How serious was the radical threat facing pitt in the...

How Serious Was the Radical Threat Facing Pitt In The Period 1789-1801? The French revolution broke out in 1789, and while at first Britain was pleased and welcomed the changes that the revolution brought to France (i.e. the new constitutional monarchy mirrored Britains political system in many ways.) Pitt and his government began to become worried when the revolution in France stepped up a gear and became more extreme, they obviously didnt want a repeat of the French experience in Britain. The outcome of the revolution was inevitable and in 1792 when France became a republic, it was also the start of a period of time (1793-1794) that became known as revolutionary terror. Revolutionary terror is essentially force used or implemented†¦show more content†¦Another threat to Britain was individuals such as Tom Paine ( English-American political activist, author, political theorist and revolutionary) who wrote two hugely influential pamphlets and the start of the American War of Independence (AWOI) and the development of Britains society e.g. Workin g classes stepping up, made the threat of radicalism seem very, very real. Pitt obviously wanted to stop the threat of revolution on Britain from spreading and in my opinion he did this effectively, he introduced as number of repressive laws, the main three being the Treason act, Seditious Meeting acts and the Combination acts. The Treason act was introduced in 1795 after the stoning of King George III on his way to parliament. The act made it high treason to; within the realm or without compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint, of the person of ... the King. This act was taken from the 1661 Sedition act which had expired and was meant to expire upon the death of George III but was made a permanent act by the Treasons act of 1817. The Seditious Meeting act was also introduced in 1795. Its purpose was to restrict the size of public meetings to fifty persons. It also required a magistrates license for lecturing and debating halls where admission was charged and