Chartist leaders became divided over methods of getting their views heard. Most famously Lovvet and O’Connor argued whether or not to use physical violence in the pursuit of the Charter. If they had become one true voice on the charter, uniting their followers and staying away form forms of violence. Chartism would have been seen as more of a necessity to parliament as such a huge group of people demanded it. This coupled with middle class support would have led to much better chances of the charter being realised in the chartist lifetime.
As pre mentioned 5 points of the charter where accepted over time, and responsibility of this must be given to among others the middle classes.
As time moved on further from the bad memory of the violence and revolutionary’esq behaviour of some chartist group’s, MP’s became more willing to look at political reform. This climaxed in 1928 with the vote being granted to all. This proves that the people in charge of Britain are not power crazed politicians only looking after there own interests, but men who listen to the people and respond to their feelings. The simple fact is that the chartist under bad leadership and visions of grandeur, stopped Chartism from happening in there time.
As Chartism peaked, economic prosperity troughed, this by no coincidence. The bad harvest in the late 1830’s and early 1840’s caused famines across England. The lower classes felt aggrieved by the harsh hours and poor wages of the day. Coupled with the economic depression, people joined Chartism simply as the latest trend, and left it as provisions returned. There feelings still existed, as they always had done and always would, but now belly’s full and children happy, Britain once more became stable. As Norman Gash wrote in his book, Aristocracy and People “hungry bellies filled the ranks of the chartist; the return of economic prosperity after 1843 thinned them out”.
Many historians will argue that Chartism succeeded in the long term “Chartism was a success in the long term as it helped shape British politics into what it is today” (T.Chrawshaw). I disagree with this statement profoundly as Chartism was not a new and innovative initiative, created by great minds, but a general feeling amongst the working classes of resentment against the ruling elite. These feelings had been around for centuries and will be forever after. Indeed the labour party was founded on such opinion, rather than as a direct reflection of Chartism. It is true that many chartist demands where granted and this fact has often been used by historians to prop up the case for Chartism as a success. However Chartism was no longer present when these political changes occurred, indeed during its lifetime not one amendment was made to the political system, showing an almost stubborn approach of the government to grant any desire of such people. They made sure any attempt to march on parliament or display there voice was matched in every way. At the Kennington common meeting in 1848, where a petition was planned to be taken to Westminster, the government created 90,000 special constables to oppose and persuade the masses to not enter London. In reality the petition was taken without its manned escort and once again flatly rejected. (It was later found to be full of made up names ridiculing chartist ideas)
