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 influence. Furthermore, linked to the strong middle class support, was the sound financial backdrop that the group enjoyed. This was because the industrialists saw investment in the ACLL as a good business investment, as they hoped when it was successful, it would stimulate trade. In 1844, the ACLL had some £100 000 at it’s disposal. This sort of finance would enable the ACLL to a run a professional and organised campaign, which would enhance the chances of success. The ACLL also hade two slightly slyer advantages. Their campaign had the appearance of a crusade for social justice. This wasn’t really their main objective – it was a useful propaganda tool, and would be of some use in rallying working class support. Secondly, they also had the ability to pass of the campaign as some sort of religious crusade. They used quotes from the Bible, which said that denying a man corn was sinful etc. The simple fact that the ACLL were a single-issue pressure group provided some degree of clarity, which was an advantage in rallying support and influencing government.
Similarly to the ACLL, the Chartists also enjoyed huge public support. This public support was also widespread, coming from all around the country. The obvious evidence of this, is the ‘People’s Charter,’ which when presented to Parliament on 12th July 1839, had 1 280 000 signatures, and a later petition which had even more, at around three million. The sheer strength of the grass-root level support was one of the Chartists strongest assets. This would have some bearing upon Peel, because he felt he had to do what was in the interests of his Queen and country. Ignoring the strong support could provoke a revolution, and Peel would want to avoid this at all costs.
It would be accurate to say that the utilisation of these strengths, and thus the chance of success, would be dependent on the leadership of the two movements. The two key leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League were John Bright and Richard Cobden. Neither was particularly old, with Bright 30 when the Conservatives returned to office in 1841 and Cobden 37. John Bright was an extremely effective public speaker, and this made him an extremely important asset to the ACLL. Cobden was the fonder of the ACLL, and his election to the House of Commons in 1841 was also another advantage. Peel recognised the influence of the League in Parliament. After hearing Cobden’s speech in March 1845, putting forward the case for repeal, Peel conceded the logic of the case against the Corn Laws.
The two key leaders of the Chartist movement were William Lovett and Feargus O’Connor. Lovett and O’Connor did not see eye to eye on the methods that they thought the Chartists should use. Lovett preferred radical and non-violent methods, and emphasised the importance of education, whilst O’Connor believed in a more forceful approach. The two also disagreed about the involvement of the middle classes. Whilst Lovett thought it was essential, O’Connor was firmly opposed. Such divisions at such an important level could only have a negative influence on the movement and it’s eventual direction.
In the same way as the leadership, and the strengths of the two groups are linked, so are the methods they employ. The situation and the style of leadership will inevitably affect the way in which the groups carry out their campaigns. One of the methods that the Anti-Corn Law League used to some extent was a vigorous propaganda campaign. They created pamphlets and newspapers, and courted the press. The Anti-Corn Law Circular and The Economist were invaluable in spreading he message of the ACLL. The league also won the support of sections of the London press. The ACLL also held meetings and rallies. These were good in demonstrating the degree of support, raising morale and acting as an agenda forum. One of the most significant aspects of the ACLL was that they were a largely peaceful group. Illegal practices never became policy, and the leadership were constantly reinforcing the importance of legality. The last significant aspect of the ACLL’s tactics was the actions aimed at directly influencing Parliament. In 1841, Cobden stressed the importance of leaders of the league standing for election. They thought an important way in repealing the Corn Laws would be by winning a majority, or some influence, in the legislature. The ACLL was also keen to make sure that any supporters were registered to vote, and that as much opposition as possible, was disqualified from voting. Peel would have been pleased that the ACLL was not resorting to violent or disruptive methods. He also would have had to consider the issue, because he could not dismiss it as a mere issue of law and order.
The Chartists used some similar methods to the Anti-Corn Law League. They too produced successful publications, such as the Poor Man’s Guardian, which attracted a readership of over 16 000. These publications were so influential that the Whig government tried to close down all radical journals. It hoped to do this by imposing a stamp duty on such publications, thus making them unaffordable to the working class. This did not, however, prove to be very fruitful, and so the government conceded defeat, and made all newspaper affordable. This enabled paper like the Northern Star to prosper. Peel would have been against radical newspapers and magazines stirring up unnecessary agitation amongst the masses. However, unlike the ACLL, the Chartists did use more forceful methods. The epitome of this would be the Newport uprising of 1839. Here, in frenzied battle, some 24 Chartists were killed, and another 21 were committed for high treason. The Chartists also engaged in riots, such as the one at the Bull Ring in Birmingham. In Peel’s view this would have been an issue of law and order, and not a political question. People were entitled to their say, but if they crossed the line of acceptable conduct, the full force of the law would deal them with. Peel was also against the government being lead by illegal acts of the rabble, and felt that the government should not be held at ransom by anyone.
Like the methods they employ, the organisation of the two groups would inevitably have some bearing on their success. The Anti-Corn Law League were united and were effectively run by Joseph Hicken and J.B. Smith. A council and number of committees ran it. The national organisation was divided into twelve districts, each run by a league agent. This structured organisation would maximise efficiency and run a professional campaign. Peel would have been more likely to concede to respectable, structured middle class organisation. The Chartists were, however, less united and organisations. There were a number of divisions within the movement, even at leadership level. Furthermore, the National Convention held in London in February 1839 broke down because of internal divisions over tactics, and the way forward. Peel would be less likely to give in to a dysfunctional group, that wasn’t united or respectable.
This fault of the Chartist movement leads on to the next and last comparison, the weaknesses of the two movements. The Anti-Corn Law League were largely a successful pressure group, which many later groups modelled themselves on. One of their faults was the support of radicals. Instead of being committed to the cause of repeal of the Corn Laws, they were more intent on creating a class war. This would have damaged the respectability of movement. The Chartists had more weaknesses. They, unlike the ACLL, were not particularly united. Their divisions, as mentioned before, ran though the movement. Furthermore, their membership largely comprised of the working class. This was less respectable, and there was a greater tendency on Peel’s part to dismiss them as being worked by temporary causes and agitation. Moreover, the Chartists did not enjoy good relations with the middle classes. Lastly, one of the major differences between the two movements was that whereas the ACLL were a moderate, single party group, the Chartists wanted a more fundamental change that Britain had not seen since the seventeenth century. Peel was unlikely to give in to such fundamental change, which would inevitably threaten the settled institutions.
In conclusion, the Anti Corn Law League was successful in achieving its aim, but the Chartists were not. This was because the Anti-Corn Law League was a highly effective and organised movement. It was largely united in its aim, and had strong leadership, which created real influence amongst Parliament. The Chartists were not as well organised and their leadership was not as effective. The ACLL had a large membership mainly made up middle classes, and from the Tamworth Manifesto, it is known that Peel was keen on winning middle class support for the existing system. The Chartists had a membership made up of working class people. Peel was less conceding towards them, and although he recognised his duty as Prime Minister extended to all people, he was sure that it was the job of the aristocrats to govern. The rational arguments of the ACLL were well received by Peel, who accepted the underlying policy of free trade. Peel did not however, see the need for fundamental, and potentially damaging change, to the finest system in existence in the world, and so whilst the Corn Laws were repealed, the Charter was not adopted.
