The English Reaction to the French Revolution

Dax Tate

University of Washington HSTEU422

The French Revolution and Napoleon

Professor Raymond Jonas

November 23rd, 2015

 “Kings will be tyrants by policy when subjects are rebels from principle.”1 The English

author, philosopher, and statesman Edmund Burke seemed to be defending a dying social order in

England when he wrote this. By 1791, just two years after the French Third Estate took the Tennis

Court Oath and embarked on their grand experiment of Liberté, égalité, and fraternité, the British

were enthralled. Through the works of Richard Price, Thomas Paine, and other pro-

Revolutionaries in England, the lower classes of England had begun to learn of the French model

for their futures, and in it they saw rays of hope. Acting for the upper reaches of society, Burke

and his conservative contemporaries had to write to the defense of the Old Regime: that noble,

centuries-old system that promised, above all, stability and security. Sparking nearly three decades

of debate in Britain, and inspiring numerous policy decisions, the French Revolution is one of the

most influential foreign events in English history. So how, specifically, did the English react to the

Revolution of their neighbors across the channel? This question can be answered by analyzing

England’s own revolutionary past, and by looking at the issues of military power, religion, and

philosophy that would come to not just consume English debate, but eventually to catalyze the

modernization of Britain.

Before going in-depth into England’s interest in France’s Revolution, there is a simple

underlying question, with a far from simple answer: Why did they care? Conservatives, largely

made up of the upper and middle classes, believed that while Britain’s society may not have been

perfect, it was easily mendable, and far better than the dangerous proposals of the French. Edmund

Burke argued that the “[English] Bill of Rights, based firmly on ancient practice and judicial

precedents,” was the most effective “safeguard for individual liberties.”2 Loyalists in England

believed that the French had committed a crime against nature and reason alike when they had

destroyed their age-old system, and that if the British did the same, as pro-Revolutionaries or

1
radicals were proposing at the time, it would only be reckless and counterproductive to the very

rights the people were calling for. To them, the British system was already representative and

protective of the peoples’ liberties. The conservative writer Hannah More pointedly declared that

for England to seek the same liberties as the French Revolutionaries would be “to pretend to run a

race; thou [France] to set out from the starting point, when I am in already.” “We’ve no race to

run.”3 For many well-off citizens represented by the ideas of Burke and More, France and England

were under entirely different conditions, and the English would be even more foolish than the

French to set out to create a new government. However, many leading English contemporaries did

not share this same complacency, and this is what would ignite the many fierce debates within

England that would last for decades and come to shape the modern state. The dissenting (or non-

Anglican) minister Richard Price was convinced that France had “overtaken Great Britain,” and

had in so doing become the world leaders in “the pursuit of liberty.”4 Price and other early

Revolutionary enthusiasts saw France as an example to England of an unfinished Revolution of

1688, which had left in place class imbalance, religious exclusion, and more. They saw the

imbalances in society, and struck out to inform and mobilize the lower classes; this is how the

Revolutionary debates shifted from one of writers creating ideas to one of the British people

seeking change. With the French Revolution they saw a chance for a more successful future, in

which birth and class ranks did not matter. Historian and author Stephen Prickett describes a

variety of new and revitalized groups, such as the Revolution Society or the London Corresponding

Society, which formed to spread and advocate reforms or even Revolution, and also notes that

English literacy rates climbed rapidly from 1790-1810 in large part because of widespread news

of the Revolution.5 Literary figures of the time appealed to the people as well, using simple,

everyday analogies and forms that only required a very basic literacy to understand. Edmund Burke

2
and Hannah More made use of architectural analogies to suggest the firmness and durability of the

Old Regime to lower class readers, while pro-Revolutionary authors like William Hone wrote

analysis and arguments in the form of instantly recognizable biblical allusions (litanies, the Ten

Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer), as well as in the form of simple children’s stories.6 At the

same time, most authors were also lowering the prices of their publications. As pointed out by the

British historian Clive Emsley, Tom Paine’s pro-Revolutionary Rights of Man rapidly outsold

Burke’s Conservative Reflections on the Revolution in France, no doubt because it was more

affordable and appealed to the larger, more hopeful lower classes.7 This combination of accessible

prices and images, in the face of a public that was ready for change, made the French Revolution

an irresistible draw to the attention of English high and low society as England began its own steps

toward modernization. The influence of these events was apparent even then, but the biggest

question for all was whether or not the English would follow the French example of Revolution,

or the conservative idea of working through government. Events in France, however, would soon

turn the English decisively away from Revolution.

In the ten years following the Tennis Court Oath, France seemed to be in constant turmoil,

as the Revolution repeatedly failed to consolidate itself. The first and foremost impact of this on

England was France’s sudden fall from military power, as well as the unexpected rise that

followed. In the early years of the Revolution, European “diplomatic relations were conducted, for

the first time in centuries, without regard for what the French might think or do,” says modern

historian William Doyle.8 France had been the dominant power of mainland Europe for decades

now, rising to its peak under Louis XIV in the early 1700s, so witnessing its rapid decline was an

unexpected blessing for many European powers, and perhaps none more than the English, who

still held bitter feelings from their defeat at the hands of the French and Americans barely a decade

3
earlier. The British were glad, if nothing else, to see their largest military competitor knocked

down. Prime Minister William Pitt even felt that, in 1792, “Never had fifteen years of peace

seemed more likely.”9 England initially felt that their biggest military threat and challenger had

disappeared overnight. Though armed conflict did seem to be brewing on the continent, the British,

like the rest of Europe and even the French Royal Family, believed conflict would be short,

decisive, and inconsequential in favor of the established powers. However, the occupation of

Belgium, which Britain had vowed to keep out of French control, in November of that year made

war seem more likely, and, according to Doyle, “the trial and execution of Louis XVI precipitated

the final break.”10 Reacting to these crimes against Belgium and against the sacred institution of

the monarchy, the British led the creation of the first of many European coalitions. But by late

1792, the coalition was falling apart in the face of multiple French victories, and Britain was once

again facing France as a dominant military power. This military threat, heightened by the French

promise to aid any internal Revolution that may spark in England, led to strict government

intervention in the debates, as pro-Revolutionary writings were deemed seditious and illegal by a

Royal Proclamation in 1792.11 Faced with the French as real enemies rather than leaders in a

pursuit of liberty, English support for the French Revolution began to wane, aided by the silencing

of its dwindling support. Burke’s views began gaining popularity, and calls for reform became

ever fewer as the majority of those in power came to reject any Revolutionary ideals. The threat

of a French-inspired English Revolution seemed to be over. Any hope for further Revolutionary

cries in England would all but end in 1795, when the definition of treason was expanded once

again. Ironically, the pro-Revolutionaries would come to see this censorship as the “English Reign

of Terror,” portraying the government as the very thing it was working against.12 At the time,

however, it was seen as necessary to prevent potentially dangerous uprisings. Although it would

4
be many years before the actual Revolutionary Wars were over, military action and policy by 1799

had turned a majority of Britain against not just France, but against any calls for Revolution.

The French Revolution was not rejected solely as a military enemy, however. Religion was

still very important to 18th century British society, and it quickly became the most alienating aspect

of the Revolution in France. At first, though, the Revolutionaries and their ideals were seen as

almost synonymous with Christianity. In 1789, in response to the French Revolution, the

Dissenting minister Dr. Richard Price preached “Lord, now lettest thy servant depart in peace, for

mine eyes have seen thy salvation.”13 Price, who passed away in 1791 before France went into its

most radical stages, saw the Revolution and its ideals in as the will of God, and supported the

French drive for equality with a foundation in Christian faith. For some, deemed by Stephen

Prickett the “young and idealistic” pro-revolutionaries, the Revolution was a religious experience.

To them, it was an “irresistible breakthrough of the supernatural, a vision of heaven itself.”14 These

English radicals, so enthusiastic at the start, were crushed by the many dark turns of the Revolution,

from the September Massacres to the execution of Louis XIV, all of which were too horrible to be

ordained by God. This spiritual defeat was felt by many, and it allowed Loyalists to capitalize on

the idea that Revolutions had forsaken God Himself. A British ambassador to the Netherlands

noted at the time that “if God wished to punish [the French] in the way they have sinned, how I

should admire divine justice.”15 As the Revolution radicalized, it began to lose its glorious image,

and instead appeared as God’s punishment for a number of sins. Beginning with the confiscation

of Church Lands in 1790, the Revolution in the eyes of Burke and his conservative peers came to

represent a collection of acts against God, amounting to “the annihilation of liberty, property, and

religion.”16 Burke firmly believed that the Church was the best way of providing morality and

stability to a society, and saw the French departure from this as a dangerous mistake. As the

5
Revolution followed policies such as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790, the easy

allowance of divorce beginning in 1792, and the adoption of a secular French Republican Calendar

in 1793, it came increasingly under fire as an anti-Christian movement, marked by instability and

immorality as Loyalists had predicted. As this image of the Revolution gained credibility, so too

did Burke’s argument that religion was a part of nature, and to act against religion was to act

against “not only our reason but our instincts.”17 Arguments like these successfully turned the

Revolution against the very Enlightenment philosophies that helped inspire it, and they were very

effective in undermining support for anything similar in Britain. Despite the initial religious

enthusiasm for the French cause, religion in the end became a source for counterrevolution in

France and England, as the seemingly anti-Christian attitude caused even the most ardent pro-

Revolutionaries in England to question its intentions.

Even as the French Revolution alienated itself religiously, it inspired countless

revolutionary philosophies on society. One very notable shift in philosophy at the time was in the

Romantic idea of the world not as a machine, as the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution had

seen it, but as a natural organism. This in itself was not a new idea, though it was just gaining

significant popularity. What was new was Edmund Burke’s application of it to society. He

explained that society and politics were a living organism, and thus called for the slow, deliberate

evolution of society, carefully finding and mending its ills, rather than the French response of

revolution. He entreated the English to “cherish the benign influence of ‘the spirit of the

gentleman’ [nobility] and ‘the spirit of religion,’ under which learning and literature had

flourished.” On the same note, he criticized “the delusive equality of the new barbarism of the

‘sophisters, economists, and calculators.’”18 For conservatives of the time, who believed in their

system largely because of its sheer duration, seeing the French abandon and destroy their ages-old

6
political regime was an unspeakable tragedy, and a grave mistake. Many, including Burke himself,

predicted the destabilization and radicalization of 1793 & 1794, as well as stabilization under

“some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses

the true spirit of command.”19 These startlingly accurate predictions showed how well Burke

understood what was going on in France, and they eventually gave significant weight to his

arguments that Revolutions defied natural patterns. Many people thought otherwise at the time,

however, and saw the French Revolution not as an aberration of nature, but as a concurrent step in

a larger struggle for liberty that had started a century earlier with the Glorious Revolution in

England, and had been continued in America just a few years prior. Indeed, many were quick to

link these events. Price passionately asserted that America’s freedom had “reflected to France, and

there kindled into a blaze that lays despotism in ashes,” and warned Parliament to “consent to the

correction of abuses, before they and you are destroyed together.”20 This danger, more than

possibly any other example, is what would soon bring about the modernization of England. As the

British watched the violence of the events in France unfold, the people may have been shied away

from Revolution, but it also made the government much more receptive to peaceful reform efforts

in the years following the Revolution. The prolific, pro-Revolutionary British writer Samuel

Coleridge reaffirmed this threat as late as 1795, stating that “the Example of France is indeed a

‘Warning to Britain.’ A nation wading to their Rights through Blood…” Here, like the people and

the government, he saw the Revolution as both a warning and a guide. While many still held the

belief that the French were pursuing noble ideals that England must follow, Coleridge was

speaking for most all of England when he pointed out that France must also be the light that “should

[show] us the dangers, that throng the road.”21 Britain had been deeply involved in the two biggest

revolutions of the last century (The Glorious Revolution in 1688 and the American Revolution in

7
1776), too deeply to see some of their more profound effects on the world and society. As a result,

witnessing the Revolution in France from afar inspired ideas for change, but more importantly,

dominant Revolutionary philosophies made the British government see that they were not immune.

This was a vital step in the modernization of England, as it forced the British government, out of

fear for a potential English Revolution, to accept reform more readily.

The French Revolution witnessed the fall of one of the purest forms of the Old Regime left

in Europe. As the British, who had welcomed more liberties of their own in 1688, watched their

cross-Channel neighbors toppled by the Third Estate, finding and fighting in a new balance of

power quickly became a national priority. As the Revolutionaries acted against the Established

Church time and again, the leading writers of Britain re-examined in depth the function of religion

in a modern society, and came to see its importance to morality and stability. And as each new

French government followed a different path to “Liberté, égalité, fraternité,” they inspired scores

of new philosophies on society, Revolution, and more, some of which were promoted, while others

had to be silenced. Even though the various aspects of the French Revolution gradually dissuaded

its supporters in England, the ideas it inspired in the areas of national power, religion and

philosophy would shape the modernization of England and the rest of the world for decades to

come.

8
 Works Cited
1. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. J. G. A. Pocock, (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing, 1987), 68.
2. F.P. Lock, Edmund Burke: Volume II, 1784-1797, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 311.
3. Hannah More, Village Politics Addressed to All the Mechanics, Journeymen and Day Labourers in Great
Britain, in Stephen Prickett, author, England and the French Revolution, (London, 1989), 99.
4. William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),
167.
5. Stephen Prickett, England and the French Revolution, (London: Macmillan Education,, 1989), 26, 44.
6. Prickett, England and the Revolution, 149, 155.
7. Clive Emsley, Britain and the Revolution, (Harlow: Longman, 2000), 12.
8. Doyle, Oxford History, 160.
9. Ibid., 200.
10. Ibid.
11. Emsley, Britain and the Revolution, 25.
12. Ibid., 37.
13. Ibid., 79.
14. Prickett, England and the Revolution, 7.
15. Doyle, Oxford History, 160.
16. Lock, Edmund Burke, 509.
17. Ibid., 303.
18. Ibid., 301.
19. Doyle, Oxford History, 168.
20. Richard Price, A Discourse on the Love of Our Country, in Prickett, England and the Revolution, 42.
21. Samuel Coleridge, A Moral and Political Lecture, in Prickett. England and the Revolution, 116.

9
Selected Bibliography
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Ed. J. G. A. Pocock. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing,
1987.
Lock, F.P. Edmund Burke: Volume II, 1784-1797. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Doyle, William. The Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Prickett, Stephen. England and the French Revolution. London: Macmillan Education, 1989.
Emsley, Clive. Britain and the French Revolution. Harlow: Longman, 2000.

10