How Successful Was Pitt's Repressive Measures
To What Extent Was Pitt’s Repressive Policy The Main Reason For His Success In Resisting The Radical Challenge Of 1801?
During his administration, Pitt proved his worth as a successful and capable prime minister. His approach to his duty was far reaching and effective and his repressive legislation was paramount to his success in resisting the radical challenge in 1801 and Pitt the reformer became Pitt the reactionary.
The fall of the main prison and palace, the Bastille, in Paris sparked the French revolution in 1789. Opinions towards the revolution were mixed in Britain. Pitt, prime minister at the time, was optimistic and thought it would strengthen his politics because it would leave France weak and put an end to their colonial ambitions. …show more content…
They appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. The Treasonable Practices Act extended the definition of ‘treason’ to include speaking and writing, even if no action followed and the underlining rule again was that the king or government could not be bought into contempt. It defined treason so loosely that, as Fox once sardonically observed, any politician advocating parliamentary reform was liable to arrest and could face being transported for a period of 7 years. It was designed purely to intimidate and no radical was ever prosecuted under it. The Seditious Meetings Act said that any public meeting of more than 50 persons had to be authorised by a magistrate. JPs had the discretionary power to disperse any public meeting. It attacked public meetings, clubs, and the publication of pamphlets. One of the most famous preachers in the period was John Thelwall, who interpreted the "Two Acts" as violence against him and his teachings because he was continually disturbed by legalists wishing to see the law obeyed. However, providing Jacobin alehouse clubs, the largest and most powerful political club of the French Revolution, were restricted to fifty persons and avoided corresponding, they were able to dodge the Seditious Meetings Act. The legislation was reasonably ineffective and failed to prevent the increasing number of meetings organized by the LCS, a radical body concentrating on the reform of the
During his administration, Pitt proved his worth as a successful and capable prime minister. His approach to his duty was far reaching and effective and his repressive legislation was paramount to his success in resisting the radical challenge in 1801 and Pitt the reformer became Pitt the reactionary.
The fall of the main prison and palace, the Bastille, in Paris sparked the French revolution in 1789. Opinions towards the revolution were mixed in Britain. Pitt, prime minister at the time, was optimistic and thought it would strengthen his politics because it would leave France weak and put an end to their colonial ambitions. …show more content…
They appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. The Treasonable Practices Act extended the definition of ‘treason’ to include speaking and writing, even if no action followed and the underlining rule again was that the king or government could not be bought into contempt. It defined treason so loosely that, as Fox once sardonically observed, any politician advocating parliamentary reform was liable to arrest and could face being transported for a period of 7 years. It was designed purely to intimidate and no radical was ever prosecuted under it. The Seditious Meetings Act said that any public meeting of more than 50 persons had to be authorised by a magistrate. JPs had the discretionary power to disperse any public meeting. It attacked public meetings, clubs, and the publication of pamphlets. One of the most famous preachers in the period was John Thelwall, who interpreted the "Two Acts" as violence against him and his teachings because he was continually disturbed by legalists wishing to see the law obeyed. However, providing Jacobin alehouse clubs, the largest and most powerful political club of the French Revolution, were restricted to fifty persons and avoided corresponding, they were able to dodge the Seditious Meetings Act. The legislation was reasonably ineffective and failed to prevent the increasing number of meetings organized by the LCS, a radical body concentrating on the reform of the