Chartism: Government Opposition's Impact
TITLE
How far was Chartism’s failure caused by opposition from government?
ESSAY
Introduction:
Chartism was a significant movement in 19th-century Britain that sought to bring about political reform to address the social and economic grievances of the working class. While there were a number of factors contributing to the failure of Chartism, one key aspect that has been debated is the extent to which government opposition played a role. This essay will consider the various forms of government opposition faced by the Chartists and assess its impact on the movement's ultimate failure.
Government Opposition:
One major form of government opposition to Chartism was evident in the consistent rejection of the National Petitions presented by the Chartists to the House of Commons. The rejections in 1839, 1842, and 1848 demonstrated the lack of political will within the government to entertain further reform demands. This parliamentary resistance hindered the Chartists' ability to achieve their goals through conventional political channels.
Moreover, the government deployed coercive measures to suppress Chartist activities. The utilization of the railways to swiftly transport troops to quell disturbances, as witnessed in Newport, served as a powerful deterrent to potential uprisings. Additionally, the collaboration of local magistrates with the government's anti-Chartist stance led to the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of Chartists in 1839. The establishment of urban police forces post-1839 further marginalized the movement by restricting its ability to mobilize effectively.
Government Strategy and Other Factors:
While government opposition played a significant role in impeding Chartism, other factors also contributed to its failure. The government's implementation of reform measures, such as new factory regulations and the repeal of the Corn Laws, aimed at alleviating social and economic grievances among the working class, thereby diminishing popular support for the Chartist cause.
Furthermore, internal divisions and strategic mistakes within the Chartist movement weakened its effectiveness. Disagreements among Chartist leaders over the adoption of 'moral force' versus 'physical force' tactics created rifts within the movement and limited its cohesive action. The failure to present a more flexible petition that allowed for negotiation also hampered the Chartists' ability to engage in productive dialogue with the government.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while government opposition undoubtedly posed formidable challenges to Chartism's aspirations for political reform, it is evident that a combination of factors, including internal divisions and strategic missteps, contributed to the movement's ultimate failure. The complex interplay of government repression, social reforms, and internal dynamics highlights the multidimensional nature of Chartism's demise. While government opposition was a significant obstacle, it was not the sole factor responsible for the failure of the movement.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
AS LEVEL
NOTES
How far was Chartism’s failure caused by opposition from government?
Indicative content:
Both main political parties were opposed to further political reform. In 1839, the House of Commons rejected a National Petition, 235 votes to 46, a second petition, in 1842, 287 votes 40 and in 1848, refused the presentation of a third petition.
The government had powerful weapons at its disposal which thwarted Chartism’s aims. The railways were used to transport troops speedily to anywhere there were disturbances (e.g. Newport). Almost all local magistrates supported the government’s opposition, and in 1839 534 Chartists were sent to prison. After 1839 the newly emerging urban police forces were a further weapon to be used against the Chartists.
The government employed less confrontational tactics, nonetheless still effective, to deprive Chartism of mass support. New factory reforms were enacted, trade revived and a factor behind the repeal of the Corn Laws was Peel’s belief it would give working people cheaper bread, removing a major source of resentment informing Chartism.
The view can be challenged. The Chartists made significant mistakes. For example, a petition with six points did not leave much room for compromise if it was rejected. There was division, also, amongst the leadership over how best to proceed to achieve political change to better the living and working conditions of working people. Some favoured ‘moral force’ – the power of argument and persuasion – others believed in ‘physical force’ – reason had failed, so violence was needed to bring about change. The 1832 Reform Act had reduced the likelihood of an alliance between the middle and lower classes. In 1848 when a Chartist convention was held in London the middle classes rallied in great numbers to the call to defend the capital. Accept any other valid responses.