"British Repressive Measures 1792-1815" Topic

The following material is taken from the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France, 1799-1815 edited by Owen Connelly, 219-222.

There were no democracies in Europe during the Revolution and Napoleonic period, nor was the United States a democracy then, but a republic. Napoleon as Emperor was a constitutional monarch, as was Great Britain. Great Britain had a parliament, supposedly elected, but was not a democracy and its government was run by the privileged and it was tainted by corruption and a tendency towards stifling governmental reform.
The British government was run by the Tories, who controlled parliament from 1784-1830 and they ‘defended electoral arrangements that kept them in office, and they opposed giving the vote to the middle and lower classes.' (220).

In the decade prior to Napoleon's seizure of power (1799) the situation in Great Britain could be described as tumultuous. The Royal Navy had endured two mutinies, there was unrest in Ireland, and there were also food riots as well as industrial strikes. Economic ‘distress' across the nation was caused by bad harvests as well as ‘social dislocations' because of increased industrialization.

Radical groups had originated because of the French Revolution and they were dedicated to ‘radical reform consistent with the Rights of Man.' (221). ‘Repressive legislation was passed to restrain the radical press and prohibit seditious meetings.' (221). The definition of what was ‘seditious' was apparently up to the government. Habeas Corpus was suspended by Pitt's government in 1794. A new, much broader definition of what constituted treason was developed and gave new definitions in order that criticism of the Crown, Parliament and the constitution in order to arrest and prosecute those who now fit the new definition. The leaders of radical groups were hunted down and arrested and then tried for high treason. The British penal law was much harsher than a similar law approved in France under Napoleon.

In short, the British government was too many times corrupt and at times the populace at only at ‘subsistence level.'

Two centuries later and the picture is still just as bleak.

I think that you will find that radical political thought and action started long before the French Revolution. Universal suffrage was an issue during England's republican period after the ECW and just as unpopular with the rulers of the day, for all their supposed 'enlightenment'.

Don't make the mistake of measuring historical behaviour by modern standards. Corrupt practices by today's standards were often accepted as 'normal' or at least expected of those in power. While praise is certainly due to Napoleon & his government for the reworking of French political & legal life to imply that it was less corrupt than others in Europe by the standards of the times is false.

" Napoleon as Emperor was a constitutional monarch, as was Great Britain."

"the British government was too many times corrupt and at times the populace at only at ‘subsistence level."

Was English Owen Connelly's first language?

Oh, where to start?

I'd have characterized the Irish Uprising of 1798 as a good deal more than "unrest," but Connelly's description of 1784-1830 as continuous Tory rule means including both the "Ministry of All the Talents" and the Prime Ministerships of the Younger Pitt as Tory rule. Pitt always called himself an "independent Whig." And to call both countries constitutional monarchies is as lopsided as Connelly normally is if not more so. If the Whigs had won an election--and elections were held regularly--they could have chopped the military budget, sent an ambassador to sign whatever peace Bonaparte dictated, and effectively forced George III or the Prince Regent to sign it. Can anyone find His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I concerned about the outcome of an election? Or irked by his treatment by the press? Britain might be pleased to call itself a constitutional monarchy, but no British monarch was able to wage war without the active consent of Parliament since the Glorious Revolution.

Yes, sedition was redefined downward in wartime. It usually is. But Britain struggled along without prior censorship. All persons tried for high treason received jury trials and were acquitted. Those convicted of simple treason were sent to Australia. (Henry Redhead Yorke got two years for seditious conspiracy.) But the Whig clubs--notably Brook's--continued throughout the period. There was no internal exile on the de Stael model. Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794. My recollection is that it came back in 1797. Does anyone know for sure?

Yes, there were several bad harvests, two naval mutinies--but no coups, and none of the wholesale desertions French Revolutionary armies were prone to--and the standard of living was often shockingly low after decades of war. None of those things is a "repressive measure." Nor is failure to broaden the franchise.

We are evidently to conflate the definitions of various crimes with the penalties. Notice Brechtel never quite says that there were things you could say in Napoleonic France that you couldn't say in Britain. But he'd like to leave that impression. And you don't need harsh laws and legal penalties when you can have people imprisoned at your pleasure or shot pending trial. George III's ministers lacked those options.

I'm shocked to hear of corruption in Britain. Absolutely shocked. I'm sure every pair of shoes issued the Grande Armee was obtained in strictest compliance with the Berlin and Milan Decrees.

Was English Owen Connelly's first language?

Owen Connelly is the editor of the volume, not the author. There are three pages of contributors at the beginning of the book.

And as Owen Connelly was an American, I would suppose that English was his 'first language.'

We are evidently to conflate the definitions of various crimes with the penalties. Notice Brechtel never quite says that there were things you could say in Napoleonic France that you couldn't say in Britain. But he'd like to leave that impression. And you don't need harsh laws and legal penalties when you can have people imprisoned at your pleasure or shot pending trial. George III's ministers lacked those options.

Perhaps you should take a look at the legal system and Penal Code in France. It was less harsh than that of Great Britain.

And for freedom of speech in Napoleonic France, you might want to take a look at Anne Plumpton's A Narrative of a Three Years' Residence in France…from the year 1802-1805:

link

'…I saw everywhere works of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the government as odious…I have found speech everywhere as free in France as in England…-Anne Plumpton, from Volume III, 324 and 400.

Don't make the mistake of measuring historical behaviour by modern standards. Corrupt practices by today's standards were often accepted as 'normal' or at least expected of those in power. While praise is certainly due to Napoleon & his government for the reworking of French political & legal life to imply that it was less corrupt than others in Europe by the standards of the times is false.

Absolutely correct regarding measuring historical behavior by the period's norms and not current ones. Just ensure that historical knife cuts both ways.

Napoleon made a significant effort to root out corruption in his government and created a governmental office to carry out investigations of that type. Did the other major powers do the same thing?

Brechtel198

'…I saw everywhere works of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the government as odious…I have found speech everywhere as free in France as in England…-Anne Plumpton, from Volume III, 324 and 400.'

*Plumptre

A single statement by a Francophile. Hardly evidence enough now is it?

Two centuries later and the picture is still just as bleak.

Don't be silly.

DBDD

Perhaps you should take a look at the legal system and Penal Code in France. It was less harsh than that of Great Britain.

Perhaps it might be instructive to recall that being sentenced to the Bagne was extant in France until the Second Empire, and that, besides the penal servitude, the punishments that were administered to the prisoners for transgression were severe.

Bonaparte, the Great Penal Reformer, could have abolished these labour camps. He didn't.

It might also be instructive to read livre 1 of the 1810 Penal Code.

I saw everywhere works of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the government as odious…I have found speech everywhere as free in France as in England…-Anne Plumpton, from Volume III, 324 and 400.

As the French Revolutionary code wasn't replaced by the Code Napoleon until 1805 that is entirely possible.

@Brechtel
Your info is part of what makes some of the pro-British and anti-Napoleon ranters on here so hard to empathize with when so much worse stuff was happening in Britain. It really is hard to comprehend how a place that crushed its lower classes into the dirt can spawn forum activists to post like the fight against Napoleon was all about truth, justice and the little guy.

I certainly don't believe that the Great War with France was about 'truth, justice and the little guy'. It was a reaction to the violence of the French Revolution and the – not unreasonable fear – that the Jacobins might export their philosophy to other European countries. Hardly surprising that no other European monarchs wanted to share the fate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. In many ways not unlike the reaction of the West to Communism.

Remember, too, that England had had the experience of a successful rebellion against a king, his execution and replacement by a republic, which soon became ruled by the most successful soldier of the rebellion, whose rule would have been inherited by his son, had he not proved unfit for the job. Remind you of anyone?

ApdC – I'm neither specifically pro-British (of the time) nor anti-Napoleon but it does irk me a little that Americans who fiercely defend their own history are often surprised at the reaction when other nationals do the same, particularly when the 'information' is incorrect and twisted.

Dibble – note the comparison she makes. " as free as in England". England is clearly the benchmark for free speech, at least in her eyes. Doesn't sound quite as repressive as he was intending it to prove.

I certainly don't believe that the Great War with France was about 'truth, justice and the little guy'.

Then my comment doesn't apply to you.

It was a reaction to the violence of the French Revolution and the – not unreasonable fear – that the Jacobins might export their philosophy to other European countries. Hardly surprising that no other European monarchs wanted to share the fate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. In many ways not unlike the reaction of the West to Communism.

Napoleon was a kommie? Did he have anything to do with Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI's execution?

This was all part of the 150 year struggle between Britain and France about world domination so that Britain could grind other nation's people into the dirt too. I'll give it to them, the British ruling class was consistently brutal.

Remember, too, that England had had the experience of a successful rebellion against a king, his execution and replacement by a republic, which soon became ruled by the most successful soldier of the rebellion, whose rule would have been inherited by his son, had he not proved unfit for the job. Remind you of anyone?

It reminds me that, when it comes to kings, a lot of British have this funny concept about legitimacy and non legitimacy. I attribute that to centuries of successful aristocratic propaganda.

APDC, I never suggested that Napoleon was a 'kommie' or that he, personally, had anything to do with the execution of Louis XVI and his wife. I suggested that other European (in which I include Britain) monarchs feared suffering a similar fate if Jacobin ideas spread to their countries, which I submit is not an unreasonable conclusion, given the War of the First Coalition.

I'll grant you that Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars was also motivated by a desire to prevent France, its closest neighbour and 'traditional' enemy from becoming the dominant power in Europe and controlling all the Channel coast, as had been its aim in the time of Louis XIV. But, given England's own experience of a general, Cromwell, making himself head of state, I think it not unreasonable to suppose that it influenced the attitude to Napoleon.

The idea that the war was part of some British plot to 'grind other nation's people into the dirt too' ignores the fact that serfdom disappeared in Britain long before it did in Russia, for example. I think many European rulers had been perfectly capable of doing that for themselves without Britain's help!

All you seem to want to do is twist every point so that you can put forward your own anti-British sentiments.

Revolutionary France Slaughtering and incarcerating tens of thousands of their own people didn't help either.

I recall another country's revolution that went a'slaughtering and a'gulaging their people too. Slaughtered their King and Queen. With the added soupcon of massacring their kids. And oh look! Out popped a dictator. A habit that got really fashionable in the 20th century

"Kommie" Perhaps not! Radical Socialists?…Yup!

As for Plumptre. She was still a 'hard-headed' fawning Francophile.

The French Revolution put back the cause of democracy in Britain by 50 years because of the reaction it it.

It was far worse in other countires.

You mean the countries that were not democracies but monarchies?

The fall of Napoleon definitely was a cause of the 1830 and 1848 revolutions in Europe. France finally rid itself of the Bourbons in 1848, but those in central and southern Europe were firmly entrenched in suppressing the revolutions and suffered from their rising up.

Owen Connelly is the editor of the volume, not the author

@Brechtel.My apologies. Evidently I should have made the point more clearly. The passage quoted is poorly written, in places barely coherent, and at times descends to the level of drivel, and I wonder at the skills of an editor who should have let such material pass.That was my point.
Others have addressed questions of accuracy.

Funny how some people like to knock the French and Russian Revolutions.

The French had a revolution and their ruler was executed.

The Russians had a revolution and their ruler was executed.

Where did they ever get such an ideal from? Er, perhaps from the British. After all, they had a revolution, usually termed as an English Civil war – in which their ruler was also executed. LOL

The French had three (two of them out of our period)-1789, 1830, and 1848. The king, and his queen, were only executed in the first one…

Gazzola : Funny that the three revolutions you mention all swapped a Monarch for a dictator. Only one actually failed to return to a monarchy.

There has always been an element of British liberal opinion that viscerally hates Britain, its people and its history, and can't see an enemy it hasn't wanted to side with. Jonathan Swift is an early example, the capitulard failed politician Charles James Fox thought Napoleon a great chap until he had dealings with him, Lady Holland warned him he was to be moved from Elba which prompted his escape and 100,000 deaths, Lord Byron was inconsolable at his defeats in 1814 and 1815, as was William Hazlitt. David Crane, writing in 2015, is still inconsolable at the result of Waterloo and like the disgusting shower above rooting for the defeat of his own countrymen.

These people are all the most snivelling worthless quislings imaginable, yet the whole lot of them were left at liberty and not remotely at risk of challenge.

The passage quoted is poorly written, in places barely coherent, and at times descends to the level of drivel, and I wonder at the skills of an editor who should have let such material pass.That was my point.

I guess that you didn't notice, but most of that posting was not quoted but paraphrased. The awkward English is mine, not Owen Connelly's. My fault and my apologies.

And, yes, my mother tongue is English.

I would highly recommend the book being referred to. It is a gold mine of information.

Others have addressed questions of accuracy.

I have said this before, if there are any questions of 'accuracy', then when and if questioned, a source should be used to refute what is written. That usually isn't done, unfortunately.

The English Civil War saw the king beheaded. They didn't go slaughtering his family and relatives among 30-50,000 others.

'I recall another country's revolution that went a'slaughtering and a'gulaging their people too. Slaughtered their King and Queen. With the added soupcon of massacring their kids. And oh look! Out popped a dictator. A habit that got really fashionable in the 20th century

"Kommie" Perhaps not! Radical Socialists?…Yup!'

Ahh! The puddings from Fance, Russia and Germany are all bitter to the taste. Even today… Which tastes just the same between the palate and tongue of those espousing the socialist 'paradise'

I haven't seen anyone in this thread "espousing [any kind of] socialist 'paradise'". I was a bit surprised to see a nineteenth century Emperor (Napoleon) described as any kind of far left radical.

As in:
Napoleon was a Kommie?
"Kommie" Perhaps not! Radical Socialists?…Yup!

Cheers,
John

Brechtel, my apolologies again. Had I been aware that the object of my impatience was _not_ the text of the forty-year old publication under discussion, I would have framed my comments a little more temperately.

I was a bit surprised to see a nineteenth century Emperor (Napoleon) described as any kind of far left radical.

Kommie" Perhaps not! Radical Socialists?…Yup!

It's like a pattern that repeats itself. "kind of"

For completeness, the Bourbons were replaced by another Napoleon who was elected but then took power by a coup d'etat. He made himself emperor and had that confirmed by a plebiscite where he won 97% of the votes cast. He improved the French economy but was defeated and captured by the Prussians and lost the support of the French nation. He died in exile in Britain.

Sorry, you lost me somewhere along the line Dibble. I'm just trying to work out how Napoleon could be considered a "Radical Socialist". I must be missing something.

Cheers,
John

I must be missing something.

Umm! Well, that's not for me to opine.

You're being obtuse Dibble and I don't understand why. If you think Napoleon was a socialist I'd be interested in hearing your case. If you don't, then say so.

Cheers,
John

The Bourbons were replaced by another Napoleon who was elected but then took power by a coup d'etat. He made himself emperor and had that confirmed by a plebiscite where he won 97% of the votes cast. He improved the French economy but was defeated and captured by the Prussians and lost the support of the French nation. He died in exile in Britain.

Strangely familiar

Come off it Erzherzog!

Look at the patterns made in these past 250 years.

All those dictatorial states were lefty.

You have eyes, hands, a brain a keyboard, computer and a mouse. Let your fingers do the tippy-tapping, your eyes the observing and your brain the cogitation. I've had too and so should you.

Those who claim the British were so much more repressive, cruel, brutal or whatever might like to consider to whom Napoleon chose to surrender after Waterloo and where he hoped to live in exile thereafter.

OK, so you think state intervention in the economy = socialism. Now I get what you're saying. Now, back to 'little men', as my wife calls them.

Those who claim the British were so much more repressive, cruel, brutal or whatever might like to consider to whom Napoleon chose to surrender after Waterloo and where he hoped to live in exile thereafter.

This is a complete joke and actually quite offensive.

You believe that leaders of armies would be/were treated the same as foreign people of color in the time? You think Napoleon felt in the same shoes as the citizens of the foreign lands Britain was gluttonously pillaging at the time?

Absolute joke and shameful.

To get back to the topic in the original post, the truth is, no nation in the Napoleonic period gave the rights of the common people much thought. The French revolution shook the foundations of the ancien regimes for two reasons. One was the obvious fact that it overthrew a longstanding and seemingly secure monarchy, with the accompanying terror. Secondly, this was no palace coup; it represented a change, not in the individuals in charge, but the composition of the ruling class. Aristocratic rule was seriously threatened, and that threat reached well beyond the borders of France. Other European monarchies responded to protect themselves from similar fates.

Napoleon declaring himself Emperor, and dishing out Duchies and Kingdoms to his family and friends was clearly a roll back of the revolution. But still, it continued to have an impact. Prussia abolished serfdom in 1807 in a sweeping decree. It also, and Austria too, to a less ambitious and less successful extent, attempted to harness the newly emerging nationalism through military reform that would, they hoped, not get out of control. Britain and Russia changed less at the time, but they too had to make some changes eventually.

We know that under Metternich's guiding hand, a period of conservatism and an attempt to return to the older, more autocratic rule, emerged throughout Europe, but the French Revolution had had an impact and its ripples spread far beyond the era of Napoleon and of France.

…nor was the United States a democracy then, but a republic.

Uh, that's not what those in the United States said, nor does this dichotomy between a democracy and a republic exist. A republic is simply a form of of democratic rule by the people. That Connelly would make such a claim unnecessarily for his argument is weird.

On-line definition:

The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.

There are actually two definitions of 'republic.'

1.a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.

2.a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Franklin himself stated, when asked, what type of government did the US have because of the newly accepted Constitution. His reply was that the US was a republic.

Republic and Democracy are not necessarily synonymous. A republic is a form of government that does not have a monarch. Pretty simple actually.

And the US did not elect the senators at the time, did not have universal suffrage, and wouldn't for quite some time. And the US president is still not directly elected. And male suffrage was not universal at the time. Originally, all male land owners had the vote, then it was restricted to all white male landowners. It took the US quite some time to become an actual democracy.

And it is often overlooked that the Constitution was written in order to have a strong central government because of the chaos of not having one under the Articles of Confederation.

That Connelly would make such a claim unnecessarily for his argument is weird.

Connelly didn't say that. It was my conclusion based on years of study and teaching history and government.

DevoutDavout, I'm sorry if you were offended by my post – I did not, and do not believe this particular discussion was about the treatment of 'foreign people of colour' or the evils of colonialism, but about European nations' treatment of their own citizens during Napoleon's lifetime.

If you reread this thread you will see no reference to these issues that you have raised. In the context of that discussion my comment – which I admit was somewhat tongue in cheek – was neither 'offensive' nor 'shameful'.

DevoutDavout, I'm sorry if you were offended by my post

I also took your post to mean that because Napoleon thought he might get genteel treatment in Britain; that it was proof that the British government and aristocracy wasn't repressive in the extreme. They were both those things both domestically and internationally.

And the "context" of the conversation was why some feel that the British were the good guys fighting the obvious evil of Napoleon to the extent that they feel justified in messing up every conversation about him.

And I said even though I think the British Empire was foul, I can still discuss it in a wargamers thread without constantly messing up the discussion with cries about its injustices.

Connelly didn't say that. It was my conclusion based on years of study and teaching history and government.

Brechtel198: If that is the case, you shouldn't be giving page references to another book unless you wrote part of it.

Republic and Democracy are not necessarily synonymous. A republic is a form of government that does not have a monarch. Pretty simple actually.

Rather simplistic actually. That 'simple' definition would make every government in history without a monarch a republic including some obvious dictatorships today. The Celts were republics along with Rome, the Swiss Cantons of 1790s weren't republics. All men could vote.

I never suggested the terms were synonymous. And we today have 'added' a number of meanings beyond any reference to the period of the French Revolution. [Russia has lots of Republics today.] At that time, they tended to use the Roman original Latin version as the definition:

Republic: "The word republic is first recorded in English 1595–1605. It comes from Plato's "Republic" and the Latin rēs pūblica, meaning "public thing," characterizing that a state is ultimately run by its people."

The Greeks created the word Democracy. The word "democracy" (Greek: dēmokratia, δημοκρατία) combines the elements dęmos (δῆμος, traditionally interpreted "people") and krátos (κράτος, which means "force" or "power"), and thus means literally "people power".

When Benjamin Franklin was asked after a session of the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of a government have you given us?" he replied,

"A democracy, if you can keep it."

A pure Democracy has never existed, as at no time in history has the entire population of a state had the right to vote. Democracies have always been 'representative' in that some represented the whole, even the part of the population who could vote, was assumed to "represent" the whole.

A Republic is a representative form of democracy. The words aren't synonymous, but definitely linked, one describing a type of the other.

APDC, all I'm saying is that – as far as its own citizens were concerned – Britain was no worse than the other European monarchies and, perhaps, better than some. I think it is revealing that Bonaparte surrendered to Britain, rather than seeking refuge in Austria with his wife, son and the Emperor his father in law.

Since we're all engaged in what HG Wells called 'this apparently easy and puerile business of fighting with tin soldiers' I don't take the discussions here too seriously.

"Good-bye to you too, old Rights-of-Man."

—Billy Budd

APDC, all I'm saying is that – as far as its own citizens were concerned – Britain was no worse than the other European monarchies and, perhaps, better than some. I think it is revealing that Bonaparte surrendered to Britain, rather than seeking refuge in Austria with his wife, son and the Emperor his father in law.

Yes, that was then and this is now. You want to keep things in both context and perspective? Me too. That's why I dont particularly care for self righteous ideologues spoiling every discussion about Napoleon as if he was palpably worse than the Nations they seem to think were superior? If you cant understand this principle, can you at least understand how you were triggered and how that makes the discussion less enjoyable?

Since we're all engaged in what HG Wells called 'this apparently easy and puerile business of fighting with tin soldiers' I don't take the discussions here too seriously.

After years of dealing with the same persons spoiling every Napoleon thread with their twisted blither, one comment about the repressive British society and it's "Cant we all get along?"

APDC: out of interest- why, I wonder, do you think Brechtel posted his OP quotation?

If that is the case, you shouldn't be giving page references to another book unless you wrote part of it.

Quotations are easy to see as they are in quotation marks. The paraphrases are not. At least, that is the way I was taught long ago…