Chartism as the Failure of the Great Reform Act': Argumentative Essay

Did the rise of Chartism mark the failure of the Great Reform Act?

It cannot be disputed that the increased nature and prevalence of the Chartism movement in the 19th century was down to the failure of the Great Reform Act in 1832. It was expected that the Act would erase government corruption by creating a fairer electoral process, alongside providing a remedy for social injustices which ultimately failed. Therefore, with the emergence of the Chartism in the 1830s, an immediate correlation indicates that the injustices from the Act became the source of motivation for the activists, as explicitly evidenced in their First National Petition of 1839 where they state that the people were bitterly deceived by the Great Reform Act.

With Chartisms main aim being to advocate for better social and industrial conditions for the working class especially, it is important to delve into these aims by exploring key themes such as the political approach of the movement and its legacy. Therefore, with these themes in mind, it can be evidenced where Chartist actions correspond directly to the failures of the predeceasing Great Reform Act of 1832 and thus marking its overall failure.

Politically, the initial aims of the Great Reform Act involved establishing a fairer electoral process and capturing a wider range of voters. Pre-1832, glaring inequalities were seen between rural counties and wider industrialised cities such as Manchester in terms of the electoral process, with rural smaller boroughs being controlled by the nobility and maintaining more seats, and bigger cities being widely under-represented. Some temporary success can be credited to the Act redistributing seats and increasing the electorate by 200,000.

This was simply a limited change and therefore, became the catalyst for the rise in Chartism. The political link between the Great Reform Act and Chartism is witnessed because of the movements focus on highlighting the failures of the Act. This is seen specifically in the first National Petition of 1839 where it explicitly mentions the failed legislation, stating that people have been bitterly and basely deceived. This statement regards the political failures of the Act, such as the property qualification that meant the majority of working men still could not vote unless they owned property. Alongside the formal exclusion of women within the electoral process, the Great Reform Act did not issue reform at all, but rather a temporary solution to the outcry from those wanting change. Thus, with the Chartist movement gathering a wide amount of support and 1.2 million signatures towards the first National Petition in 1839, it is clear that support for Chartism demonstrates the failure of the Act in bringing the political change promised. Another key analysis of the National Petition is the time in which it was written. With it being published 6 years after the Great Reform Act, it is clear that the Act was a cause of contention and failure due to it being explicitly blamed for the lack of reform years on and not a knee jerk reaction to the events.

The Peoples Charter of 1838 again clearly indicates that the Reform Act failed in its aims. With the objective of giving all working men the vote and the want for secret ballots, it evidences the point that the Great Reform Act could clearly have not brought about the fair electoral distribution that it promised.

A clear argument can also be seen based on the time that the Chartist movement took full effect. With Chartism being credited to have increased in popularity since 1838 onwards, it can be argued that the movement was not a direct protest to the Act or an instant reaction, but rather a deep-rooted issue based on the difference between the introduction of the Act in 1832 and the rise in Chartism later in the decade. Alongside the long-lasting effects of the Act, there were also more immediate consequences. For instance, the introduction of the Poor Law Amendment in 1834 provoked a further rise in Chartism that was born out of the failed actions of the 1832 Act. The Amendment deprived people of outdoor relief, drove the lower class into workhouses and separated families.

This created a further divide in society and demonstrated that there was still a dramatic class divide, something the Act of 1832 was supposed to decrease. This in turn strengthened the Chartism movement.

Intertwined with the political grievances of the Great Reform Act, it could be argued that the public reaction towards the Great Reform Act fuelled the Chartist agenda further. The Act created controversy amongst society, including churches and chapels as reform was considered a Holy necessity to bring equality to all classes and genders. Therefore, the failure of the Act created a level of crisis in both society and religion too. Often underplayed in history, riots took place that had severe consequences such as the burning of Nottingham Castle and Bishops Palace in Bristol. These radical actions were created by a lack of cohesion and failure to create reform. Philip Salmon provides the argument that Pocket Boroughs continued, and corruption was still rife throughout constituencies, all resulting in an eventual decrease in electorate instead of an increase. He also states there was little difference in political conditions post 1832 and the state of the 1820s.

This information is vital in understanding the increase in radical and extreme reactions to the failed reform and thus provides a clear understanding why a progressive and potentially radical movement like Chartism began to thrive. It was a movement that wanted the change that the people were once promised but ultimately left deceived.

Interestingly, historians John A. Philips and Charles Wetherell suggested that the Reform Act has been downplayed in history and was critical in creating progression in politics in the 19th century.

However this view is littered with contradictions. Slight progress was made in removing seats from rotten boroughs and reprised the want for parliamentary reform that dramatically decreased after the French Revolution.

However, despite these initial successes, the consequences of the Reform Act outweigh any progression made and therefore cannot be credited with being critical as Philips and Wetherell suggest. For example, the historian, Norman Gash stressed that government was still corrupt after the Act and if compared to later Reform Acts such as the work under Benjamin Disraeli between 1866 and 1888, a clear comparison can be seen between unsuccessful and successful reform. He stated that it would be wrong to assume that the political scene in the succeeding generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one and issues the idea that the Second Reform Act of 1867 was the first sign of modern democracy. This is further seen with the need for further reform in the electoral system in 1852, which could be linked to the Chartists and their widespread support for electoral equality. With this in mind, Gash highlighting the failures of the Reform Act evidence the argument that the subsequent birth of Chartism can be linked to the failure of the Act based on its want for social and political reform that was absent immediately after the Act was passed.

The exploration of the Chartists and their symbolisation of the failure of the Great Reform was further demonstrated in the media of the time. For example, the discontent with the Great Reform Act was seen through newspapers. A new perspective was seen in Chartist newspapers such as the Northern Star which issued the want for electoral equality across classes and genders, something that the Reform Act failed in. This newspaper in particular was credited as being the first truly National newspaper in Britain due to its weekly 50,000 issued copies of the time, surpassing papers such as The Times. This reiterates the popularity of Chartism and thus the shared feeling against the Great Reform Act.

Further evidence of media dissatisfaction that stemmed from the Great Reform Act was seen in the Poor Mans Guardian which issued news on male suffrage and specifically condemned the Act which issues the correlation between the spread of Chartism and the failure of the Act.

This new form of media expression demonstrated the feelings towards the Act from female Chartists too, emphasising the Acts failure in exempting women from the vote as it expanded the Chartist movement further.

The legacy of Chartism can also be used to understand the origins of the movement and demonstrate the failures of the Great Reform Act. For example, the permanent effect Chartism had on politics and society, demonstrates how important the rise in the movement was in rendering the failed consequences of the Great Reform Act and attempting to carry out what the Act was intended to do. This is seen in the following decades where further reform took place, such as the Reform Act of 1867.

Therefore, with the continued legacy of Chartism, it becomes clear that the movements aims carried on throughout the 19th and 20th century, issuing the explanation that the need to correct the grievances left by the Great Reform Act were indeed important and permanent in nature.

To conclude, the rise in Chartism explicitly highlights the failures of the Great Reform Act. The Act of 1832 never deserved the title of Great and the explored themes evidence this. Although credit can be given to slight success in granting fairer representation such as creating a further 200,000 voters and broadening the property qualifications to be electorally represented, these successes are greatly overshadowed by the rise in Chartism due to the failures of the Great Reform Act. Politically, Chartism condemned the Reform Act repeatedly, as seen in the first National Petition, and thus with such a wide amount of support, it is clear that the Act did indeed fail its people in bringing political and social change. The Act became a catalyst for a decade of further needed reform which the Chartists laid the foundations for. It can also be argued that the social climate of the 1830s demonstrates the failure of the reform, with rioting and public outcry, it could be understandable that a movement based on change and justice proved popular for that time and thus provoked the increasing progression of Chartism. Therefore, in itself, the fact that Chartism was born to begin with, is the clearest indicator that representation was not achieved and therefore the multiple Reform Acts that spanned the rest of the century can only suggest that the bill that was supposed to improve legislation and widen opportunity, failed completely. Overall, giving us the orthodox interpretation of the Great Reform Act that we are familiar with today.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

The Poor Law Amendment Act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_Amendment_Act_1834#cite_note-3 ,(1834)
T. Attwood, First Chartist Petition, http://www.chartistancestors.co.uk/first-chartist-petition-1839/ (1839)
Secondary Sources
B.Breton. Violence and the Radical Imagination, Victorian Periodicals Review, (2011)
M.Chase, Chartism: A New History, Manchester University Press, (2007)
N.Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel, W.W Norton and Company, Reprint edition (2012)
E.Griffin, The making of the Chartists: popular politics and working-class autobiography in early Victorian Britain, English Historical Review, (2014)
M.McKisack, Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle Ages, (1932)
J. Phillips; C.Wetherell, The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England, The American Historical Review, (1995)
Robert Saunders, God and the Great Reform Act: Preaching Against Reform, 1831-32, Journal of British Studies, (2014)
R. Saunders, Malcolm Chase, Chartism: A New History, Manchester University Press, review, https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/699 (2007)