How successful was Lord Liverpool’s government Essay

How made was Lord Liverpools regime in responding to Popular Discontent in the years 1815 to 1820? Lord Liverpools organization faced pop dissatisfy in the years 1815 to 1820 due to unlike social, political and economic factors which led to the majority of the British Public absent a substitute. A change in governance, organisation policies and a change to overcome the mass unemployment they were woeful from as a direct solution of the end of the Napoleonic War, industrialisation and urbanisation.However, despite the widely held view that amendments in favour of the running(a) fall apart were needed, no such change came close to in the years 1815 to 1820. Lord Liverpools government was partly prudent for this as it introduced a number of repressive policies to pr tear downt the people from cruddy however it is argued that the main reason for the lack of change was due to the disorganization of the radical face-off. At the end of the Napoleonic War, Britain began t rading with Europe erstwhile again.This worried the farmers who were afraid that the importation of foreign corn would upseter prices. As a result, the British landowners put pressure on the House of special K to take action and protect their profit and were successful, resulting in the Corn police macrocosm introduced. This applied a tax to any foreign wheat berry imports unless they reached the domestic price of 80 shillings and was viewed by the industrial class as a way in which the government was protecting the ample landowners and compensable no regard to the working, industrial class majority.The introduction of this law make things incredibly hard for the poor who were already struggling to feed their families and suffering from unemployment, furthermore manufacturers were affected by this law as their workers began demanding higher wages. As well as strikes, the Corn Law led to food riots all over Britain and was the reason many middle class moderate reformers beg an fall in in to the call for change.Therefore it raft be viewed as matchless of the reasons Lord Liverpools government was unsuccessful in dealing with popular discontent as rather than introducing reforms in favour of the radicals, it did the opposite and increase their outcry for change. The Corn Law was followed by the abolition of income tax in 1816 to protect the wages of the landowners once again. As a result, indirect taxes were added to usual items such as tea, sugar, tobacco, beer and salt. The abolition of Income Tax was a tax which benefited the rich more than the poor, however the indirect added taxesharmed the poor more than the rich, as they were victims of unemployment and low wages. This therefore created further popular discontent and was once again viewed as an separate policy to favour the rich, landowning class and is hence seen as a reason the government was unsuccessful in dealing with popular discontent. Having state that, from 1817 to 1820 various repre ssive measures were introduced to control popular discontent and ensure that the government of Lord Liverpool was not overthrown.The offset printing of these was the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act this meant that the government could hold political prisoners for an undefined period of time and therefore intimidate people from opposing Liverpool and his government. Despite this act creating internal popular discontent it was successful as people were now angered by the government arguably even more so than before however were excessively intimidated by the idea of transportation or creation arrested for an indefinite period of time to react in protest. Furthermore, in 1819 the Six guesss were introduced.The first of these gave local anesthetic magistrates extensive powers to restrict public meetings and therefore prevented people from mean any forms of riot or protest. The Seizure of weaponry Act gave local magistrates the right to search for and seize arms, making it vi rtually impossible for the radicals to up rise using violent methods. The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act prevented the opposition to generate support through propaganda and raising awareness, as any publications unapproved by local magistrates could be seized.The fifth of the six acts introduced a four pence printing duty on newspapers to ensure that the price of the radical newspapers was beyond the direction of most members of the working class, this further prevented support through propaganda. And finally the Misdemeanours Act sped up procedures for bringing treason to trial, its impact led to people being too afraid to protest in fear of being arrested and even transported.As mentioned above, these repressive policies made it practically impossible for the radicals to organise a mass uprising to overthrow the unjust government of Lord Liverpool as doing so required authorisation from their local magistrates authorisation they obviously would not be granted. Therefore th is is an example of how Lord Liverpools government was successful in dealing with popular discontent as instead of abolishing it by giving in, it was dealt with through prevention policies.However, despite these wonderful repressive policies introduced by his government to prevent popular discontent, it must be noted that this cannot be solely credited to Lord Liverpool. The radical opposition was far from organised, and was split into groups consisting of people who advocated violence like the Spenceans in the Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820, and other non violent groups.This division weakened the development of a united working class response and gave the impression of protestors who were hopeful but by no means forceful for change. Furthermore, the radicals were not well equipped with weapons and perhaps this can be credited to the Six Acts, however even if the Seizure of Arms Act had not been introduced, the working class radicals would most likely not have had the means to ac quire sophisticated forms of weaponry.Therefore it can be concluded that the government of Lord Liverpools reactionary acts played an all-important(prenominal) role in preventing popular discontent as despite being harsh enough to provoke opposition, were repressive enough to prevent it fetching place. However, in my opinion, the lack of change in favour of the working class was far more due to a failure on their part, than a success for the government of Lord Liverpool.