Revolution in Britain seemed almost inevitable between 1783-1832. There were a number of different events occurring in Britain that had ripened the country for revolution.

Revolution in Britain seemed almost inevitable between 1783-1832. There were a number of different events occurring in Britain that had ripened the country for revolution. Why though was revolution so near in Britain? Also why did no revolution take place?

Well one of the main contributing factors into why Britain was ready for revolution was the events in St Peter’s field in 1819. ‘On 16 August 1819, a crowd of over 50,000 gathered in St Peter's Fields in Manchester to hear a speech on parliamentary reform by Henry Hunt. The crowds were well behaved but l authorities panicked and attempted to arrest Hunt and disperse the crowd. Eleven people were killed and around 400 injured in the melee’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/geo_peterloo.shtml). The estimates of the number of people killed do vary from source to source. This event became known as the peterloo massacre. This is because the soldier involved also fought at the battle of waterloo. Stephen Lee states that ‘Peterloo was of course, a disaster for the government’s public image.’ The people would have loathed the government after this and would of wanted some sort of revenge against the government. In my view this was a major event. The government, who had meant to be protecting their people, had attacked them. According to some the riot act wasn’t even read on that occasion. Though some could say the government was protecting the government by breaking up that meeting. Nevertheless there was no need for the innocent slaughter of those few attending the meeting.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another incentive for the people to revolt was the introduction of the Corn Laws. A Corn Law was first introduced in Britain in 1804, when the landowners, who dominated Parliament, sought to protect their profits by imposing a duty on imported corn. Farmers feared that when the war came to an end in 1815, the importation of foreign corn would lower prices. British landowners applied pressure on members of the House of Commons to take action to protect the profits of the farmers. Parliament responded by passing a law permitting the import of foreign wheat free of duty only when the domestic price reached 80 shillings per quarter (8 bushels). Stephen lee felt it was at ‘the expense of consumers’, that this law was passed. During the passing of this legislation, the Houses of Parliament had to be defended by armed troops against a large angry crowd. This is because the price of bread was far to expensive for the common person in Britain. So therefore people are more likely to revolt when they have no food to feed themselves or their family. Also die to the fact it was the government that introduced this law, the people would start to blame them.

It is not surprising then with all this rioting, and uproar amongst the people that the government wanted to try and control the set up and influence of radical groups. This ay be the reason why they introduced the 6 acts in 1819. However the people saw this as repression. The government brought them in response to the peterloo massacre.

This enabled ‘magistrates to search houses for firearms or seditious literature’. N Gash, for instance considers that they were never enforced. Whereas J. Marlow thinks that they were a ‘watertight tight blanket’. The people felt that their freedom of speech was being impeded. The government even sought to ‘gathering information using spies’. In France the revolution there had sent shockwaves across the Europe’s governments. Britain was one these who were worried. The government obliviously saw the reformers and radicals as a serious threat, and were worried about them trying to provoke revolution. Though some say the government had taken the threat to serious. Nevertheless, there view of the situation, might of provoked those wanting reform, to retaliate against the government, even more than they had been. The 6 acts were cutting close to the line of protecting the state, and breaking into peoples private lives.

Unemployment was also another big factor in why Britain was ripe for revolution. There were a high percentage of men and women out of work. This on its own was another cause to revolt against the government. Even worse though is the fact, that in a way, the government was responsible for it. The war with France had finished so many soldiers had been released by the government. This led to a big lack of jobs. Now this led to an almost perfect situation for revolution. Due to the fact there were so many men with nothing to do, they could focus there time on organizing riots, rally’s and revolts against the government. The Luddites were one the groups who ere causing these riots Luddites were trying to save their livelihoods by smashing industrial machines developed for use in the textile industries of the West Riding of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire.

The Spa Fields Riot’s were big. These took place on 2 December 1816. The 6 acts though made this quite difficulty for this to happen. However, I feel this was a perfect time for a revolution to take place in Britain.

Despite all of all this repression and economic problems the country was facing there was still no revolution. Why was this? Well they’re where a number of things in Britain, which was different to other country which have had a revolutions. Lets take a look at why the revolution did not take place.

The middle classes in all revolutions are the brains behind all the major revolutions. Now the middle class only wanted reform. The Russian revolution was completely led by the middle class. Without the middle class it wouldn’t have happened.

Now in Britain they got this reform by using the working class to put pressure onto the government. This is because they didn’t have the numbers on they’re own to accomplish this. They never wanted a revolution. Behagg refers to this, “the middle class leaders of the campaign were ‘riding the tiger’ in relation their working-class rank” Of course this was always going to be dangerous for the middle class as Behagg goes on to say. “Riding the tiger is an exhilarating activity, but the rider is never totally in charge since the tiger has a mind of its own and can turn.” Of course, with the introduction of the reform bill the middle class did not need the lower classes help anymore. But the lower class wanted more than just reform. Not surprisingly, they felt betrayed in a way. The bitterness didn’t last long though. The lower class couldn’t do much to encourage revolution, due to the fact they didn’t have the organization skills or the material means that the middle-class leaders did. Some have said that the government had predicted that the passing of the reform act would cause this. This most likely is true, as it seemed to work perfectly. The collapse of the threat, of revolution occurred just a little while after.

Many have people have thought that because there was a revolution in France, there would be a revolution in Britain. In the end though there wasn’t. This is because the set up of the monarchy and the government was different. In France the king had a lot more power than the government did. The king in France was the person the people where annoyed with. Whereas in Britain, the government had far more power, and main were the object of the peoples hate. So therefore in France there was a greater need for a full-blown revolution. The King of France was over spending, and thus rising taxes more and more to compensate for this. Now this of course made the French peasants, very annoyed and very poor. Many of them couldn’t afford to feed their families. Now some people say that the wide poverty situation and was similar to Britain’s. However the British poverty situation wasn’t as bad, and only occurred in patches. Now if it had been continuous in Britain, there might have been a wider and greater cause for revolution.