Emsley, Clive. "Repression, 'Terror' and the Rule of Law in England during the Decade of the French Revolution." The English Historical Review 100.397 (1985), 801-825.

Full text link

Clive Emsley begins his article by questioning the scholarly tendency to write about the 1790s from the view of radicals and by discussing the use of the terms “repression” and “terror” in a 1790s context. Loyalists such as William Wilberforce saw their actions as justified as “new bastions to defend the bulwarks of British liberty” and a “temporary sacrifice” (804).

Emsley goes on to give a litany of many of the oft-deemed repressive government acts of the time period, including the royal proclamation condemning Paine’s Rights of Man Part 2, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the Two “Gagging” Acts, the Seduction from Duty Act, the banning the United and London Corresponding Societies, the Combination Act, and legislation making it easier to prosecute publishers for seditious libel. Many of these acts came from successful espionage and the desire to divide the Whig opposition, and, while these acts may have been effective in frightening people away from radical activity, their actual implementation was far less effective, according to Emsley. These laws were rarely used and even more rarely led to convictions, and though repression was greater under the Scottish and Irish legal systems, policing in England remained a “hit or miss affair” (822).

Emsley implies that these acts did not wholly cause the decline of radical activity, and that non-legislative methods of repression were often far more effective. Internal divisions also contributed to the decline of radical groups. He also asserts that the rule of law in 1790s Britain did not constitute a great departure from similar government repression and terror, both in the earlier decades of the 17900s and afterwards. However, they do reflect the differing concepts of liberty within the public arena during the time, meaning that Pitt’s actions sought to preserve the concept of liberty embodied by the English constitution but violated Painite and Foxite conceptions of personal liberty.

Entered by Sara on 02 August 2004 at 12:24 AM.