OCR Specification focus:
‘Liverpool and the radical challenge 1812–1822, the Corn Law 1815, Peterloo, government policy on law and order, the Gagging Acts and the Six Acts 1819.’
The years 1812–1822 were marked by significant economic hardship, political agitation, and government repression, as Britain grappled with radical threats, social unrest, and calls for reform.
The Radical Challenge 1812–1822
Background to Radicalism
Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain entered a period of economic depression, food shortages, and unemployment. Discharged soldiers swelled the labour market, while rising prices eroded living standards. This climate fostered discontent and gave rise to radical movements, groups seeking fundamental political and social change.
Radicalism during this period centred on calls for:
Parliamentary reform: including wider suffrage and annual parliaments.
Economic justice: fair wages, lower prices, and opposition to corruption.
Civil liberties: free speech, a free press, and the right to organise.
Radicalism: The political belief in thorough or complete reform of political, social, or economic structures, often favouring universal suffrage and wider representation.
Radical leaders such as Henry Hunt emerged as key figures, using public meetings and mass petitions to mobilise support. The circulation of radical newspapers and pamphlets widened their influence, especially in industrial towns like Manchester and Birmingham.
Government Concerns
The Tory government under Lord Liverpool viewed these movements as dangerous, associating them with the violent legacy of the French Revolution. Fear of revolution fuelled harsh responses, reinforcing conservative suspicion of mass political participation.
The Corn Law of 1815
Reasons for Introduction
In 1815, Parliament passed the Corn Law, a measure designed to protect British agriculture.
Title page of the 1815 Corn Law, the statute that restricted cheap foreign grain to keep domestic prices high. Using the official printed Act reinforces that the measure originated in a Parliament dominated by landowning interests. The page is useful for referencing the exact date and formal title. Source
By imposing tariffs on imported grain when domestic prices fell below 80 shillings a quarter, it aimed to safeguard landowners’ profits.
Corn Law (1815): Legislation designed to maintain high grain prices by restricting cheap foreign imports, protecting landowners but increasing food costs for the poor.
Impact of the Corn Law
The Corn Law became a symbol of class injustice:
Benefited wealthy landowners at the expense of consumers.
Raised bread prices, worsening urban poverty.
Intensified resentment against a Parliament dominated by aristocratic interests.
Public hostility manifested in demonstrations, petitions, and even violent protests, linking the Corn Law to broader calls for reform.
Peterloo Massacre, 1819
Events at St Peter’s Field
On 16 August 1819, a peaceful reform meeting at St Peter’s Field, Manchester, attracted around 60,000 people.
Coloured 1819 engraving by Richard Carlile depicting the cavalry charge at St Peter’s Field. The image shows yeomanry riding into a densely packed, largely peaceful crowd with banners. While stylised, it captures how contemporaries perceived the brutality that became known as “Peterloo”. Source
Henry Hunt was the main speaker, and the gathering demanded parliamentary reform and economic relief.
Local magistrates, alarmed by the size and organisation of the crowd, ordered the Manchester Yeomanry to arrest Hunt. The yeomanry charged into the crowd with sabres, supported by regular cavalry. Chaos ensued:
At least 11 people were killed.
Over 400 injured, many women and children.
Significance of Peterloo
The Peterloo Massacre became a defining moment of repression in Britain:
It exposed the brutality of government responses to peaceful protest.
The name "Peterloo" was coined satirically, recalling the Battle of Waterloo.
It galvanised radical movements, while horrifying moderate opinion across the nation.
Government Policy on Law and Order
Gagging Acts, 1817
In the aftermath of rising radical unrest, the government introduced repressive measures known as the Gagging Acts. These included:
Suspension of Habeas Corpus (1817): enabling detention without trial.
Restrictions on public meetings and radical publications.
Habeas Corpus: The legal principle protecting individuals from unlawful imprisonment, requiring that they be brought before a court to justify detention.
These measures sought to prevent the spread of radical ideas and demonstrations, reflecting the government’s fear of revolution.
The Six Acts, 1819
Following Peterloo, Liverpool’s government introduced further security measures, collectively known as the Six Acts, to deter radical activity.
Original vellum rolls of the Six Acts (1819) held by the Parliamentary Archives. These statutes tightened control over meetings, press, weapons, and prosecutions in the wake of Peterloo. The image includes the physical rolls; this is extra archival context beyond the specification but clarifies that the measures were a linked legislative package. Source
These Acts included:
Banning military training by civilians.
Limiting the size of public meetings.
Allowing searches for arms.
Speeding up trials for political offences.
Increasing stamp duties on newspapers, reducing circulation of radical ideas.
Expanding magistrates’ powers.
Together, the Six Acts represented the high point of government repression, aiming to curb radicalism through fear and restriction.
Assessment of Liverpool’s Response
Repressive Measures
Liverpool’s government consistently prioritised order and stability over reform. Key features of its response were:
Reliance on magistrates and local yeomanry to disperse demonstrations.
Use of spies and informers to infiltrate radical groups.
Harsh penalties for agitators, reinforcing the dominance of the ruling elite.
Effectiveness
While repression limited the immediate threat of revolution, it also deepened popular resentment. The Corn Law, Peterloo, and the Six Acts became rallying points for radicals, fostering a long-term tradition of dissent. However, the government’s policies prevented mass uprising and ensured political stability during a fragile decade.
Wider Context
Liverpool’s response must also be understood against the European backdrop. Governments across the continent were cracking down on revolutionary movements, often with even harsher measures. Britain’s policies reflected both domestic pressures and broader conservative anxieties about stability after 1789.
FAQ
Henry Hunt was a central figure in radical politics and a skilled orator who attracted large audiences. He advocated universal suffrage and annual parliaments, pushing for peaceful mass mobilisation rather than violent insurrection.
At Peterloo in 1819, Hunt was the headline speaker, symbolising the legitimacy of radical demands. His arrest during the demonstration both triggered the violence and later turned him into a martyr figure for reformers.
Industrial workers in towns like Manchester and Birmingham were most affected because they depended heavily on bread. Rising grain prices, caused by restricted imports, meant higher living costs at a time of wage pressure and unemployment.
For many, the law represented a Parliament run for the benefit of the landed elite, deepening urban hostility towards aristocratic dominance.
The Liverpool government relied on an extensive network of informers. Spies infiltrated radical groups, reporting on meetings, pamphlets, and leaders’ activities.
This allowed authorities to arrest organisers before major demonstrations.
It also created distrust within the radical movement, weakening its cohesion.
Some informers acted as agents provocateurs, encouraging disorder that justified repression.
Radical newspapers like the Manchester Observer and the Political Register condemned Peterloo as state brutality, using vivid descriptions to evoke sympathy.
Mainstream and conservative papers often defended the authorities, framing the protesters as dangerous mobs. The divided press coverage reflected the wider national split between supporters of reform and defenders of order.
The Acts introduced higher stamp duties on newspapers, increasing costs and reducing circulation among working-class readers.
Radical papers, already targeted by prosecutions, now struggled to survive financially. The legislation limited the spread of reformist ideas, helping the government maintain ideological control.
By curbing affordable radical journalism, the Six Acts reinforced class divisions in access to political debate.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the purpose of the Corn Law of 1815?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying that it aimed to protect British agriculture or farmers/landowners.
1 mark for explaining that it did so by restricting cheaper foreign grain imports to keep domestic grain prices high.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two reasons why the government responded so harshly to radical activity in the years 1812–1822.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 3 marks for each well-explained reason.
Award 1 mark for identifying a reason, 2 marks for partially explaining it, and 3 marks for a clear, developed explanation.
Possible valid reasons include:
Fear of revolution (1 mark for stating, 2–3 marks for linking to parallels with the French Revolution and fears of disorder in Britain).
Concern for maintaining law and order (1 mark for stating, 2–3 marks for explaining how unrest, large meetings, and riots threatened stability).
Protection of elite interests (1 mark for stating, 2–3 marks for linking to the landowning class and protection through measures like the Corn Law).
Growing influence of radical leaders and mass meetings (1 mark for stating, 2–3 marks for explaining that leaders such as Henry Hunt and large-scale gatherings alarmed authorities).
Maximum 6 marks. Candidates must address two separate reasons to access the full mark range.
