Since Chartism was such a large organisation it was bound to create differing views. During the 1840's two completely different attitudes emerged. On the one hand Chartism brought about those who thought that the only way to achieve their aims was through non-violent peaceful protests. They believed in educating the working classes and making closer links with moderate elements of the middle classes (for example the pressure group the Anti-Corn Law league). The leaders of this 'Moral force' Chartism were William Lovett and Francis Place.
On the other hand 'Physical force' Chartists emerged who believed that the only way to change the existing political system was to use violence as all other attempts of protest had failed. 'Physical force' Chartists were especially prominent in the Newport rising of 1839.
Feargus O' Connor can be said to have introduced a third aspect of Chartism. He used the threat of violence but still remained within the law during his political career. Through his powerful platform speeches and the messages he gave in his Northern Star newspaper, he managed to convince a number of Chartists to follow his lead.
The clashes between the key figures of Lovett and O'Connor prove the divisions and the exposed contradictions, which lead to the defeat of the Chartist movement.
Regional differences strongly contributed to the downfall of the Chartist movement as it was not united enough to have the power to successfully influence the government. Chartism was strongest in the North and weakest in the South. It tended to act in isolation and therefore it was difficult to co-ordinate a national strategy to undermine the government. Chartism was interpreted in different ways in different places in the country. The North favoured physical force whilst Birmingham had close links to 'moral force' Chartism and the Anti-Corn Law league. Scotland also had its own views about Chartism and the message was spread through the idea of 'Christian Chartism'.
Possibly the strongest reason why Chartism failed was due to the strength of Peel's government. The passage of the Rural Police Act in 1839 ensured that a nationwide police force was able to monitor and deal with any outbreak of discontent. This improved the already stable political system as both the Army and the Police were loyal to the Government. A new railway network helped control troublemakers by transporting them abroad if necessary. It was also used to transport troops if they meet any threat and was used for telegraph communication so the authorities could be warned of any danger in advance.
The majority of the middle classes refused to support Chartism. This was due to the fact that they had their own organisation, the Anti-Corn Law league, which campaigned an issue far closer to their hearts than anything Chartism could promote. In addition, the middle classes were content with the gains they made in 1832 and were not prepared to lose their property by supporting a working class movement.
The working classes followed the Chartist movement due to social and economic factors as well as political. It can be said therefore that the success of Peel's reforms such as the Mines Act of 1842 and Repeal of the Corn Law in 1846 helped the government greatly to settle the working classes unrest. A mid-Victorian boom lead to rising wages and increased food consumption. As the people were relaxed and happy they had more faith in the government and economy and therefore their support for the Chartists declined.
In the short term these points would suggest that Chartism achieved very little. Yet is this a fair evaluation of such a complex movement? Perhaps it is fairer to say that in the long term Chartism did achieve a great deal as all but one of the six points in the Charter had been put into effect by 1918. The lessons learnt from the Chartist struggle were to be of vital importance when the question of the extension of franchise appeared again in 1867 and 1884. Rather than to dismiss the movement, E. Hopkins, in A Social History of the English Working Classes, 1815-1945 (1979) claims that the Chartist movement represented "the most striking and wide spread working class movement for political reform in the 19th century".
