• 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 Liverpool in responding to radical challenge from 1812-1822?

Extracts from this document...


Targets: * State Line of Argument in intro * Don't bullet point in an essay * Avoid the phrase I think How successful was Lord Liverpool in responding to radical challenge from 1812-1822? To look at how successful Lord Liverpool was in responding to radical challenge, you have to look at what were the radical challenges in this period, what was causing the unrest thought the country. Then you have to look at what Lord Liverpool did to resolve the unrest and stop the challenges. 1815-1820 was a time of unrest; however unrest was not generally revolutionary. Even if Liverpool's actions were seen as repressive he had to nip revolution in the bud. For example with the spa fields Meetings. This was a series of mass meetings (mainly in London) and it was aimed to inspire people and to intimidate the authorities. As a result, parliament sanctioned the suspension of Habeas Corpus and passed A Seditious Meeting Act, which meant that people could be held without evidence or a trial for as long as the government needed and it meant that no groups larger than 50 people could gather or have a meeting and talk about politics or revolution. However some critics say that this does not prove he was successful because the suspension of Habeas Corpus only lasted a couple of years. This is just one way in which the government responded to radical challenges during this period. ...read more.


However those historians say that they threat of revolution was just a huge exaggeration point to the lack of coordination between the individual instances of protest and the states continued ability to respond decisively to it. Most historians say that the popular protest which characterised the immediate post-war periods was essentially traditional a not political but were related to the economic distress at the time. Most historians agree that the activity was economically motivated. During the period from 1816-1821 there was a series of mass meetings which were organise by radical groups. These were called the Spa Field Meetings. Most historians agree that the meetings were aimed at both inspiring the public and intimidating the authorities. The Spenceans were the organiser of the first few meetings. The Spenceans supported revolution but it is not clear as to whether plans were being made for revolution at the time of the Spa Fields Meetings. The first meeting saw a massive 20,000 people attend and was peaceful, however there were a few who after walked through Westminster and started smashing windows at high prices. In the second meeting around 200 people marched towards the tower of London, looting a gun shop on the way. The March of the Blanketeers was a march organised by William Benbow in March 1817. The marcher's aims were to present a petition to the Prince Regent, asking him to relieve distress in the northern textile districts. ...read more.


The 'Peterloo Massacre' has been called 'a symbol of repression' by some historians, however some people have said that this was not a decision made by Lord Liverpool but by magistrates and they did not set our to stop the demonstration but just to get Hunt. Some historians say that the radical challenges in this period were such a threat that the government needed to take immediate action to deal with the threat and could not take any chances so repressive measures needed to be taken to 'nip revolution in the bud'. However some historians say that these radical groups were regionally divided, had no weaponry and had poor organisation and end goals to be a serious threat. Looking at how successful Lord Liverpool was in dealing to radical challenges you have to remember how pitifully small Liverpool's resources were for keeping the peace. Lacking a sizeable standing army or an effective police force, Liverpool's government was obliged to rely upon spies and informers. The government at the time did not have any really power so they had to nip revolution in the bud. There was huge unrest thought the country due to various reasons and this led to radical protests. All of the protests were seen by the government as a starting point for a revolution and so the government had to deal with them through repressive policies. Liverpool had to stamp any possible radical challenges and he did this successfully. ?? ?? ?? ?? Steven Howe 12C History (Gould) ...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 successful was Peel's ministry of 1841-1846.

    and the agriculturists (Duke of Buckingham, Sir Edward Knatchbull). However, there were two main weaknesses. One was no one questioned Peel's motives and agreed whatever Peel did without considering the consequences. Peel was able to do this because of did this his persuasive language as well as his personality and authority.

  2. Why was there repression by Lord Liverpool's government 1815-1820? Was Britain on the verge ...

    There were violent protests in London due to the Corn Law, as the poors' staple diet was being raised in price. Other protests include Peterloo - led by Henry 'Orator' Hunt. It was a mass meeting to demand reform. The government were afraid, even though it was a peaceful demonstration, they sent in the cavalry.

  1. Why was there popular discontent between 1815-1822? How was it expressed and did the ...

    Not only did these laws impact the vast majority of people personally, as they were forced to spend a greater proportion of their income on food, but they also impacted on the economy, as less disposable income means lower sales for other sections of the market (for example textiles.)

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

    With increasing literacy rates, this was an effective way of stirring political unrest among the working classes and presenting evocative anti-government propaganda such as political cartoons which would present Lord Liverpool's administration as oppressive, corrupt and totally undemocratic. Through these radical publications, the workforce was able to form their own

  1. The 'Liberal Tories'. To what extent do you agree with this description of the ...

    Lord Liverpool, who was the British Prime Minister from 1812-1827 did not have the ability to create a new ideology, he was a consolidator rather then and innovator, and although he was responsible for keeping the Tory party together,(made evident by the gradual collapse of the Tory government after his resignation as Prime Minister in 1827, shortly before his death)

  2. How close did Britain come to revolution between 1815 and 1821?

    In 1817 600 unemployed weavers marched from Manchester to London in groups of 10. Each man carried a blanket as a sign of peaceful petition. This group of men known as the Blanketeers, were anti violence and definitely not revolutionary, they presented no evidence of being politically motivated, but simply wanted jobs to buy food for themselves and their families.

  1. How far does the evidence in the sources suggest that the Peterloo Massacre in ...

    This source provides a totally different outlook on the event compared to the other sources. Hulton says that the Yeomanry horses 'trotted' onto the field and were showered with bricks and stones. However this may not be true as in the first source Carlisle says that the horses were 'galloping' and that 'every stone was gathered from the ground'.

  2. How successful was Peel's Ministry 1841-1846?

    His government set up of the 'National Relief Fund' in 1841 to investigate the conditions for workers in growing industrial cities in addition to the pressure from leading figures like Lord Ashley, which prompted social reform. The reforms he made were not really radical, but were common sense and made

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