At the time of the Radical movements there was no police force in place, as well as this they had only a limited number of troops. However there was in place a local magistrate who did impose law and order, although it had no experience of crowd control. As well as this, ministers used spies and agents to detect evidence of treasonable activity. One of the Radicals major displays of discontent toward the government was at Peterloo. In 1819 a protest supporting the cause of parliamentary reform was allowed to go ahead for, as mentioned before, there was not an 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 illegal, so the troops intervened, stopping it causing 11 deaths and 400 injuries. This incident was not of a Radical cause but of the local magistrates, who had over-reacted to the gathering of the large crowd.
The governments reaction to this incidence was justified by introducing the ‘six acts’ which included increasing the price of stamp duty on pamphlets, the permit for magistrates to search houses without a warrant, a restriction on public meetings and an act permitting the seizure of weapons.
A second display of major discontent toward the government was the act of Luddism. The rise of Luddism was firstly caused by the refusal of the employers to set a minimum wage and secondly by the fact that prices were rising tremendously, however one historian EP Thompson believed that Luddism was more than just an economical and industrial protest but it had political aims as well. These people had all been suffering economic hardship what with labourers being replaced by machines. They smashed up machines, vandalised landowner’s property and set fire to factories.
The government took a strong line toward Luddism, using troops to break up demonstrations and hanging rioters. The also retaliated to these the Luddite riots by making frame – breaking punishable (by death). Another government reaction was introducing the ‘Game laws’ whereby it became punishable to poach against landowners. Even the possession of a net of a net for catching rabbits was made punishable. The ‘Game Law’ was designed to stamp out the sudden increase in poaching which took place after the introduction of the ‘corn laws’. Yet the ‘Game laws’ as stern as they seem were not effective as the Government had hoped.
In 1816 yet another problem due to the radicals arose to the government – this was the spa field riots. A series of three open air meetings took place which illustrated a serious threat to the government. The second of the three meetings ended in a riot. The main speaker urged for parliament reform and before the speaker had even began to speak a group of the crowd rampaged through the streets attacking a gun smith, then plotted to take over the Bank of England.
Again the government this act by introducing the suspension of the ‘Habeas corpus’ act in March 1917 which meant that a person who had committed no offence could be arrested and held for an indefinite period without charges and without trial.
To conclude I think that the reactions to the problem of the radicals by the government was bunt, as radicals were not a violent group, one historian, Lowe stated that the Tories reaction was one of an easy one.
