Reflections on the Revolution (Or Lack thereof) in Britain

I said I'd post some of what Revolutionary Britannia, by Edward Royle, had to say about Britain's "revolutionaries", and lack of an uprising. So here it goes:

First, Edward Royle makes no bones about the fact he thinks that the reason there was no Revolution was not because there was no desire, but rather because there was little hope of a successful one. He looks at three revolutionary phases: the 1790s, the 1830s, and then the 1840s. I'll look at each one in turn.

The first phase of reaction to the revolution was linked in part to the defeat of Fox's motion to give equal citizenship to Dissenters in Britain. This was already conceded in France before the Revolution, so naturally some people were upset. [1] And there was considerable tension; dissenters pushing for reform had their homes attacked by supporters of "Church and King," and the rioters were directed to an extent by conservative British elites. But the base for Reform in Britain expanded; the Society for constitutional Information became more radical in the early 790s, recruiting among lesser merchants, shopkeepers, and artisans. Similar groups emerged in other English cities. These groups were often associated with the extremist views expressed in Paine's The Rights of Man, calling for redistribution of wealth.

How seriously did the government take these movements? A royal proclamation in the May of 1792 tried to halt the spread of seditious writings, and proceedings were begun against Paine (he was charged with seditious libel). The government, fearful of an insurrection, brought extra troops into London and strengthened defenses at the Tower and bank of England. The government called out the militia in ten counties; a measure only warranted by the threat of invasion or insurrection. The Foxites were skeptical, thinking it was designed to suppress the liberties of the British people, and at the end of the year, the press reported that there had been a serious threat of insurrection which had been threatened.

Were these fears rational, or were they the hysterics familiar to us from the aftermath of the Great War, when it seemed like Communism would spread like a plague? Home Office files from 1792 show alarmist reports of Frenchmen armed with daggers travelling the country; large quantities of muskets being smuggled into capital, and the planting of a liberty tree in Dundee. A French emigree reported there was a French plot in the works. So the government thought something was going on.

In the midst of the scare, reformers & radicals continued to meet. The Scottish Friends of the People organized a convention for reform attended by members from 80 societies across Britain, and the government promptly filed charges of sedition against the organization's leaders. Much of the ifnormation from various trials was hardly treasonble, and a sign of hysteria. But what wasn't published at the time of trial indicates why the government was concerned.

In March 1794, the government cracked down on British societies thanks to a cache of weapons in Edinburgh. The men arrested confessed that they were to be "privately dispersed among members of the various socieites throughout Scotland." Paisley was reported to be ready for rebellion, and there were reports of night-time assemblies for the practice of arms. But again, this information was only discovered thanks to a government spy who may have been acting as a provocateur (though note there's no evidence he was). So again, the record is unclear.

1795, however, saw the danger begin to peak. Membership in the radical London Correspondence society reached around 10,000, while public meetings in London, led by the radicals, were attended by over a hundred thousand people. George III may have been the victim of an assassination attempt on the 29th of October. In response, the government passed the Treasonable Practices Act, and the Seditious Meetings Bill, which was designed to prevent the mass meetings led by the radicals. The acts were combined with increased government crackdown, which stopped the radicals from expanding openly.

It did, however, lead to greater desperation on the part of British radicals. Irish and French agents attempted to exploit the naval mutinies of 1797. While we tend to think of Spithead and Nore as being primarily economic, we shouldn't ignore that at least 15,000 out of 114,000 sailors in the navy were Irish, including convicts who'd been members of the United Irishmen and other radical groups. Other political discontent came from people impressed via the quota system, which drafted me from across the country into the fleet. Indeed, radical involvement in the mutinies now seems likely, although details are of course unclear.

However, it appears that for the most part there was no desire to kill the king and establish a republic. Most merely wanted a reform of Parliament, equality for dissidents, etc. etc. [The obvious exception is Ireland]. There is one unanswered question though, Whig involvement. A Foxite MP met with the leader of the Spithead mutiny, and it seems they genuinely feared that Pitt was a threat to liberty. The Foxite secession from the House of Commons in 1797 was coincided with radical Irishmen's secession from the Irish Parliament. It is also significant that the Duke of Bedford's papers were destroyed in 1802, as were another leading Whig's papers (Lord Stanhope's) relating to events between 1795 and 1799. papers (a Whig in the House of Lords who opposed war with France. )

So what did Fox mean when he wrote in March 1798 when he said, "No good can ever be done now, but by ways in which I will never take a share?" Royle thinks that there were ties between some of the United Irishmen and the Foxite Whigs, although to what extent are of course unclear.

He also notes that the French landing at Fishguard resulted in a run on the Bank of England, causing it to suspend payments in gold. The crisis soon passed, and he doesn't address the consequences. But Fishguard was a pathetic, silly raid. I am left wondering how the British banking system would have responded to a French invasion of Ireland that saw Hoche in Dublin; and what that would have done.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Inane ramblings that you never want to see again?
 
Fascinating stuff. I'd definitely agree that there was no Whig historianish "constitutional balance" that would see off the revolution as we've liked to imagine before and since: it was luck. I'd been thinking more about the 1830s concept, but this one seems to have a lot going for it.

It seems to me that the key differance between Britain and France besides the mess of French finances was that in France the divide between the upper and middle classes was extremely stark because of the tax exemption. Once you'd bought yourself a title you were exempt, and therefore immediately had a vested interest in the whole rotten financial structure, whereas the rest of the middle class had a vested interest in tearing it down.

(And the rural commoners had a strong interest in burning your title deed, but given the Swing Riots and the Luddites I think Britain could easily have its own Great Fear once the sparks start flying.)

Once the failure of the Ancien Regime to pay its bills became apparent, the pressure that had built up in the Enlightenment echo chamber of the middle-classes excluded from power was all released. Angry people started storming things and events overtook everyone.

In Britain, though, the Commons was a place where the politicised middle classes could be permenantly involved in the running of the country and its finances, but on the other hand, IIRC, the electorate wasn't any bigger, proportionately, than the Second Estate. It was just the pressure never really built up to a critical point to be released in a crisis, and eventually what had been one of the key revolutionary bases in France was taken aboard in 1832.

After all, much the same sort of problems existed in the British state because like France it was at the forward edge of modernity in 18th C Europe: you had enlightenment ideas radicalising city-dwellers, a rural society that was ceasing to properly function, you had excluded groups in the shape of the Dissenters.

But no spark really emerged to light the tinder. I like this idea with Hoche. A failed French invasion would be a definite crisis, financially and in terms of the country's prestige. A succesful invasion of Ireland, well, shit.

(Note to self: purchase large Hungarian flag for British republican purposes when I build a barricade and declare revolution against the examination board on my last day of high school.)
 
Well, some came close. And indeed, one succeeded, around 1776 :D.

So I don't think that "there was little hope of a successful one". Certainly, those involved in the unsuccessful ones were hopeful. And they came near enough that one must suspect that a combination of good luck (or bad luck, depending on how you look at it) , and a failure of nerve on the part of the ruling classes could have meant success . Depending on how success is defined.

GB had some factors that helped.

One was the Agrarian Revolution. That enabled the population by and large to be fed . Note that I did say "by and large".

Revolution is a doubtful business. Most people, even if their lives are very bad indeed , will not wish to take those risks, unless they or their immediate families are literally starving - or they have a real and valid fear that they will be soon. A full bellied rabble is no threat.

And the UK had a safety valve - emigration (mainly to BNA). Other countries had colonies , but mostly emigration to them was state controlled. Much harder for a dissatisfied man to pack up and head off for a new life. (See comment about the successful revolution, above).

And the British constitutional system made it less likely that the ruling classes would lose their nerve. Most revolutions succeed because the rulers blink - as did Louis XVI . Had he sent troops to disperse the Tennis Court assembly with a "whiff of grapeshot", would he have survived? Perhaps, who can say. Worked for Napoleon. Would a British cabinet have ordered in the troops in an analogous situation? Probably. Castlereagh certainly would have , Pitt (who was full of fine words about liberty, so long as no one took it seriously) probably would have. George III certainly would have - cf his reaction to the Gordon Riots. Did the English lower classes believe that the government would send in troops. By and large, yes.

Another peculiarly British institution , usually overlooked, probably significantly contributed to consistency of purpose by the authorities. That is, purchase within the Army. Revolution is a tricky difficult and dangerous business. A coup d'etat is a LOT simpler. But purchase ensured that the officer class of the Army was exactly the same class as the government (often indeed the same families). They were in total harmony.
 
(And the rural commoners had a strong interest in burning your title deed, but given the Swing Riots and the Luddites I think Britain could easily have its own Great Fear once the sparks start flying.)

He talks a little bit about the Luddites too; and although it isn't usually discussed, the French Revolution was associated with a wave of what was basically Luddism and machine-breaking in France.

As he notes, "Had the industrial counties presentd the same face in 1801, with a French invasion imminent and a restless Ireland, on the scale experienced in 1812 there might indeed have been a Revolutionary threat."

Or, quoth General Ludd, in an alt 1798: "Peace! Land! Bread!"

(Note to self: purchase large Hungarian flag for British republican purposes when I build a barricade and declare revolution against the examination board on my last day of high school.)

Why Hungarian?

Perhaps, who can say. Worked for Napoleon. Would a British cabinet have ordered in the troops in an analogous situation? Probably. Castlereagh certainly would have , Pitt (who was full of fine words about liberty, so long as no one took it seriously) probably would have. George III certainly would have - cf his reaction to the Gordon Riots. Did the English lower classes believe that the government would send in troops. By and large, yes.

Heh. Actually, when he looks at the 1790s, 1832, and 1848, one of the things Royle notes is that Britain had no problem calling out the troops.

Another peculiarly British institution , usually overlooked, probably significantly contributed to consistency of purpose by the authorities. That is, purchase within the Army. Revolution is a tricky difficult and dangerous business. A coup d'etat is a LOT simpler. But purchase ensured that the officer class of the Army was exactly the same class as the government (often indeed the same families). They were in total harmony.[/QUOTE]
 
He talks a little bit about the Luddites too; and although it isn't usually discussed, the French Revolution was associated with a wave of what was basically Luddism and machine-breaking in France.

As he notes, "Had the industrial counties presentd the same face in 1801, with a French invasion imminent and a restless Ireland, on the scale experienced in 1812 there might indeed have been a Revolutionary threat."

Or, quoth General Ludd, in an alt 1798: "Peace! Land! Bread!"

So if the tinder already existed for the countryside to go up, what's missing is the headlessness at the centre. Perhaps the French invade Ireland, everybody starts seeing French ships in the channel, there's a run on the bank, the government may or may not discuss quitting London but some enthusiastic middling tradesman perched on a barrel certainly says they'd discussing it...

The sense of crisis and the middle-class panic is there. Get some juicy riots started, throw in a French Guards-type mutiny for good measure somewhere, get the *Luddites smashing things, and I think we've got something/

Why Hungarian?

The radical flag of green-white-purple was originally green-white-red. I believe they changed it because of the Hungarians, in fact: it's Hungary inverted.

There was also a notice for a chartist demonstration I saw somewhere which said that red-blue-green flags would be brought as the colours of England, Scotland, and Ireland. A rather interesting source, and a good riposte to the idea that Scottish symbols were all made up in the 70s to steal the oil, but quite frankly unsightly!

The French flag makes a nice sash, but it's so overdone. My barricade requires a spot of counterfactual flair.
 
However, it appears that for the most part there was no desire to kill the king and establish a republic. Most merely wanted a reform of Parliament, equality for dissidents, etc. etc.

One POD I haven't seen examined in much depth: what if Ms. Nicholson had used a sharper knife in 1786, replacing the beloved (and not yet crazy) George III with the unpopular spendthrift George IV ; and presumably replacing Pitt with Fox on the eve of the French Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Heh. Actually, when he looks at the 1790s, 1832, and 1848, one of the things Royle notes is that Britain had no problem calling out the troops.

Partly because they could be reasonably confident that the troops would respond as needed. In the 19C revolutions a number of governments hesitated to send in troops because of fears (sometimes not with merit) that the troops would go over to the rebels. Or at least refuse to fire on them.

British other ranks were probably fairly sympathetic to the revolutionary movements - after all they were recruited from the same classes. But the officers and NCOs were solidly behind the government , be that what it might be (There were rare exceptions, there are always exceptions).

The requirement for successful revolution was either (a) a basket case economy or (b) a government that panicked or (c) a revolution that was really an independence war, like 1776, or the various Balkan revolutions against the Ottomans. Where the rebels and the rebelled against are not really the same people. Not of course that "independence" revolutions were always successful.
 
... Other political discontent came from people impressed via the quota system, which drafted me from across the country into the fleet. Indeed, radical involvement in the mutinies now seems likely, although details are of course unclear.

..

Do you mean the press gangs? I'm not aware of any 18C or 19C quota system to draft into the Fleet .
 
Top