty to limit the distribution of radical pamphlets to stop the spread of radicalism. On his table the Magna Carta is pierced with a dagger. This is to show that the government were ignoring human rights. Also the six objects above his head represent the six acts, which seem to be weighing him down almost saying that the six acts are weighing down English society and they are stopping England from progressing forward. The cartoon has strong connotations of repression. This source reflects the public mood at the time as it shows the government as repressive. If the public mood at the time were that the radicals were ill disciplined and disorganised then the cartoonist would have drawn that instead. All of these repressive factors ensured that the government hastily stopped the spread of Radicalism and resulted in its failure.         However the lack of leadership and organisation of the Radicals is still a reason as to why they failed. In source A we see that the marchers are not at all well prepared and that during their march to protest the governments repressive regime, some of them die due to the cold conditions. This kind of organisation would not win over the support of the people of England and is a definite reason for radicalism to fail. It says that they ‘aroused pity rather than resentment’, people saw them starving and dying walking through their village and instead of resenting the government for what has happened to their country they feel pity towards the Blanketeers. Therefore all of their efforts were in vain. If they had been strong and shown radicalism as a force that would be successful, people would have been more likely to support them. It shows that they received no support from the public. Similarly in source B we are shown that as a result of them killing mill owners that the public are no longer as supportive. One person’s actions discredited the whole movement and although the government set them up using spies people felt less for them than if they had not killed anyone. If the radicals had planned each of their movements better, spies would not have infiltrated their ranks so easily and they could have a had a more definite plan and had a better relationship with the public and would have been more successful and likely to succeed.         In conclusion the sources as a group do support the view that the Radicals failed because of repression. The repression was represented in the form of the government’s use of spies, the power of the government and their barbaric and zero tolerance way of dealing with the radicals. However, the disorganisation of the Radicals made it easier to secure their failure. I agree with the statement that repression was the reason the radicals failed to a certain degree, because it was not entirely down to the government that the radicals failed, the government were able to ensure the failure of the radicals by launching a very flawed movement of repression.