Review

General Books

Between 1789 and 1852, France, the most populous state in Europe, underwent a series of revolutions as a (theoretically) absolute monarchy was abruptly transformed into a constitutional monarchy, a republic, an oligarchy, an empire, a restored monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, another republic, and yet another empire. A perennial question asked by historians is why did Britain not experience a comparable revolution or revolutions during these same years. These were, after all, traumatic years of industrialization, urbanization, and all-out war with France. Most early twentieth-century historians conceded that ordinary Britons underwent periods of severe economic distress during those six decades and that rioting was far from unknown, but they downplayed the plausibility of a revolution from below that might have supplanted the entire regime. Then, in The Making of the English Working Class, 1790-1830 (1963), the late Edward Thompson contended that rather than reacting to localized episodes of harvest failure and unemployment, the popular radicals of the day were appealing to a common coherent vision involving a restoration of "ancient liberties" and a people's government and economy to replace the small aristocratic oligarchy that governed the land. The implication of Thompson's magnum opus was that Tory government fears were justified, that such a popular revolution ought to have taken place, that it almost did, and what a pity that it failed.	1
Writing in the aftermath of the historiographical controversies engendered by Thompson, his disciples, and his critics, Edward Royle takes a new look at this old controversy. He devotes separate narrative chapters to three periods of actual or potential popular rebellion: (1) the era of the French Wars and the traumatic immediate postwar years (1792-1820); (2) the rural "Swing Riots" and the urban political unions that served as backdrop to the great (constitutional) Reform Bill of 1832; and (3) the era of Chartism (1837-48), the most widespread popular political movement of the century. Calling on his comprehensive knowledge of secondary works, and often citing relevant primary sources directly, Royle summarizes the most significant examples of riot and rebellion during these time periods. Those summaries may be too compact to bring to life the Thames Mutiny (1797), Peterloo (1819), the "Plug Riots" (1842), and comparable episodes, but they suffice to persuade the reader that during these years "there were certainly large numbers of discontented people who could have responded if the minority had been united and able to create and exploit a revolutionary situation" (p. 144). A revolution never did break out, however, and in a 60-page analytical chapter the author insightfully explains why. He systematically explores such considerations as (1) the divisions among the leaders of the popular movements; (2) the diverse geography of discontent; (3) the widespread sense of loyalty to England and its legal institutions; (4) the importance of the Poor Law and of private charity in binding the lower classes to their social superiors; (5) the role of religion; and (6) the surprising strength and resilience of an unbureaucratic state reliant on a remarkable small peacetime army.	2
Royle's book possesses several virtues as a teaching tool: it deals with an important historical question; it is short; it is clearly written; and its provocative analytical chapter readily invites class discussion. At the same time, the book also labors under several handicaps: its high price and the numerous passages in the narrative chapters that may prove unduly allusive to the average American undergraduate. Finally, Royle tends to mix together two distinct movements: the efforts of English radicals to transform the government of their country; and the efforts of Irish radicals to separate Ireland partly or fully from the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland as set up in 1801. Historically these two types of agitation did get mixed up, and leaders of Irish origin did play an important role in English reform movements, yet they pose distinct historiographical questions. Whatever its limitations as a teaching tool, however, the book sets forth numerous useful reflections on the course of modern British history. By global standards, the riots and incipient domestic rebellions of the era caused the loss of remarkably few lives. The worst of them, the Newport insurrection of 1839, involved a civilian death toll of twenty-four. Although the would-be insurgents often appealed to "the right to bear arms" included in the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Britain of the 1840s had become "increasingly a demilitarized society" (p. 188). Violence of rhetoric was rarely matched by violence of action. By mid-century, almost all Britons had come to prefer parliamentary reform to violent revolution, a preference that has persisted all the way to the present.	3
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Walter L. Arnstein

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.