Post-Chartist Radicalism and the (Un)making of Popular Liberalism

Abstract

The transition from the confrontational and independent radical politics of Chartism to the relatively harmonious, compromising cross-class politics of Gladstonian Liberalism has given rise to an extensive and often confusing historical debate. Much of that confusion stems from a failure to define the terms of the debate satisfactorily. This definitional imprecision has its origins in the period itself. Ambiguity surrounds the shifting nomenclature of the popular movements and their members — Chartists, radicals, Liberals, reformers. Even more difficult to pinpoint are the boundaries between these groupings. Were Chartists merely radicals by another name, as Feargus O’Connor believed? Or was Chartism an aberration of radicalism, a view that was propagated by former disillusioned Chartists such as R. G. Gammage? At what point did ‘moral force’ Chartists become Liberals? What was the relationship between the popular radicals and the group of parliamentary radicals known as the ‘reform party’ in the House of Commons? There are also ambiguities surrounding chronology. When, why and to what extent did radicalism decline after 1848? Was the rise of popular Liberalism based on the incorporation of radicalism, or did the Liberal party merely fill the gap after the collapse of Chartism?