Revolutionary Threats in 19th Century Britain

To what extent did a genuine revolutionary threat exist in Britain between 1783 and 1885? The extent of a genuine revolutionary threat was exceedingly limited between the years 1783 and 1885, with the outcries for change alighting better with a desire for reform rather than a revolution. The idea of there being a revolution primarily stems from a large number of claimed threats of revolutionary ideas and actions within Britain coming from the upper classes' fears surrounding the working class, who dreaded the possibility of change and fed themselves nightmares of the working class revolting against the government and monarchy. This fear was also generated by several new changes in political ideology and leadership, with newer and younger politicians wanting more radical policies which for the time period had never been considered, as well as middle and working class expressing discontent, especially about voting rights, living and working conditions, and outdated laws, and unequal political representation in industrialised areas. Despite these changes being reason perhaps for a revolution, especially in the eyes of the upper class, they were expressed in a more passive and reformed manner, keeping the extent of a genuine revolution minimal, with most groups campaigning their causes via petitions, signatures, pamphlets, or other forms of media to spread information in a peaceful manner rather than demand it in violent protests. This can be shown through the formation of multiple groups that were inspired by the French Revolution, such as The Society for Constitutional Information in 1780 as well as the London Corresponding Society 1792, the Revolutionary Society of 1788, along with many others. Similar to the French Revolution, These groups also formed due to the discontent within their own country, ignited by the French stance against their countries corrupt leadership and inequality amongst classes. These problems in Britain included outdated voting requirements, with only 11% of men being eligible to vote in the early 1800s, unequal political representation, with each area having the same number of MP’s regardless of population, for example; 6 Cornish towns with less than 1000 voters in total were still able to elect 12 members of parliament (2 MPs per town), regardless of small population, this led to bribery and corruption within the voting system as there too was no secret ballot. This sudden sprouting of multiple groups appearing under the supposed influence of the French Revolution with problems and discontent of their own could indeed be seen as somewhat of a revolutionary threat, if this is what these groups are claiming to be their muse for their causes. however, upon closer examination into these groups aims and methods, they appear to be far less radical in comparison to the french 1792 reign of terror, with many of these groups only partaking in peaceful forms of protest, such as creating news papers or gathering signatures such as the Sheffield constitutional society gathering 10,000 signatures for male suffrage, which in comparison to the radical executions of the upper class and aristocrats that took place in the French Revolution, these morally guided approaches appear to be far less of a threat to the government and therefore not a major concern of revolutionary threat to them. This shows how the people of Britain didn’t desire a revolution as they didn’t feel the need for violence and preferred a more civil approach to express their opinions, showing the desire for reform rather than revolution. Another reason that this wouldn’t be seen as a revolutionary threat is that despite the number of these newly sprouted groups being significant, they were not united by a singular cause, and were very much class divided in what they wanted, for example many groups had a subscription fee, meaning many working class citizens wouldn’t have been able to afford to join these groups, leaving members being mostly middle or upper, who in comparison to the working class, would not have had as radical demands. This can be shown in the source containing a paragraph from a pamphlet written by the London Corresponding Society in 1792, one of the newly sprouted groups following the ongoing French Revolution as well as the recent American independence declared in 1783. This source is valuable in showing that the fear of a genuine revolutionary threat was all in the minds of the aristocratic and upper class, this can be referenced in the source where it says “the late aristocratic association call for a few remarks, the declaration they have published relative to other clubs and societies”. This is valuable as it shows how the upper class were spreading false information about the newly formed groups, with claims such as “‘no king!’ And ‘no parliament’”, these being fears they have made up to convince others as well as themselves to have reason to fear these groups as much as they do, they have used radical phrases such as ‘no king!’ And ‘no parliament!’ To make them appear radical and dangerous to society, painting them out to be destroyers of society as they currently know it to be. However, this source is valuable in confirming that the upper class judgement of these groups was in fact incorrect where it says “in the most solemn manner, deny the latter part of the charge […] an imprudent and malicious falsehood.” This is valuable in confirming that the early groups who claimed to be influenced by the work of the French Revolution actually sought no similarity to their muse, as they weren’t interested in radical or violent actions such as removing the monarchy or government. It is even more valuable in showing the upper class delusions as the London corresponding society actively publicly defends and states their unrevolutionary views in a pamphlet to spread awareness for their causes, their tone is blunt yet formal and clear to convey a convincing message as well as seem sophisticated and avoid further rumours spread by upper class by twisting their words or reading the information wrong, especially as the London corresponding society was mostly composed of working and middle class citizens, making them an automatic threat to the upper class as they were also well established across England specifically in industrial towns. This source is also valuable in showing how quickly the upper class were to fear a group such as the London corresponding society, as the pamphlet clearing the groups name was published in 1792, the same year the group was formed. This is valuable as it took less than a year for the upper class to form their fear based opinions on these groups, not even enough time for any of these groups to truly gather a large enough following to make any immediate major changes, especially the radical ideas the upper class claimed these groups wanted. To conclude, this source is convincing in showing how the idea of there being a revolutionary threat in Britain was created by the upper classes distrust of the formation of groups created by middle and working class citizens, as one of the larger groups of the time period confirms that the roomers of radical aims are false and then proceeds to clearly outline their true intentions despite what the aristocrats and upper class have convinced themselves of. This reformist ideology can be backed up by the historian, Asa Briggs, who says that these groups were led by middle or upper-class citizens, meaning that they were less inclined to take drastic radical actions unlike the groups of the French Revolution. This is a reliable historian as Asa Briggs is most recognised for his social knowledge and understanding on 19th century Victorian England, with a lot of his career being focused around Victorian England, and devoting his time to the research of social affairs such as writing a short essay on Chartism, as well as producing many books revolving around all things Victorian, such as ‘social history of England’, ‘victorian things’, ‘victorian people’ and ‘Victorian trilogy’ making his statement dependable for accuracy. And although it could be argued that anybody is able to write and publish a book regardless of actual understanding, Asa Briggs is a well recognised historian with his work being recognised and commissioned by the BBC as well as being a history professor at both Leeds and Sussex University. Asa Briggs is also known for his moderate views meaning that his conclusion is unlikely to be swayed by personal political viewpoints and more on reliable information which makes his claim of no revolutionary threat more reliable in accuracy. On the other hand, Asa Briggs argument isn’t entirely true, as some of these groups such as the London corresponding society or the Sheffield constitutional society were majority working class led and based, despite this however, these working class groups still lacked the radical ideas to cause a genuine revolutionary threat, with most of these groups spreading awareness for their cause via petitions or news articles. However, another historian's viewpoint is that this indeed was the beginning of an ‘underground revolution’, claimed by E.P Thompson, who stated that this ‘mushrooming’ of small groups inspired by the French Revolution was the beginning of working class consciousness. This can be referenced in his book ‘the making of the English working class’ in which he talks about the “march of the mind”, in which working class mindsets began to change which encouraged the birth of early movement inspired by the French Revolution and then later in the 1830s gave birth to the chartists movement. In which he claims “Britain had come within an ace of revolution”, this revolutionary conclusion of his however, may be swayed or blown out of proportion by his own communist view points, with him joining the British communist party in 1946, and although he did leave due to the Hungarian uprising in 1956, his ideas or political stance didn’t shift, meaning that his conclusion is most likely blown out of proportion to what actually happened. To conclude, E.P Thompson is correct that the new ‘mushrooming’ of groups was the beginning of change, but not revolutionary change, as many of these newly sprouted groups never sought or turned to violent methods, making his interpretation highly biased on behalf of his own political stance. Unlike Asa Briggs who had a much more central political philosophy, meaning his research and conclusions are not based on strong radical theories, making him more credible in his argument. The emergence of later groups such as the chartists despite still being a group seeking reform, were seen as more of a threat and taken more seriously by the government, which inturn could have been seen as more of a revolutionary threat. The group had a large following with a large middle and working class membership which made them harder to ignore. They emerged due to discontent with living and working conditions expressed by the working class, as well as anger at outdated voting qualifications, such as potwallopers, stating you had to have owned a large enough fire to boil a cauldron could vote, and unpopular laws such as the corn law and the 1834 poor law, which stated that relief would only be given to able bodied people. This widespread discontent united the group and made the chartists more powerful and therefore harder for the government to brush aside like the previous smaller groups. The chartists had multiple methods of getting the government's attention, and some were indeed more radical than some. One of the chartist leaders, Feargus O'Connor, encouraged violent methods such as the Newport uprising in 1839 and plug riots in 1842. This source is valuable in showing people's perception of the chartist, as these riots could be seen as the beginning of a genuine revolutionary threat. This is valuable as this source's depictions of the Newport uprising shows a violent and physical force being used against the government and people of Britain, showing the chartists to be violent in actions and behaviour under the influence of the chartists leader Feargus O’Connor, who encouraged radical forms of protest as he felt it was the best way to grasp the attention of the government as well as to others. This is valuable in showing peoples views on the chartists, and how most people saw them as violent and a danger to society and could therefore show the possibility of there being a genuine revolutionary threat. However, the provenance states that this is “an artist's impression of the Newport rising”, meaning it is their own personal viewpoint of what took place, and is therefore most likely an exaggeration of what actually took place, as the claim of chartists causing a revolutionary threat was mostly an ideology conjured up by upper class fear. This source is therefore more valuable in showing the upper and middle class perception of the Newport uprising, but ineffective in showing a genuine revolutionary threat as this is merely a hyperbole of the real event that took place. Although the chartists managed to gather a large number of support, it was the generated fear from riots such as the Newport uprising in 1839 that caused the movement to diminish in popularity, as people now began to associate the chartist group as violent and radical. This fear of the people can be shown in the source taken from an extract about Chartism in Bolton in 1839. This is valuable as it is recorded in the same year as the Newport uprising took place, this is valuable as the event would have been recent and fresh in the people of britain's minds, making them all the more concerned about the chartists motives. It is clear in the source that the people in Bolton were indeed cautious of the chartists where it says “the town was in a state of great alarm”. This is valuable in showing the townspeople’s reaction to the chartists entering their community, as they feared a similar event such as the Newport uprising was looming evermore closer, it is also valuable in showing how this was the decline in Chartism popularity and support, as the previous violent antics have caused a decline in trust amongst the people of Britain. However, this source is also valuable in showing a rational perspective to the chartists, with accuracy to what actually happened despite the townspeople’s personal reactions. This can be seen where it says “one would have considered there to be a terrible attack to be at hand… no arms of any kind were displayed by the chartists”. This is valuable as despite the recent event of the Newport uprising and the public's reaction to the chartists, they appear not to be a threat nor dangerous to those around them in any way. With there being no signs of the chartists carrying any form of weaponry neither with the intent to cause a situation that would require weaponry. This is valuable as it outlines how the chartists had a leadership divide between Feargus O’Connor, who encouraged violent forms of protest, and William Lovett, who encouraged moral force to campaign for their causes. This split in leadership led to different ideologies of what Chartism was, with some people following a more violent approach and others a moral approach, hence some chartists such as the ones in Bolton peacefully assembling in the marketplace, whilst other chartists such as the ones in the Newport uprising preferring to take more drastic measures, which unfortunately for the peaceful chartists dragged their name through the moral mud, irrefutably damaging their reputation as they were all now associated with violence, hence the townspeople of Bolton saw them as such. This source is valuable in showing the chartists were no longer trusted not just by the townspeople, but also by authorities and although not all had the same violent tendencies, they were all viewed by the public as a possible revolutionary threat due to their associates. This can be shown in the source where it says “the special constables patrolled the streets” this is valuable as it shows the chartists were no longer trusted to protest peacefully after the not so long ago Newport risings. It then however says “but their services… were not demanded” once again showing how it was only a small group of chartists that had more violent methods of protests influenced by chartist leader Feargus O’Connor, with his followers being referred to as ‘the gang’. To conclude, this source is valuable in showing how a small group of chartists influenced by the words of one of the chartist leaders was able to drag the name of the chartists down from being seen as a moral campaign, which led to people disassociating themselves from the chartists, limiting support, and creating a general fearful atmosphere not only amongst the upper class, but now amongst regular townspeople and now the middle class, who feared the chartists were going to strip these new middle class citizens of their newly acquired property and money. This in some way could be seen as the decline of the Chartists, as without public support, they became less of a government fear and could therefore begin to be ignored. This new fear of Chartists spread fast all across the country, creating a wave of distaste for their ‘violent’ methods and campaigns, especially amongst its previous middle class supporters as well as generating overall fear around the chartists. This was due to previous middle class supporters only having joined for their own benefit and not the benefit of equality amongst classes, for example the anti-corn law league. Once however there were more violent protests under influence of Feargus O'connor, the middle class no longer wanted to be associated with the violent behaviour, as they believed that it was only for the uncivilised to behave in such a way. They also feared that Feargus O’Connor and ‘the mob’ would take their property if they continued further, which stopped support of Chartism from the middle class above as a whole. The following diminished further once the middle class started to be accommodated by new policies, with the reform act of 1832 and the repeal of the corn law in 1846 followed by the largely successful and popular reform act of 1867, being taylored directly to their needs, meaning they no longer had a need to protest further. Chartism by many was seen to be a ‘knife and fork’ debate. The idea that when people's living standards are poor they revolt, Chartism has shown to be a ‘knife and fork’ debate as with the mid Victorian boom where living standards, trade, and food consumption all increased, the support and need for the Chartism movement faded in relevance and support. This is mainly due to many people joining the chartist movement due to trade depression, hunger, unemployment, and poor living and working conditions. However once these problems were resolved by the mid Victorian boom in the 1850s, there was no real need to revolt any longer. This shows that the Chartism movement wasn’t a revolutionary threat, as its causes were resolved and therefore made it not necessary anymore. On the other hand, it could be argued that this was a genuine revolutionary threat, because if it wasn’t the government wouldn’t have felt the need to intervene by complying to some of the chartists requests, or using the police force to arrest and deal with people involved, these actions wouldn’t have been necessary if the government didn’t fear some form of consequence if they didn’t oblige. This is very unlike the earlier more dispersed groups, which were smaller and didn’t share similar aims, whilst chartists were a larger group united under the same demands which made them more powerful, harder to ignore, especially the more violent chartists and Luddite’s. These actions and numbers weren’t taken lightly and therefore viewed as a threat to the government if action wasn’t taken to prevent the group reaching revolutionary threat. On the contrary, yes it was true that the chartists were a powerful and large group, they lacked structure and didn’t appear to have one clear aim in which they all agreed is what the chartist movement stood for. With many chartist members having a different understanding of what the movement was about. For example, Feargus O’Connor claimed that the aim of the movement was to destroy the class system, which can be referenced in the quote where he says “before poverty ceases class legislation must be destroyed” which was found in the 1846 newspaper, northern star. On the other hand, B. Wilson has a different view in which he says “what they wanted was a voice in making the laws they were called upon to obey” from the book ‘the struggles of an old chartist’ in 1887, which shows that his perspective of Chartism was to gain a political voice. These two examples clearly distinguish that the understanding of Chartism varied from person to person and they were not united under one clear goal. This meant that it would have been harder to campaign for a cause if they all were fighting for different causes, meaning it was easier for the government to ignore them if the group themselves couldn’t settle on one aim, and because of this it meant that the government was able to ignore a large amount of the chartists aims. This can be represented by how it was only until 1918 that all men could vote regardless of property qualifications, this was the last one of their goals that they were actually able to achieve, with that being 5 out of 6 of their main goals. This shows how the government was not threatened by a revolutionary threat caused by the chartists as they were able to push back their goals due to group differences in aims and objectives. To conclude, the chartists were indeed a popular and powerful force that became hard for the government to ignore, as they were well established and campaigned for all across Britain which could be seen as a genuine revolutionary threat if not dealt with or accommodated for in some way. On the contrary, the Chartism downfall was inevitably caused by their own instability, and less so by government intervention. With the large umbrella of mixed ideologies being squashed under the title of Chartism clashing and contradicting one another, making them a weaker force as all were not in agreement. Although it is true that the success of peels reforms targeted towards the chartists such as the 1842 mines act or the repeal of the corn law in 1846, the natural mid Victorian boom in the 1850s caused less need for the Chartism movement, as lives improved people felt less need to protest and therefore diminished im popularity and support. The movement and need for revolution also fell flat and became even more limited between the years 1850-1885 during mid victorian boom, otherwise referred to commonly as ‘britains golden years’, in which there was a large economic boom formed by the increase in industrialisation caused by trade links between nations and the growth of machinery and textiles industry. This resulted in an increase in household income and jobs available. This limited the threat of revolution as a large reason for discontent in the earlier years was due to low wages and high unemployment rates. During the mid Victorian boom, the national income per person doubled meaning people now could afford to live more comfortably, and now people were now more content with their standards of living and therefore no longer had a reason to speak out, as their main former issues were now resolved, decreasing and practically extinguishing the threat of revolution entirely. This links back to the knife and fork debate as well as Asa Briggs findings that the only reason people revolted prior was due to living standard discontent, which is proven as when these issues were resolved via the mid Victorian economic boom, movements such as Chartism ceased to exist, showing how there was never a real revolutionary threat, rather just an expression of poor living standards and therefor more of a cry for reform instead of revolution. To conclude, the extent of a genuine revolutionary threat was limited, as the groups formed around this time period had very few violent protests, with many of them that had taken place be frowned upon and have a lack of public enthusiasm or support for. It is also limited as even with these few more violent incidents, the majority of these groups never sought out radical approaches and much preferred civil methods such as the collection of signatures, or pressuring the government not with physical force, but with pressure via numbers, as a larger group demanding the same thing is more powerful than small groups with different aims. This form of political pressure aligns much more with reform rather than revolution, as shown in their formats. It is also clear to see that the idea of there being a revolution primarily came from the fear of the upper and later on middle class, as they feared losing the power they hold above the working class, which is what fed into their delusions of these groups overthrowing the government and removing the monarchy, especially with the recent French Revolution sparking a sudden sprouting of groups within England, despite sharing no method ties to the revolution across the ocean, it was the fact this group mushrooming took place at a similar time which added to the irrational fear of an ever nearing revolutionary threat. And although it could be argued that if the government had chosen to ignore these groups demands, it may have resulted in a revolution, it was never as far as stated any of the groups intentions to turn to violent methods as well as each group being too divided in each of their aims to combine forces under one goal to cause a revolution. (4292 words) bibliography * Mastering modern British history- N lowe * britain 1783- Murphy et al * nineteenth century British history- M lynch * Britain 1783-1851- Evers and welbourne * British history for AS level- peaple and Lancaster * the age of improvement- Briggs * aristocracy and the people- Gash * the making of the English working class- EP Thompson * popular movements c.1830-1850- ed.JT Ward * Victorian England- LCB seaman * years of expansion- ed. M Scott-baumann * Britain before the reform act- E Evans * government and reform- Pearce and stearn * democracy and reform- DG wright * chartism- Royle * politics and the people- Randell * reaction and reform- JW Hunt * oritests, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain 1780-1928- M Scott-baumann * this history of suffrage, 1760-1867 vol.2- Anna Clark * physical force Chartism- Robert Sykes Sources

To what extent did a genuine revolutionary threat exist in Britain between 1783 and 1885?

The extent of a genuine revolutionary threat was exceedingly limited between the years 1783 and 1885, with the outcries for change alighting better with a desire for reform rather than a revolution. The idea of there being a revolution primarily stems from a large number of claimed threats of revolutionary ideas and actions within Britain coming from the upper classes' fears surrounding the working class, who dreaded the possibility of change and fed themselves nightmares of the working class revolting against the government and monarchy. This fear was also generated by several new changes in political ideology and leadership, with newer and younger politicians wanting more radical policies which for the time period had never been considered, as well as middle and working class expressing discontent, especially about voting rights, living and working conditions, and outdated laws, and unequal political representation in industrialised areas. Despite these changes being reason perhaps for a revolution, especially in the eyes of the upper class, they were expressed in a more passive and reformed manner, keeping the extent of a genuine revolution minimal, with most groups campaigning their causes via petitions, signatures, pamphlets, or other forms of media to spread information in a peaceful manner rather than demand it in violent protests.

This can be shown through the formation of multiple groups that were inspired by the French Revolution, such as The Society for Constitutional Information in 1780 as well as the London Corresponding Society 1792, the Revolutionary Society of 1788, along with many others. Similar to the French Revolution, These groups also formed due to the discontent within their own country, ignited by the French stance against their countries corrupt leadership and inequality amongst classes. These problems in Britain included outdated voting requirements, with only 11% of men being eligible to vote in the early 1800s, unequal political representation, with each area having the same number of MP’s regardless of population, for example; 6 Cornish towns with less than 1000 voters in total were still able to elect 12 members of parliament (2 MPs per town), regardless of small population, this led to bribery and corruption within the voting system as there too was no secret ballot. This sudden sprouting of multiple groups appearing under the supposed influence of the French Revolution with problems and discontent of their own could indeed be seen as somewhat of a revolutionary threat, if this is what these groups are claiming to be their muse for their causes. however, upon closer examination into these groups aims and methods, they appear to be far less radical in comparison to the french 1792 reign of terror, with many of these groups only partaking in peaceful forms of protest, such as creating news papers or gathering signatures such as the Sheffield constitutional society gathering 10,000 signatures for male suffrage, which in comparison to the radical executions of the upper class and aristocrats that took place in the French Revolution, these morally guided approaches appear to be far less of a threat to the government and therefore not a major concern of revolutionary threat to them. This shows how the people of Britain didn’t desire a revolution as they didn’t feel the need for violence and preferred a more civil approach to express their opinions, showing the desire for reform rather than revolution. Another reason that this wouldn’t be seen as a revolutionary threat is that despite the number of these newly sprouted groups being significant, they were not united by a singular cause, and were very much class divided in what they wanted, for example many groups had a subscription fee, meaning many working class citizens wouldn’t have been able to afford to join these groups, leaving members being mostly middle or upper, who in comparison to the working class, would not have had as radical demands.

This can be shown in the source containing a paragraph from a pamphlet written by the London Corresponding Society in 1792, one of the newly sprouted groups following the ongoing French Revolution as well as the recent American independence declared in 1783. This source is valuable in showing that the fear of a genuine revolutionary threat was all in the minds of the aristocratic and upper class, this can be referenced in the source where it says “the late aristocratic association call for a few remarks, the declaration they have published relative to other clubs and societies”. This is valuable as it shows how the upper class were spreading false information about the newly formed groups, with claims such as “‘no king!’ And ‘no parliament’”, these being fears they have made up to convince others as well as themselves to have reason to fear these groups as much as they do, they have used radical phrases such as ‘no king!’ And ‘no parliament!’ To make them appear radical and dangerous to society, painting them out to be destroyers of society as they currently know it to be. However, this source is valuable in confirming that the upper class judgement of these groups was in fact incorrect where it says “in the most solemn manner, deny the latter part of the charge […] an imprudent and malicious falsehood.” This is valuable in confirming that the early groups who claimed to be influenced by the work of the French Revolution actually sought no similarity to their muse, as they weren’t interested in radical or violent actions such as removing the monarchy or government. It is even more valuable in showing the upper class delusions as the London corresponding society actively publicly defends and states their unrevolutionary views in a pamphlet to spread awareness for their causes, their tone is blunt yet formal and clear to convey a convincing message as well as seem sophisticated and avoid further rumours spread by upper class by twisting their words or reading the information wrong, especially as the London corresponding society was mostly composed of working and middle class citizens, making them an automatic threat to the upper class as they were also well established across England specifically in industrial towns. This source is also valuable in showing how quickly the upper class were to fear a group such as the London corresponding society, as the pamphlet clearing the groups name was published in 1792, the same year the group was formed. This is valuable as it took less than a year for the upper class to form their fear based opinions on these groups, not even enough time for any of these groups to truly gather a large enough following to make any immediate major changes, especially the radical ideas the upper class claimed these groups wanted. To conclude, this source is convincing in showing how the idea of there being a revolutionary threat in Britain was created by the upper classes distrust of the formation of groups created by middle and working class citizens, as one of the larger groups of the time period confirms that the roomers of radical aims are false and then proceeds to clearly outline their true intentions despite what the aristocrats and upper class have convinced themselves of.

This reformist ideology can be backed up by the historian, Asa Briggs, who says that these groups were led by middle or upper-class citizens, meaning that they were less inclined to take drastic radical actions unlike the groups of the French Revolution. This is a reliable 
historian as Asa Briggs is most recognised for his social knowledge and understanding on 19th century Victorian England, with a lot of his career being focused around Victorian 
England, and devoting his time to the research of social affairs such as writing a short essay on Chartism, as well as producing many books revolving around all things Victorian, such as ‘social history of England’, ‘victorian things’, ‘victorian people’ and ‘Victorian trilogy’ making his statement dependable for accuracy. And although it could be argued that anybody is able to write and publish a book regardless of actual understanding, Asa Briggs is a well recognised historian with his work being recognised and commissioned by the BBC as well as being a history professor at both Leeds and Sussex University. Asa Briggs is also known for his moderate views meaning that his conclusion is unlikely to be swayed by personal political viewpoints and more on reliable information which makes his claim of no revolutionary threat more reliable in accuracy. On the other hand, Asa Briggs argument isn’t entirely true, as some of these groups such as the London corresponding society or the Sheffield constitutional society were majority working class led and based, despite this however, these working class groups still lacked the radical ideas to cause a genuine revolutionary threat, with most of these groups spreading awareness for their cause via petitions or news articles. 
However, another historian's viewpoint is that this indeed was the beginning of an ‘underground revolution’, claimed by E.P Thompson, who stated that this ‘mushrooming’ of small groups inspired by the French Revolution was the beginning of working class consciousness. This can be referenced in his book ‘the making of the English working class’ in which he talks about the “march of the mind”, in which working class mindsets began to change which encouraged the birth of early movement inspired by the French Revolution and then later in the 1830s gave birth to the chartists movement. In which he claims “Britain had come within an ace of revolution”, this revolutionary conclusion of his however, may be swayed or blown out of proportion by his own communist view points, with him joining the British communist party in 1946, and although he did leave due to the Hungarian uprising in 1956, his ideas or political stance didn’t shift, meaning that his conclusion is most likely blown out of proportion to what actually happened. To conclude, E.P Thompson is correct that the new ‘mushrooming’ of groups was the beginning of change, but not revolutionary change, as many of these newly sprouted groups never sought or turned to violent methods, making his interpretation highly biased on behalf of his own political stance. Unlike Asa Briggs who had a much more central political philosophy, meaning his research and conclusions are not based on strong radical theories, making him more credible in his argument.

The emergence of later groups such as the chartists despite still being a group seeking reform, were seen as more of a threat and taken more seriously by the government, which inturn could have been seen as more of a revolutionary threat. The group had a large following with a large middle and working class membership which made them harder to ignore. They emerged due to discontent with living and working conditions expressed by the working class, as well as anger at outdated voting qualifications, such as potwallopers, stating you had to have owned a large enough fire to boil a cauldron could vote, and unpopular laws such as the corn law and the 1834 poor law, which stated that relief would only be given to able bodied people. This widespread discontent united the group and made the chartists more powerful and therefore harder for the government to brush aside like the previous smaller groups. The chartists had multiple methods of getting the government's attention, and some were indeed more radical than some. One of the chartist leaders, Feargus O'Connor, encouraged violent methods such as the Newport uprising in 1839 and plug riots in 1842. 
This source is valuable in showing people's perception of the chartist, as these riots could be seen as the beginning of a genuine revolutionary threat. This is valuable as this source's depictions of the Newport uprising shows a violent and physical force being used against the government and people of Britain, showing the chartists to be violent in actions and behaviour under the influence of the chartists leader Feargus O’Connor, who encouraged radical forms of protest as he felt it was the best way to grasp the attention of the government as well as to others. This is valuable in showing peoples views on the chartists, and how most people saw them as violent and a danger to society and could therefore show the possibility of there being a genuine revolutionary threat. However, the provenance states that this is “an artist's impression of the Newport rising”, meaning it is their own personal viewpoint of what took place, and is therefore most likely an exaggeration of what actually took place, as the claim of chartists causing a revolutionary threat was mostly an ideology conjured up by upper class fear. This source is therefore more valuable in showing the upper and middle class perception of the Newport uprising, but ineffective in showing a genuine revolutionary threat as this is merely a hyperbole of the real event that took place.

Although the chartists managed to gather a large number of support, it was the generated fear from riots such as the Newport uprising in 1839 that caused the movement to diminish in popularity, as people now began to associate the chartist group as violent and radical.

This fear of the people can be shown in the source taken from an extract about Chartism in Bolton in 1839. This is valuable as it is recorded in the same year as the Newport uprising took place, this is valuable as the event would have been recent and fresh in the people of britain's minds, making them all the more concerned about the chartists motives. It is clear in the source that the people in Bolton were indeed cautious of the chartists where it says “the town was in a state of great alarm”. This is valuable in showing the townspeople’s reaction to the chartists entering their community, as they feared a similar event such as the Newport uprising was looming evermore closer, it is also valuable in showing how this was the decline in Chartism popularity and support, as the previous violent antics have caused a decline in trust amongst the people of Britain. However, this source is also valuable in showing a rational perspective to the chartists, with accuracy to what actually happened despite the townspeople’s personal reactions. This can be seen where it says “one would have considered there to be a terrible attack to be at hand… no arms of any kind were displayed by the chartists”. This is valuable as despite the recent event of the Newport uprising and the public's reaction to the chartists, they appear not to be a threat nor dangerous to those around them in any way. With there being no signs of the chartists carrying any form of weaponry neither with the intent to cause a situation that would require weaponry. This is valuable as it outlines how the chartists had a leadership divide between Feargus O’Connor, who encouraged violent forms of protest, and William Lovett, who encouraged moral force to campaign for their causes. This split in leadership led to different ideologies of what Chartism was, with some people following a more violent approach and others a moral approach, hence some chartists such as the ones in Bolton peacefully assembling in the marketplace, whilst other chartists such as the ones in the Newport uprising preferring to take more drastic measures, which unfortunately for the peaceful chartists dragged their name through the moral mud, irrefutably damaging their reputation as they were all now associated with violence, hence the townspeople of Bolton saw them as such. This source is valuable in showing the chartists were no longer trusted not just by the townspeople, but also by authorities and although not all had the same violent tendencies, they were all viewed by the public as a possible revolutionary threat due to their associates. This can be shown in the source where it says “the special constables patrolled the streets” this is valuable as it shows the chartists were no longer trusted to protest peacefully after the not so long ago Newport risings. It then however says “but their services… were not demanded” once again showing how it was only a small group of chartists that had more violent methods of protests influenced by chartist leader Feargus O’Connor, with his followers being referred to as ‘the gang’. To conclude, this source is valuable in showing how a small group of chartists influenced by the words of one of the chartist leaders was able to drag the name of the chartists down from being seen as a moral campaign, which led to people disassociating themselves from the chartists, limiting support, and creating a general fearful atmosphere not only amongst the upper class, but now amongst regular townspeople and now the middle class, who feared the chartists were going to strip these new middle class citizens of their newly acquired property and money. This in some way could be seen as the decline of the Chartists, as without public support, they became less of a government fear and could therefore begin to be ignored.

This new fear of Chartists spread fast all across the country, creating a wave of distaste for their ‘violent’ methods and campaigns, especially amongst its previous middle class supporters as well as generating overall fear around the chartists. This was due to previous middle class supporters only having joined for their own benefit and not the benefit of equality amongst classes, for example the anti-corn law league. Once however there were more violent protests under influence of Feargus O'connor, the middle class no longer wanted to be associated with the violent behaviour, as they believed that it was only for the uncivilised to behave in such a way. They also feared that Feargus O’Connor and ‘the mob’ would take their property if they continued further, which stopped support of Chartism from the middle class above as a whole. The following diminished further once the middle class started to be accommodated by new policies, with the reform act of 1832 and the repeal of the corn law in 1846 followed by the largely successful and popular reform act of 1867, being taylored directly to their needs, meaning they no longer had a need to protest further. Chartism by many was seen to be a ‘knife and fork’ debate. The idea that when people's living standards are poor they revolt, Chartism has shown to be a ‘knife and fork’ debate as with the mid Victorian boom where living standards, trade, and food consumption all increased, the support and need for the Chartism movement faded in relevance and support. This is mainly due to many people joining the chartist movement due to trade depression, hunger, unemployment, and poor living and working conditions. However once these problems were resolved by the mid Victorian boom in the 1850s, there was no real need to revolt any longer. This shows that the Chartism movement wasn’t a revolutionary threat, as its causes were resolved and therefore made it not necessary anymore. On the other hand, it could be argued that this was a genuine revolutionary threat, because if it wasn’t the government wouldn’t have felt the need to intervene by complying to some of the chartists requests, or using the police force to arrest and deal with people involved, these actions wouldn’t have been necessary if the government didn’t fear some form of consequence if they didn’t oblige. This is very unlike the earlier more dispersed groups, which were smaller and didn’t share similar aims, whilst chartists were a larger group united under the same demands which made them more powerful, harder to ignore, especially the more violent chartists and Luddite’s. These actions and numbers weren’t taken lightly and therefore viewed as a threat to the government if action wasn’t taken to prevent the group reaching revolutionary threat. On the contrary, yes it was true that the chartists were a powerful and large group, they lacked structure and didn’t appear to have one clear aim in which they all agreed is what the chartist movement stood for. With many chartist members having a different understanding of what the movement was about. For example, Feargus O’Connor claimed that the aim of the movement was to destroy the class system, which can be referenced in the quote where he says “before poverty ceases class legislation must be destroyed” which was found in the 1846 newspaper, northern star. On the other hand, B. Wilson has a different view in which he says “what they wanted was a voice in making the laws they were called upon to obey” from the book ‘the struggles of an old chartist’ in 1887, which shows that his perspective of Chartism was to gain a political voice. These two examples clearly distinguish that the understanding of Chartism varied from person to person and they were not united under one clear goal. This meant that it would have been harder to campaign for a cause if they all were fighting for different causes, meaning it was easier for the government to ignore them if the group themselves couldn’t settle on one aim, and because of this it meant that the government was able to ignore a large amount of the chartists aims. This can be represented by how it was only until 1918 that all men could vote regardless of property qualifications, this was the last one of their goals that they were actually able to achieve, with that being 5 out of 6 of their main goals. This shows how the government was not threatened by a revolutionary threat caused by the chartists as they were able to push back their goals due to group differences in aims and objectives. To conclude, the chartists were indeed a popular and powerful force that became hard for the government to ignore, as they were well established and campaigned for all across Britain which could be seen as a genuine revolutionary threat if not dealt with or accommodated for in some way. On the contrary, the Chartism downfall was inevitably caused by their own instability, and less so by government intervention. With the large umbrella of mixed ideologies being squashed under the title of Chartism clashing and contradicting one another, making them a weaker force as all were not in agreement. Although it is true that the success of peels reforms targeted towards the chartists such as the 1842 mines act or the repeal of the corn law in 1846, the natural mid Victorian boom in the 1850s caused less need for the Chartism movement, as lives improved people felt less need to protest and therefore diminished im popularity and support.

The movement and need for revolution also fell flat and became even more limited between the years 1850-1885 during mid victorian boom, otherwise referred to commonly as ‘britains golden years’,  in which there was a large economic boom formed by the increase in industrialisation caused by trade links between nations and the growth of machinery and textiles industry. This resulted in an increase in household income and jobs available. This limited the threat of revolution as a large reason for discontent in the earlier years was due to low wages and high unemployment rates. During the mid Victorian boom, the national income per person doubled meaning people now could afford to live more comfortably, and now people were now more content with their standards of living and therefore no longer had a reason to speak out, as their main former issues were now resolved, decreasing and practically extinguishing the threat of revolution entirely. This links back to the knife and fork debate as well as Asa Briggs findings that the only reason people revolted prior was due to living standard discontent, which is proven as when these issues were resolved via the mid Victorian economic boom, movements such as Chartism ceased to exist, showing how there was never a real revolutionary threat, rather just an expression of poor living standards and therefor more of a cry for reform instead of revolution.

To conclude, the extent of a genuine revolutionary threat was limited, as the groups formed around this time period had very few violent protests, with many of them that had taken place be frowned upon and have a lack of public enthusiasm or support for. It is also limited as even with these few more violent incidents, the majority of these groups never sought out radical approaches and much preferred civil methods such as the collection of signatures, or pressuring the government not with physical force, but with pressure via numbers, as a larger group demanding the same thing is more powerful than small groups with different aims. This form of political pressure aligns much more with reform rather than revolution, as shown in their formats. It is also clear to see that the idea of there being a revolution primarily came from the fear of the upper and later on middle class, as they feared losing the power they hold above the working class, which is what fed into their delusions of these groups overthrowing the government and removing the monarchy, especially with the recent French Revolution sparking a sudden sprouting of groups within England, despite sharing no method ties to the revolution across the ocean, it was the fact this group mushrooming took place at a similar time which added to the irrational fear of an ever nearing revolutionary threat. And although it could be argued that if the government had chosen to ignore these groups demands, it may have resulted in a revolution, it was never as far as stated any of the groups intentions to turn to violent methods as well as each group being too divided in each of their aims to combine forces under one goal to cause a revolution. 
(4292 words)

bibliography
* Mastering modern British history- N lowe
* britain 1783- Murphy et al
* nineteenth century British history- M lynch 
* Britain 1783-1851- Evers and welbourne
* British history for AS level- peaple and Lancaster 
* the age of improvement- Briggs 
* aristocracy and the people- Gash
* the making of the English working class- EP Thompson 
* popular movements c.1830-1850- ed.JT Ward 
* Victorian England- LCB seaman 
* years of expansion- ed. M Scott-baumann 
* Britain before the reform act- E Evans 
* government and reform- Pearce and stearn
* democracy and reform- DG wright
* chartism- Royle
* politics and the people- Randell 
* reaction and reform- JW Hunt 
* oritests, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain 1780-1928- M Scott-baumann 
* this history of suffrage, 1760-1867 vol.2- Anna Clark 
* physical force Chartism- Robert Sykes

Sources

Transcript for:Revolutionary Threats in 19th Century Britain

Transcript for:
Revolutionary Threats in 19th Century Britain