Liberty’s ‘Terror’: prosecution for political dissent in England during the decade of the French Revolution
Joe Williams
‘The main effect of the French Revolution was not to revital ize British politics at the base of society but to encourage repression from above’. 1 While there is indeed some truth in Asa Briggs’ statement of solidarity with the ‘oppressed’ in Pittite Britain, the authoritarianism of William Pitt the Younger during his ‘reign of terror’ is often overstated. In the realm of legality, this is especially notable. Although the Prime Minister did introduce several new Acts of Parliament in the 1790s to combat English radicals, zealous and invigorated by events in revolutionary France, prosecution under these acts was surprisingly rare. During the decade, there were only 200 prosecutions for sedition, 2 of which just two resulted in execution; 3 many of the most significant hearings, such as the 1794 Treason Trials of Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke and John Thelwell, concluded in acquittal. 4 This number, though an increase on previous decades, is slight compared to other national emergencies in the eighteenth century (for example, the Jacobite risings) 5 and pales into insignificance besides equivalent figures in France: in June 1794 alone, over 1500 Frenchmen were executed. 6 John Gales Jones’ description of Pitt as ‘the English Robespierre’ was, 7 it appears, quite unfounded. Much of the historical debate surrounding Pitt’s response to events in France revolves around how extensive and effective the legislation he instituted was in subduing radical sedition, as well as how justified such measures were. Naturally, prosecution has been analysed as an aspect of these studies. However, I wish to examine the litigation of this era through a different lens. In this essay, I shall assess why there were relatively few prosecutions, contending that this lack of litigation is attributable largely to the (often-underemphasized) moderation of the ruling political class. While popular loyalism did diminish the need for prosecution, and judicial restraints hindered proceedings somewhat, I argue that a more oppressive legal crackdown could have been pursued had the government been so inclined. Far from encouraging ‘repression from above’, the effect of the French Revolution was arguably to revitalize elite commitment to the ideals of ‘liberty and law’. 1 Quoted from Asa Briggs, The Age of Improvement , 1783-1867 (1959). On Brigg’s left -wing politics, see https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/15/lord-briggs-of-lewes-asa-briggs-obituary. 2 John W. Derry, Politics in the Age of Fox, Pitt and Liverpool (2001 [1990]), 73. 3 Michael Duffy, The Younger Pitt (2000), 151. 4 John W. Derry, William Pitt (1962), 100. 5 Clive Emsley, ‘Repression, ‘Terror’ and the Rule of Law in England during the Decade of the French Revolution’, The English Historical Review , 100.367 (October, 1985), 801-825: 822. 6 For more on the scale of ‘Terror’ in France, see: Colin Jones, The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon (2003), Ch. 10: War and Terror 1791-95. 7 John Gales Jones spoke of ‘the English Robespierre’ at a debating society meeting in London on 9 th December 1795, quoted in Emsley, ‘Repression’, 802.
34
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator