Compare and contrast the Chartist and Anti -Corn Law League movements. Explain and illustrate Peel's reactions to these organisations.

Authors Avatar

HISTORY ESSAY

Compare and contrast the Chartist and Anti -Corn Law League movements. Explain and illustrate Peel’s reactions to these organisations.

The Anti Corn Law League had one clearly defined objective, to repeal the Corn Laws. They were founded in 1839, after the formation of the Anti-Corn Law Association in 1836, and the defeat of an anti-Corn Law motion in Parliament in 1839. They had strong, logical arguments as to why the Corn Laws had to be repealed. As a man of reason, Peel would have accepted some of the arguments. It has been alleged, in fact, that even without the Anti-Corn Law League, the Corn Laws may have been repealed anyway. One of their strongest arguments why the Corn Laws needed to be repealed was that a policy of free trade or laissez-faire was better for the economy. They said that in an open market, prices would fall, and this would be in the interests of the consumer. Peel’s support for a free trade economy was demonstrated in his budgets of 1842 and 1845. The Anti-Corn Law League (ACLL) also argued that by repealing the Corn Laws, the artificially high price of corn would fall to it’s natural level. This would be beneficial for the whole of society. This argument would have struck a chord with Peel, because he felt that his duty as Prime Minister was too all the people and not just the wealthy landowners. The ACLL said that by reducing the price of corn, bread prices would also fall. Bread was the staple food of the nineteenth century diet for many people, and so this would be in the interests of the workers. As they would have more disposable income, they would be more inclined to buy manufactures, and this would stimulate trade. This in turn would increase the number of jobs, and therefore wages would also increase. At the same time, the ACLL also said that employers would be able to reduce their wages, as bread would cost less. This would benefit industry because profits, and thus investment would increase. This too would act as a stimulus for trade. The ACLL said that both of these things could happen because the trade stimulation would stop the wages falling too low. Furthermore, repealing the Corn Laws would also benefit Britain’s export market, as other countries would in turn reduce tariffs on British imports. They said that this would lead to a reign of peace between nations, and bring Europe closer together. This would have been attractive to Peel, as better European relations would have reduced the chance of any unnecessary and costly war.

  The Chartists wanted a more widespread parliamentary reform. This is different to the ACLL, who were focused on one issue. They wanted the introduction of The Charter. This was a list of six points, which included, universal suffrage, no property qualifications for MPs, constituencies of equal size, annual Parliaments, secret ballots and the payment of MPs. It could thus be said that they wanted a more fundamental change. Peel would have been sceptical of this because he wanted to preserve the settled institutions, and by extending the suffrage to everyone, he would be putting them at risk. This was because some of the working class would favour the disestablishment of the Church of England, and a redistribution of the land. Like the ACLL, who came into existence to repeal or destroy the Corn Laws, Chartist activity was stimulated by the exclusion of the working classes by the Reform Act of 1832. The necessity of Parliamentary reform came from, according to the Chartists, the economic hardships of this period, which resulted in widespread social deprivation. The Chartists thought that solutions to symptoms were not good enough. In order to get to the roots of the problem, the cause has to be dealt with. They argued that the cause of such deprivation was because the working classed had no political representation. Peel’s reactions to this are somewhat unclear. He thought that it was the job of the landed aristocrats to govern the country. However, this would have to be done in the interests of all of the people. Therefore, he would have been opposed to the Charter. At the same time, Peel also recognised that the solution to these problems lay not in curing the symptoms, but in curing the causes. His opposition to Irish coercion demonstrated this. Moreover, the Chartists also protested that economic prosperity for the working classed could be achieved, until political representation was ensured. Thus it would be fair to say that the ACLL were more direct and focussed on their one issue, whereas the Chartists wanted a more fundamental change.

Join now!

  The type of reform, and the effects that they would have, would have some bearing upon the strength of each of the groups. One of the Anti-Corn Law Leagues biggest strengths was that it had considerable middle class support, particularly from northern manufacturers. This would have been significant to Peel, because as laid out in the Tamworth Manifesto, he would have been keen to bring the middle classes into the system, where they would defend it, rather than outside attacking it. Therefore, it would be fair to say that strong middle class support group would have some degree of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay