Embedded Files
Volume 3 | Issue 4 - Landmarks
Article by Tom Moult. Edited by Emma Carmichael.
Thus read the striking bold letters on the posters that hailed the grand Chartist demonstration at Kennington Common on the 10th April 1848. The year 1848 holds a place as one of the foremost landmark years in recent history. It was the great year of revolutionary fervour across Europe; a year that saw monarchies fall amidst the might of popular unrest, and a year that holds significance in British history as perhaps the last major gasp of the largest and most important popular protest movement of the nineteenth century – Chartism.
The movement for The People’s Charter revolved around the campaign for the extension of the suffrage franchise to all adult men. The 1832 Reform Bill had extended the right to vote to the middle-classes but the £10 property qualification naturally excluded the vast majority of the British working-class population; those who fired the industry and the mills of the nation. The Chartist movement itself appeared against a backdrop of social grievances, both long and short term, and an immense amount of historiographical discussion centres on why popular social issues were channelled into a set of political demands.
Chartism dominated political affairs from the late 1830’s when it became a mass protest movement which galvanised thousands of working men and women into open defiance, demonstration and even armed uprising. In the early 1840’s however, Chartism went into somewhat of a decline until the result of a number of factors caused a revival of the movement in 1847, reaching a peak again in 1848 at the meeting on Kennington Common in London. The election of Feargus O’Connor, probably the most popular Chartist leader, as Member for Nottingham in 1847, coupled with the rise of Irish militancy following the deaths of half a million people as the result of famine prompted a degree of discussion between Irish confederates and the Chartists. The economic downturn of 1847 also provided the spark of agitation and in February 1848 Louis Philippe was overthrown in Paris, stimulating further aspirations for political change in Britain.
The background of Chartism up to 1848 reveals the struggles of a profoundly popular protest movement spearheaded by charismatic and driven leaders. Chartist rhetoric invoked the traditional act of petitioning parliament to achieve political change and the meeting at Kennington Common was to serve the Chartist purpose of submitting their third and final petition to Parliament. It was the largest Chartist petition yet, submitted by a crowd of thousands of Chartists at a time of revolution in Europe. Chartism in 1848, however, was not the Chartism of the late 1830s and early 1840s when the movement commanded significant support. By 1848, the social grievances that fired the early movement were no longer present in enough force to sustain a mass movement on the previous scale. In some ways, the Chartist dialogue of an autocratic and conservative state had also been discredited in 1846 with the repeal of the Corn Laws, thus demonstrating that the state was capable and willing to reform. Factory reforms in 1844 and 1847 also further discredited the cause, particularly as the movement for factory reform had been one of the proponents that led to Chartism itself. The divisions within the Chartist movement were also beginning to be felt as the movement’s most influential leader Feargus O’Connor continually quarrelled with the other leaders. Other leaders became involved in ‘temperance Chartism’, and various other forms such as ‘Christian’ and ‘Knowledge’ Chartism all of which detracted from the original aim of the movement. O’Connor has provoked considerable re-examination from recent historians, most notably from Dorothy Thompson and James Epstein, who have sought to replace the view of O’Connor with a more positive assessment of his contribution to the Chartist cause. O’Connor was the Irish aristocrat who was fundamental to Chartism and naturally remains at the centre of the debate; did he effectively usurp the early Chartist movement from the radical artisan circles of London where the Charter was drafted, whipping up the angry working masses of the north into violence? Or was he the man who sacrificed most of his life of privilege to campaign for the rights of the working man, considerably funding the cause from out of his own pocket?
Nevertheless, this was the state of Chartism by 1848. The power of state repression was taking its effect on the movement’s ability to organise and the unity of the propertied classes contrasted sharply with the apparent divisions within the Chartist leadership. Yet, the movement still retained the momentum to provoke hopes of political change, despite the failure of two previous petitions.
Banners bearing popular and traditional Chartist slogans characterised the crowds gathered at Kennington Common on the day of the 10th of April. Hustings with Chartist orators were dominated by political speeches and the upcoming submission of the petition and musical bands relayed well-known Chartist tunes. Such was the setting of the Chartist meeting which no doubt invoked the cultural emotions of those which had dominated the early Chartist scene of torch-lit processions on the moorlands and hills of the north of England.
The government response during the prelude and on the day of the meeting was understandable, given events in Europe and the possibility of spontaneous uprising at home in addition to the number of Chartists present in the capital. Whig repression, however, has been cited as one of the elements that caused Chartism to fail. As many as 85,000 ‘specials’ were sworn in to patrol the streets and protect key areas of the capital in case the Chartists became violent. The Queen was evacuated to the Isle of Wight for her own safety, the military was deployed under the Duke of Wellington and the fortification of key buildings was reinforced by ordnance from Woolwich. The unity of the political elite always put the Chartists at a disadvantage, especially given the divisions within Chartism’s own leadership. The extent the state was willing to use repression against the Chartists and the ability to put them under surveillance with increasing ease through the expanding railway and telegraph networks, ensured that on the day of Kennington Common the Chartists were faced with an overwhelming display of force.
The government banned the procession from marching across the Thames into Westminster and the military was to intervene if an attempt at progression was made. The huge number of state forces served a dual role as both an exhibition of military might to the Chartist force and the means to stamp out any outbreaks of violence. Nevertheless, the Chartist procession moved peacefully toward Parliament where it was ordered to halt and the petition was taken in a number of carriages into Parliament by O’Connor and the other Chartist leaders. Had the Chartists disobeyed the ban then no doubt a violent confrontation would have ensued. The day had been a peaceful demonstration on behalf of the Chartists, wanting only to submit their petition and the immense military presence had proved unnecessary.
Defining the exact number of supporters who were present was, and remains, a difficult task. O’Connor stated that as many as 300,000 people were present but perhaps unsurprisingly historians consider the number much exaggerated. The petition itself contained as many as six million signatures according to O’Connor, though some clearly were of dubious origin. Names such as ‘Queen Victoria’ appeared which perhaps represent attempts by the signatories to remain anonymous from their employers whilst at the same time to ‘pull one’ on the authorities. The authorities later claimed that less than two million names were on the petition.
The established view until the 1970s and 1980s was that Feargus O’Connor had ultimately discredited Chartism. Historians James Epstein and Dorothy Thompson were foremost in re-examining the contribution of O’Connor to the movement, instead urging recognition of the sacrifices and efforts he made to the cause itself. O’Connor rightly deserves commendation in not encouraging the Chartists to attempt to cross into Westminster, where no doubt the state would have employed outright force against them. Despite the ambivalent tension of 1848, the Chartist motto ‘peace and order’ prevailed in the face of provocative numbers of ‘specials’ and soldiers, even when the petition was taken in by O’Connor to face its ultimate rejection.
The 10th April, 1848 was by no means the end of Chartism, though it may perhaps be interpreted as the last great demonstration of a movement that had galvanised support from huge numbers of people. Unrest continued at Bradford in May, and Manchester and Glasgow saw riots and arming. The movement itself continued into the 1850s, albeit as very much a spent force which never again commanded the sheer amount of popular support that had dominated the earlier years of the movement. In 1848, the vibrations reverberating across Europe combined with the convulsions of Chartism at home provided the setting for a demonstration that profoundly threatened the status-quo in Britain. Though the day proved peaceful, the state was prepared for a scenario in which possible riot or even attempted revolution might have occurred. For this reason and for the history of Chartism and labour movements in general, not least the history of early Victorian Britain itself, the presentation of the third and final Chartist petition rightly deserves the attribute of a ‘landmark’ event in British history.
Report abuse