Why was there popular discontent between 1815-1822 Essay Example

Why was there popular discontent between 1815 Why was there popular discontent between 1815-1822 Essay Why was there popular discontent between 1815-1822 Essay Britain has always been a traditional society. It is one of the reasons so many tourists flock here each year, observing such visual delights such as the changing of the guard or the waving hand of the queen. However, despite our apparent fondness for continuity and stability, at times these values are tested to their very limits. One such period was the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, namely 1815 1822. In this essay, I will demonstrate how the ruling oligarchy was forced to leap from crisis to crisis, desperately trying to quell the increasing tide of civil discontent around Britain. I also hope to explain the reasons behind the protests. The major event of 1815 was the battle of Waterloo, and the subsequent British victory over the French. The end of the war came, however as a mixed blessing for the government. On the one hand, Britain had defeated one of its biggest threats (Napoleon,) and secured its trade routes across Europe, both on and off shore. However, the flip side of the coin held many nasty surprises. Firstly, the 400,000 returning soldiers put an intolerable strain on the labour market. Considering the population at the time was less than 10 million, this extra influx of labour had a major impact on the economy. Also, with the end of the war came the end of the war economy. Vast industries that had fuelled the campaign were drastically scaled down or stopped altogether. Labour intensive industries (at the time nearly everything,) such as uniform makers, iron smelters and musket manufacturers were all forced to lay off many workers. This increase in unemployment was extremely damaging as it had the knock on effect of giving ordinary people less money to spend on goods, sending manufacturing into an endless downward spiral. The charitable bodies that had in the past cared for the unemployed found themselves unable to cope with the huge numbers of people in need of help. This led to many people being forced to live with very little food and water in the worst sort of accommodation. Also, with so many unemployed, the self-esteem and confidence in their leaders slowly evaporated from peoples minds. Therefore, the collapse of the economy and the subsequent rise in unemployment were major reasons for the popular discontent that arose. The Corn Laws passed in 1815 also led to disquiet. The Corn Laws, legislation protecting the market for British corn as opposed to foreign imports was seen by many as a piece of class legislation that penalised the poorer sections of society, while guaranteeing the wealthy landowners a goof price. 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. ) Because of this, the Corn Laws were also partly responsible for the discontent. One thing that particularly incensed the population was the change in the tax laws. In 1797, the then Prime Minister William Pitt introduced income tax as a way to increase revenue to pay for the war. This form of tax, as it is linked to the amount you earn, takes most money from the richest people in society. Needless to say this was highly unpopular amongst the wealthy landowners and businessmen (both of whom had considerable influence over parliament. ) Therefore in 1816 parliament voted to abolish the tax. However it was soon discovered by the treasury that the missing revenue was not sustainable. The government therefore decided that, rather that replace the income tax system, they would increase the tax on everyday goods such as beer and sugar. This impacted most on the poorer members of society, as the tax did not depend on income, meaning the rich paid just as much as the poor. As a modern day example of the public hostility to such a tax would be the poll tax riots in the 1980s, where the attitude was similar to that in 1816. In addition to taxing the general publics staple foods, the government also passed the Game laws. This stopped people from hunting their own food. At a time when unemployment was rife and tax on food was extremely high, stopping people from hunting was extremely unpopular and considered very unfair. As well as the economic hardship faced by so many people, another reason why people felt dissatisfied by the government was their perception that it was unsympathetic to their plight. Many people felt that the government existed solely to appease the wealthily ruling class and nobody else. They therefore felt that it was time for a change; the administration should work to improve the lives of the vulnerable in society rather that protect the interests of a small few. This was spurred on by the conditions that the working class had to endure while working in the new industries created by the industrial revolution. So, faced with the policies of Lord Liverpools government, many people felt they were being treated unjustly. Some began to organise radical groups to protest and press for change. Their essential demands were: A parliament that gave a more accurate reflection of British society, thus giving everybody a voice. Annual elections, making the administration more accountable. A secret ballot, allowing people to vote without intimidation or any corruption. The radical movement sprang up all over Britain, and despite being fragmented and uncoordinated, conducted itself with surprising passion and managed to wake the government up to the fact that the people were not happy. Some examples of the way the radical movement expressed its discontent with the situation are the Luddite movement, the spa field riots, the march of the blanketeers and the pentrich rising. The Luddite movement were opposed to the increased mechanisation of the textile industry, and the inevitable job losses and (in most cases) detriment in quality of the product. They also opposed the lack of a minimum wage and the shocking conditions endured by workers. The Luddites protested by destroying machinery, and holding demonstrations. The Spa Field riots were orchestrated by a group of radicals known as the Spenceans. The people involved campaigned for liberty and a more representative parliament. They were more concerned with creating a more politically equal administration. This message was echoed by the march of the blanketeers. An example of the governments attitude towards the protesters can be seen in the brutal murder of one of the unarmed marchers. This same heavy-handed oppression was exerted on the marches in Huddersfield (the Pentrich rising,) where people were indiscriminately killed and injured by the authorities. These two examples briefly characterise the feelings harboured by the government towards the protesters. Composed exclusively of wealthy landowners and other members of the aristocracy, the British parliament was essentially an organ designed to protect the interest of a small, very rich minority. It did not feel it had direct responsibility for the welfare of the people. The fundamental reason for this was greed, the insatiable, unstoppable quest for more money. By giving the proletariat rights and improved living and working conditions you would be compromising your own profit margins. However, the government also knew that completely ignoring the problem could prove just as dangerous; the French revolution was still fresh in many a noblemans mind. Lord Liverpool and his ministers knew something had to be done, but to be seen to be giving in to public pressure would set a terrible precedent as far as they were concerned. It was therefore necessary to crush the current uprising and quietly introduce reforms afterwards. This way they would still come out looking strong and as though they were the natural people to lead the nation. In order to bring the revolutionary movement to a close, the government used extremely harsh tactics, breaking up demonstrations in a very violent manner, thus discouraging them all together. Laws were also introduced stopping people from meeting in large groups (more than 3. ) This discouraged people from conspiring together, making it a lot harder to organise demonstrations or acts of sabotage. The suspension of Habeas corpus, the act preventing somebody being held in custody indefinitely was suspended. This was effectively a suspension of justice and a fair trial sending a clear message that anyone caught being involved in radical movements would easily be dealt with in a very harsh manner. In effect this was rarely enforced (probably due to the anger and disgust it would cause,) but instead symbolised the stance the government had taken. So, in effect the government dealt with the radical groups by trying to come down on them as hard as possible. Was this successful? Well, ultimately the government won as the radical groups were defeated. However, to what extent was this due to the oppressive tactics employed? If we look at the organisation of the radical movement, we can see that its uncoordinated structure and differing ideologies also had a major influence in its eventual demise, in my opinion more so. The state of the Radical movement can be compared to the factions of the communist party in Russia around the time of the revolution. Two competing factions one favouring non-violent transition, the other looking for a violent, bloody revolution were bitterly divided. The same problem existed in Britain 100 years earlier, and created a split that made it very hard to come together to win. The lack of weaponry also hindered the radicals, making them unable to intimidate the government forces sent in to break them up. It has also been suggested that the radical groups were too centred on their own local agendas and not the hardened revolutionaries they are sometimes portrayed as. This would have seriously weakened their ability to significantly change British society. Therefore, to conclude, The post-war period in 17th Century Britain was a time of great public discontent, caused by the economic downturn (a consequence of the ending of the war economy,) rising unemployment, taxation and a General feeling that the government was out of touch with ordinary people, putting their concerns behind those of the ruling classes. The government tried to deal with the situation by coming down very hard on the reformers, but the failure of the revolutionaries was more to do with a lack of unity among the movment.