Robert Jenkinson, the eldest son of the first Earl of Liverpool, was
born on 7th June, 1770. He was educated at Charterhouse
and Christ Church, Cambridge. At the
age of twenty Robert was granted the seat of Appleby,
a pocket borough owned by Sir James Lowther. Robert Jenkinson was
a Tory and in May 1793, he spoke against
Earl Grey's attempt to introduce parliamentary reform.
In February 1801, the Prime Minister, Viscount
Sidmouth, promoted Jenkinson to the cabinet. Two years later Sidmouth
granted Jenkinson the title Lord Hawkesbury in November 1803. When
Pitt replaced Sidmouth as Prime Minister in 1804, Jenkinson became
leader of the government in the House of Lords.
On the death of his father in December, 1808, Jenkinson became the
second Earl of Liverpool. WhenSpencer Perceval
became prime minister in 1809 he appointed Lord Liverpool as secretary
of war and the colonies. Perceval was assassinated in 1812, by a deranged
bankrupt who blamed the government for his troubles, and Lord Liverpool
was asked to become Britain's new prime minister.
Lord Liverpool was to remain in office for fifteen years. At first
Liverpool was a popular prime minister. In 1815 British forces were
victorious at the Battle of Waterloo. The abdication of Napoleon and
the successful conclusion of the French Wars
improved the public standing of Lord Liverpool's government. It was
hoped that with the end of the conflict in Europe Lord Liverpool's
government would be able to concentrate on introducing the social
reforms that were much needed in Britain.
Liverpool disagreed with those who advocated reform. He reacted to
the growth in the radical press by increasing the tax on newspapers.
Radical journalists such as Robert Carlile
and Henry Hetherington, responded
by campaigning for an end to all taxes on
knowledge.
In 1817 Britain endured an economic recession. Unemployment, a bad
harvest and high prices produced riots, demonstrations and a growth
in the Hampden Club movement. Lord Liverpool's
government reacted by suspending Habeas Corpus
for two years.
The economic situation gradually improved and Liverpool hoped that
a reduction in taxation would prevent a revival of radicalism
when the suspension of Habeas Corpus came
to an end in 1818. This was not the case, and the summer of 1819 saw
a series of large gatherings in favour of parliamentary reform, culminating
in the massive public meeting at Manchester
on 16th August 1819.
Lord Liverpool made it clear that he fully supported the action of
the magistrates and the Manchester
and Salford Yeomanry. Radicals reacted by calling what happened
in St. Peter's Fields, the Peterloo Massacre,
therefore highlighting the fact that Liverpool's government was now
willing to use the same tactics against the British people that it
had used against Napoleon and the French Army.
Liverpool's government decided to take action to prevent further large
meetings demanding social reform. In November 1819 Parliament was
assembled and it quickly passed the Six Acts.
In 1822 Liverpool used similar methods to deal with the distress and
disaffection in Ireland.
Liverpool found the heavy burden of running a divided country increasingly
stressful. Liverpool began to suffer health problems and on 17th February,
1827, he had a stroke. Liverpool was forced to resign and although
he lived for nearly two more years, he was rarely conscious. Lord
Liverpool died on 4th December, 1828.
(1)
Lord Liverpool wrote to George
Canning on 23rd September, 1819.
The accounts of the proceedings at Manchester will of course have
reached you, and will probably have in some degree alarmed you. You
will naturally ask whether the proceedings of the magistrates at Manchester
on the 16th were really justifiable? To this I answer, in the first
instance, that all the papers on which they proceeded were laid before
the Chancellor, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and that they
were fully satisfied that the meeting was of a character and description,
and assembled under such circumstances, as justified the magistrates
in dispersing it by force.
When I say that the proceedings of the magistrates at Manchester on
the 16th were justifiable, you will understand me as not by any means
deciding that the course which they pursued on that occasion was in
all its parts prudent. A great deal might be said in their favour
even on this; but, whatever judgment might be formed in this respect,
being satisfied that they were substantially right, there remained
no alternative but to support them; and I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding
the support which they have received, there prevails such a panic
throughout that part of the country that it is difficult to get either
magistrates to act or witnesses to come forward to give evidence,
and that many of the lower orders who were supposed loyal have joined
the disaffected, partly from fear, and partly from a conviction that
some great change was at hand.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
