Every major European country was affected by the French Revolution. Britain’s intellectual climate and political landscape were profoundly shaped by the French Revolution, which had a lasting impact on both Parliament and beyond. The French Revolution was the most often discussed issue in literary, philosophical, and political circles throughout the United Kingdom. Many people who cared about what was happening on the other side of the English Channel expressed their thoughts in either a favorable or bad way. Extra-parliamentary revolutionaries received a boost from the growing chasm between William Pitt the Younger and Charles James Fox’s two main parliamentary parties, which helped widen public loyalties.. Thus, British thinking became split into two camps: one that advocated emulating France’s ideas and actions and the other that advocated opposing everything the French Revolution was trying to achieve.
In the early stages of the French Revolution, liberal lawmakers both within and outside Parliament positively reacted to the upheaval. Charles James Fox, Richard Price, and Robert Southey looked to be leading the way out of the old world, and the dawn of a new age for humanity was imminent. Liberation, equality, and fraternity were seen as the hallmarks of France’s liberation from oppression and the dawning of a new period in which humankind would thrive.
In the wake of the French Revolution, many political reformers working for change since the 1760s were inspired to reassess the need for reform in the country that had long been seen as a model of absolute monarchy. British proponents of parliamentary reform in the early 1790s agreed to seek full manhood suffrage and complete democratization of the election process inspired by French human rights theories. In the end, everyone agreed that the ability to vote should not be related to a person’s possessions but to their individuality. Attacking someone is moral character and admitting that he is not worthy of the title of “man” are two different things. No matter how affluent or poor you are, neither shows a lack of moral value or civic virtue.
A number of British reformers in the past believed that they had a right to expand the vote because of the country’s previous constitution. Radicals in the early 1790s shifted their focus away from history and instead emphasized the inherent rights of all men. Pursuing an apolitical approach, Thomas Paine claimed that each generation had the option to construct whatever political structure best fit their needs. A new period of liberty must be ushered in for the present generation to reject the tyranny of the past. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are intrinsic human rights that must be protected. People’s sovereignty is the only way to limit the power of those in power.
There must be a written constitution to limit government powers and outline the rights of all citizens. Thomas Paine would have gone farther in democratizing House of Commons elections than any previous legislative reformer. To him, there was no place in society for inherited titles, honors, or advantages. Openly he campaigned for the democratic republic, and he saw no need for any monarchy. This was a step that few other British reformers were willing to take, and only Paine supported women’s suffrage. On the other hand, some reformers had developed an interest in a wide range of social and economic reforms. Education, the judiciary, church tithe removal, and the lifting of game limitations were among the many changes urged by many reformers. Child allowances, maternity rewards, and old-age pensions were all supported by Paine’s call for reduced taxes on the poor and a property tax on the affluent. According to Thomas Spence’s vision of a property less society, all world ‘s natural resources in each parish should be owned by everyone who lives there.
After seeing how the French revolutionaries employed murder and intimidation to achieve their goals, conservatives in Britain were alarmed by the implications of such reforms for the political and aristocratic classes. It was considered a certain path to political upheaval and social turmoil in conservative ideology to advocate for inalienable rights and any general principles or changes founded on speculative beliefs. Because humans were not equal in physical, mental, and financial abilities and hence could not claim an equal share of political authority, they said they were not entitled to an equal amount of power.
To reach as many people as possible, conservative propaganda relied on a more emotive tone, more simple language, and more pragmatic arguments. British middle and lower classes were encouraged to believe that French ideals and radical British ideas were a threat to everything they held dear. The British people were warned that if they succumbed to the temptation of extreme views, they would lose everything. For ignoring God’s precepts and putting their reliance in human reasoning, the French revolutionaries were scolded. France was ruled by tyrants who terrorized citizens and caused social upheavals while the British were secure in their lives. This poisonous propaganda’s goal was to depict France as a source of horror, tyranny, and devastation throughout Europe. To hold the French Revolution away, the British people must be ready to make great sacrifices and wage a virtual crusade against it.
Most large metropolitan regions had hundreds of new political organizations founded by British reformers to propagate their radical ideology. The bulk of radical organizations in Sheffield had fewer members than the Sheffield radical society, which had around the same number of members. Political consciousness was raised in large numbers by their propaganda, public meetings, and petitioning efforts, even if most of them comprised of the middle classes, including commercial and professional middle-classes and skilled craftsmen.
The British government used its legislative and judicial supremacy to halt the spread of French principles by repressing radical activities. Most radicals were unable to express themselves when faced with government repression. The majority of individuals either lost hope or slowed down their actions. Conspiracy and violence were the sole means of achieving political aims for a small minority.. Once again, a remnant of British radicalism had taken on a dangerous, subversive, and violent character by the late 1790s, this time in the form of militants. Bands affiliated with the United Englishmen formed in London, Lancashire, and West Yorkshire, while those affiliated with the United Scotsmen formed in the heart of Scotland. These groups lacked numbers, cohesion, and a determined strategy despite acquiring weapons and conducting secret exercises. In 1798, most of its commanders were kidnapped, and they had little prospect of success without French assistance.. William Pitt’s administration more dominated British parliamentary politics in the years after 1789. The propertied classes, well-represented in Parliament and held the majority of parliamentary seats, backed Pitt’s resolve to combat both revolutions abroad and radical change at home. There was considerable support for his repressive methods, which successfully wiped out the radicals.
Pitt’s administration gained legislative majority after 1789. Still, it was also responsible for the demise of Charles James Fox’s opposition party, which spent over forty years, I have been lost in politics. Unlike Pitt, the opposition had splintered counsels and erratic judgment, as well as a tight relationship with the unpopular and reckless Prince of Wales.. As a result of their inability to unite after the French Revolution and During the French war, their internal difficulties worsened. Many Conservative MPs in the United Kingdom had had enough of the idea that French revolutionaries and domestic radicals constituted little danger to the British political and social order. They no longer backed the Foxite stance. When France was embroiled in a long war, it was even more unsettling than France’s political shifts, and this weakened support for the Fomites even more in Parliament and among the political elite.
British beliefs and aspirations inspired the Foxite view of the French Revolution. There was a misinterpretation that the French were planning to implement a British-style constitutional monarchy in their country.. It was Pitt and Europe’s absolutist powers, together with Pitt’s reactionary allies, who were to blame for the French Revolution’s descent into anarchy and tyranny, not those who had taken to the streets of Paris. The confrontation with France was seen as unjust and unnecessary. For as long as France remained a threat, the Foxites couldn’t gain a majority in France’s political establishment. Because of their uncertain and sometimes tepid stance on parliamentary reform, the Foxites could not attract the ardent support of revolutionaries and reformers outside Parliament. Even when France’s political climate became more polarised, they were unable to find a way to bridge this divide. They were widely derided as defeatists and disloyal even though they spoke eloquently for peace and valiantly tried to stem reactionary tides.. Pittites and Foxites were more ideologically and politically divided than any previous governing and opposition parties in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the French war. They had previously been separated on subjects like the royal prerogative, internal reform, and the French Revolution; now, the two parties were more divided over matters like war and peace. It was because of these ideological disagreements that both parties sought more party structure.
There was a misinterpretation that the French were planning to implement a British-style constitutional monarchy in their country. It was Pitt and Europe’s absolutist powers, together with Pitt’s reactionary allies, who were to blame for the French Revolution’s descent into anarchy and tyranny, not those who had taken to the streets of Paris. The confrontation with France was seen as unjust and unnecessary.. As long as France remained a threat, the Foxites couldn’t gain a majority in France’s political establishment. Because of their uncertain and sometimes tepid stance on parliamentary reform, the Foxites could not attract the ardent support of revolutionaries and reformers outside Parliament. Even when France’s political climate became more polarised, they could not find a way to bridge this divide. They were widely derided as defeatists and disloyal even though they spoke eloquently for peace and valiantly tried to stem reactionary tides. In the aftermath of the French Revolution and the French war, Pittites and Foxites were more ideologically and politically divided than any previous governing and opposition parties. They had previously been separated on subjects like the royal prerogative, internal reform, and the French Revolution; now, the two parties were more divided over matters like war and peace.
Bibliography
Barrow, Thomas C. “The American revolution as a colonial war for independence.” The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1968): 452-464.
Callinicos, Alex. “The limits of passive revolution.” Capital & Class 34, no. 3 (2010): 491-507.
Clark, J. C. D. “How Did the American Revolution Relate to the French? Richard Price, the Age of Revolutions, and the Enlightenment.” Modern Intellectual History (2020): 1-23.
Cohn Jr, Samuel K. Popular protest in late-medieval Europe: Italy, France, and Flanders. Manchester University Press, 2013.
Connor, Walker. “The politics of ethnonationalism.” Journal of International Affairs (1973): 1-21.
Davies, James C. “Toward a theory of revolution.” American sociological review (1962): 5-19.
Davis, David Brion. “American Equality and Foreign Revolutions.” The Journal of American History 76, no. 3 (1989): 729-752.
Disch, Lisa. “How could Hannah Arendt glorify the American Revolution and revile the French? Placing On Revolution in the historiography of the French and American Revolutions.” European Journal of Political Theory 10, no. 3 (2011): 350-371.
Fursenko, A. A., and Gilbert H. McArthur. “The American and French Revolutions Compared: The View from the USSR.” The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1976): 481-500.
Henkin, Louis. “Revolutions and constitutions.” La. L. Rev. 49 (1988): 1023.
Hermassi, Elbaki. “Toward a comparative study of revolutions.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 18, no. 2 (1976): 211-235.
Israel, Jonathan. The expanding blaze: How the American Revolution ignited the world, 1775-1848. Princeton University Press, 2019.
Israel, Jonathan. The expanding blaze: How the American Revolution ignited the world, 1775-1848. Princeton University Press, 2019.
Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: from its origins to 1793. Routledge, 2005.
Lind, M. (2010). Next American nation: The new nationalism and the fourth American Revolution. Simon and Schuster.
Merchant, Carolyn. “The theoretical structure of ecological revolutions.” Environmental Review: ER 11, no. 4 (1987): 265-274.
Rapoport, David C. “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September.” Anthropoetics 8, no. 1 (2002).
Roberts, Timothy Mason. Distant revolutions: 1848 and the challenge to American exceptionalism. University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Schwarzmantel, John. The age of ideology: Political ideologies from the American Revolution to postmodern times. NYU Press, 1998.
Steger, Manfred B. The rise of the global imaginary: Political ideologies from the French Revolution to the global war on terror. Oxford University Press, 2008.
