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?