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

How Far Was Lord Liverpool's Government Directly Responsible for the popular unrest in the years 1815 - 1821?

Extracts from this document...


How Far Was Lord Liverpool's Government Directly Responsible for the popular unrest in the years 1815 - 1821? It is without doubt that the period of Liverpool's government from 1815 to 1821 was one of great civil disturbance. It has been alleged that the period was the closest Britain has ever come to internal revolution with the exception of the civil war. Many historians argue that the unrest, clear in the many violent protests and attempted "uprisings" during the period, was due directly to actions taken, and laws passed by the Tory Cabinet of 1815, but how much of this unrest was caused by factors entirely outside the governments control? Historians consider a vast number of factors to have contributed to the crisis, not all of them the government's fault. The government was accused of extreme classist policies. The Corn Laws, one of the more controversial laws introduced by the government, was described by Lord Blake (an expert on the period) as "one of clearest pieces of class legislation on English History." This law drove up bread prices, benefiting the rich "landed interest" at the expense of the poor. The repeal of Income tax likewise benefited rich at the expense of poor, as higher indirect taxes were introduced to compensate, costing the poor more and the rich less. ...read more.


Once the war had ended, the government still desperately needed the funding it represented, however gave in to pressure from backbencher MPs as the tax was progressive and therefore affected the rich to a greater degree. The Government needed to replace these lost funds, and to do so increased indirect taxation on the purchase of goods. This of course took a huge toll on the poorer people, who had had barely enough to survive on previously. These measures also inspired outrage from middle and lower class activists, as the government was again taking measures that would benefit only the rich landed gentry. The protest at these actions may have continued peacefully had the government not violently suppressed supposedly peaceful gatherings and imprisoned influential radical figures. Henry hunt, a leading propagator of the idea of parliamentary reform through constitutional methods was implicated in Rioting in London in which he had no part, reinforcing the feeling of Government suppression of new ideas. The Spa Fields Riot, where a small splinter group of an essentially peaceful meeting attempted armed revolt, was used by the government as an excuse to introduce alarming new measures including the suspension of Habeas Corpus (freedom from imprisonment without trial) ...read more.


The growth of an upwardly-aspiring middle class, that resented the Aristocrats arrogant superiority, because of the growth of towns, led to radicals having a politically interested demographic from which to recruit. However, Taken overall Lord Liverpool's Government created Laws that were class discriminate. They had therefore shown themselves to the general populace to be interested primarily in their own gain, and not the general welfare of the people. In this respect, they are directly responsible for all the unrest that followed. The Laws exacerbated existing problems caused by the French Revolution, bad harvests, and economic downturn, and the repression of personal freedom and expression through the implementation of the six acts, caused those dissidents to take radical action to make their grievances heard. The Government handled the initial unrest badly responding with force when a more diplomatic response would have been more appropriate. Eventually, it is true that the Government ended the series of disturbances, but only through a policy of harsh retaliation to any radical opposition. The Government may have prevented a worse situation from developing, but that does not change the fact that Liverpool's Government was almost completely responsible for the general unrest that did occur in the years 1915 to 1921, whether from wrong actions or merely inaction. Top of Form 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE 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 GCSE Politics essays

  1. How far do you agree that it was Cavour's diplomacy rather that Garibaldi's ideas ...

    Significantly, the letter was probably not intended for any form of publication therefore it shows Cavour's honest opinion: 'To help him openly we cannot...I cannot hide from myself the inconveniences of so badly defined a line of action, but I cannot think of another that would not be far more

  2. How successful was Lord Liverpool in responding to radical challenge from 1812-1822?

    He did not know that there wasn't going to be a revolution so he had to respond quickly and decisively to stop radical challenges/challenges growing. Unrest in the country was due to many reasons such as: the Corn Laws, the abolition of income tax, war time contracts had ended and the demobilisation meant that there was high unemployment.

  1. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

    However, to get this, it said "Without some disaster or catastrophic event neither the politicians nor the military would have approved". The 9/11 provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the 'war on terrorism shortly after the disaster.

  2. How far were the Anti Corn Law League responsible for Peel's repeal of the ...

    Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whigs, already had issued the Edinburgh Letter which encouraged Peel to propose the legislation pledging the support of the Whigs which wold have seen a reduction over three years. The gradual reduction would create less risk of the failure of the Bill as

  1. How far was the Tory government's reaction to the problem of the radicals justified

    effective law and peaceful order and therefore feared that if it was prohibited what the consequences would be, although they had troops standing by in case of any trouble. The Peterloo protest was one of peace, and was legitimate however the magistrates apparently lost their nerve, decided the protest was

  2. What was the state of Britain in 1815?

    was owned by wealthy landowners and aristocrats and the peasants worked on their land. The same system had lasted for years until new technological improvements started to come in. These included new machinery, but also the use of new crops, the use of fertilisers such as marl, the start of

  1. How did governments in pre - revolutionary Russia deal with social and political unrest?

    When announcing his accession to the throne, he let it be very clearly understood that he had no intention of limiting or weakening the autocratic power that he had inherited from his ancestors. Nor did he afterwards show any inclination to change his mind.

  2. How far was Lord Liverpool's government directly responsible for the popular unrest of the ...

    The radical message was spread in a number of ways during this period in order to increase awareness of radical aims amongst the working classes. The radical press was circulated nation-wide, with newspapers such as The Political Register, Black Dwarf and The Republican working to translate and criticise government action from a radical viewpoint.

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