Aspects of Chartism: The Final Phase 1

R.G. Gammage may have been a little premature when travelling around the country in the 1850s lecturing on the movement’s failure. Chartism persisted for a further decade, displaying vigour in some areas like Halifax but it had effectively ceased to be a mass movement. In 1852, Marx observed that the Chartists were[1] “…so completely disorganised and scattered, and at the same time so short of useful people, that they must either fall completely to pieces and degenerate into cliques....or they must be reconstituted.”

Nevertheless, its journals still flourished and Ernest Jones[2] and his Charter Socialism achieved some support, especially in London among craftsmen resentful at the growing influence of trade unionism. Chartists continued to be active in local politics but by 1860, organised Chartism was dead. The last convention gathered in 1858 and two years later the NCA was formally wound up. This view of Chartism in the 1850s is reflected in the writings of historians. For J. T. Ward it was a ‘finale’[3], for A. R. Schoyen, a ‘retreat’[4] and for David Jones the ‘last days’[5]. This material considers three questions. In what ways was the radicalism of the 1850s a continuation of the 1840s? What happened to Chartism in the late 1840s and 1850s? Why did it fail to achieve its objectives?

Why did Chartism decline?

Historians are broadly in agreement that the Chartists did not threaten the authorities after 1848 though the events of that year represented a greater challenge than use to be thought and that some king of organisation was maintained for another decade. However, the fact of sharp overall decline in uncontested. Why this decline occurred is a subject of considerable debate. Eric Evans[6] identifies six arguments that have received particular attention among historians.

Argument

Counter-argument

1
The end of the severe economic depressions that had brought the masses out on to the streets
Certainly severe depressions such as those experienced in 1839 and 1842 did disappear. However, it is difficult to prove that living standards among working people as a whole increased significantly until the 1870s and 1880s

2
Governments wee more conscious of the ‘social question’ than before and there was a ‘softening of the state’ with the passage of legislation designed to reduce social tension and class hostility. The state became increasingly self-confident during a period of economic boom and this helped to further fragment Chartism
The amount of legislation designed to improve conditions was limited and the legislation often had little practical effect until the 1860s and especially the 1870s. The new Poor Law remained a symbol of degradation and disgrace that humiliated those who needed to use it. State confidence was easily over-exaggerated, as the great soul-searching that took place over Britain’s early failures in the Crimean War (1853-56) showed

3
O’Connor’s credibility was shattered by his climb-down in 1848 and this led to further disputes among Chartist leaders

O’Connor’s powers may have been in decline but there were other leaders, especially Ernest James and Bronterre O’Brien who remained vigorous and committed. They also had a clear agenda.

4
Chartism had failed in each of its three phases despite considerable effort by working people. After these reverses, there was no stomach for further mass agitation or revolutionary preparation
Some Chartists, such as the supporters of O’Brien remained committed to the cause and were as revolutionary in their attitudes as any people in the 1830s and 1840s. They joined socialist and extreme radical groups in Europe with the aim of creating a genuinely proletarian international revolution

5
Economically depressed skilled workers, especially hand-loom weavers had always been at the centre of the Chartist agitation. As their numbers declines, with them went the motive force of Chartism
The importance of one working group should not be over-exaggerated as has the speed of its decline. Other skilled workers remained and could have revived Chartism as a mass threat is other conditions had been right

6
Chartism was betrayed by the ‘aristocracy of labour’. Those who had supported Chartism in the 1830s and 1840s were frustrated by the lack of success and looked to other organisations such as trade unions, co-operatives and friendly societies, other self-help groups and even mainstream political parties to advance their interests. Without their active involvement, Chartism was bound to wither.
This exaggerates the importance of one, fairly small group of workers. In any case, many members of this group had not been among the strongest supporters of Chartism in the 1840s. Their defection was, therefore, of limited importance to a working-class organisation

Historians, despite having different political views, nonetheless stress similar factors. Those sympathetic to working-class political organisations stress the power of the state as an important reason why the Chartists did not achieve more. Those who resist class-based analyses also point to a more self-confident government’s adoption of laissez faire policies as the key to long-term economic growth and therefore the decline of protest movements. Similarly, those who want to rehabilitate O’Connor from 1840 onwards recognise that both his own powers and his political authority took a fatal turn in 1848.

---

[1] New York Daily Tribune, 25^th August 1852.

[2] John Saville Ernest Jones: Chartist, London, 1952 is a useful collection of his writings with an incisive introduction. Miles Taylor Ernest Jones, Oxford University Press, 2003 should be regarded as the best study. Joseph O. Baylen and Norbert J. Grossman (eds.) Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals since 1770, volume 2: 1830-1870, Brighton, 1984, pages 263-268 is a useful, brief biography.

[3] J.T. Ward Chartism, London, 1973, pages 220-234.

[4] A.R. Schoyen The Chartist Challenge: a Portrait of George Julian Harney, London, 1958.

[5] David Jones Chartism and the Chartists, London, 1975, pages 171-180.

[6] Eric Evans Chartism Longmans, 2000, pages 116-118.

The Normans in Southern Italy: Lordship and Feudalism

An important aspect of the Norman domination of southern Italy was the strengthening of the military or banal lordship (both lay and ecclesiastic): in other words, those forms of possession of land that also included public duties, such as military service and justice. For a long period, in mainland southern Italy, these powers created a state of tension between the great vassals and the central power (the duke of Apulia or the king).

The way the feudal pyramid functioned required the vassal to supply his superior (count, duke or king) with military contingents and tax revenues. In exchange, he obtained the administration of an area in which the inhabitants were obliged to pay him tribute and provide labour services (corvées). The vassal lived in a different manner from the other citizens, usually in a castle, nearly always outside the towns or in the countryside and he devoted himself mainly to warfare.

An attempt was made to structure relations between the vassals and between the latter and the king in a rigorous manner. The criminal law was reorganised and the distribution of the fiefs was altered by a series of laws issued by Roger II known as the Assizes of Ariano[1] and also by the Catalogus Baronum[2], a record of military obligations.

In the early Middle Ages, feudalism did not appear to be present in Southern Italy (with the exception, in some respects, of the Lombard states). The most important new element introduced by the Normans was lordship, which, however, developed in very different forms in time and in different areas : a lord (a layman or a church) had rights deriving from the ownership of land (rural lordship) and certain public rights, such as the right to collect taxes, administration of justice, military service (banal lordship). He had, therefore, multiform authority over a specific territory and he availed himself of the services of specialised personnel. The most important aspect of this power was the military one; the lord created a corps of professional soldiers (the milites or knights).  The results of the feudal system were many and varied. In Calabria and Sicily, Robert Guiscard and Roger I distributed the fiefs in such a way as to prevent the multiplication of the large domains. However, in Byzantine Apulia and in the former Lombard states, the lordships were born of an anarchical form of appropriation of the land that subsequently caused a continuous state of rebellion of the Norman barons against the central power (whether ducal or royal). The mainly military character of the lordships founded by the Normans had two fundamental consequences:

• The public aspects assumed took on major importance, so that the landed lordship was overshadowed by the banal or military one.
• The Norman lordship was essentially lay in character.

On the other hand, there were not many ecclesiastical lordships (abbeys and dioceses) in southern Italy before the Norman Conquest: Montecassino, St Vincent on Volturno, St Clement of Casauria, Holy Trinity of Cava. The secular Church was always fairly weak during the Norman period, so that its power could not be compared with that of the same institution in northern Italy. Even during the period of the kingdom, the number of titulars of dioceses and archdioceses able to seriously influence the kingdom’s politics and/or economy was insignificant.

The consequence of the mainly military character of the Norman lordship was, on the one hand, the permanent state of war (in which the lords fought between themselves) and, on the other, the actual size of the fiefs. In general, the Normans replaced the pre-existing Lombard political units (principalities, counties, areas governed by gastalds) with their own lordships. In other cases, they created new, much larger ones (the counties of the Principate, Molise, Loritello, etc.). It was in Byzantine Apulia that the largest counties were set up (Monte Sant’Angelo, Conversano, Taranto and Montescaglioso). By contrast, in Sicily and Calabria there were no counties, with the exception of Catanzaro and Squillace in Calabria. After the kingdom had been founded, in order to give greater stability to the central power, Roger II tended to create counties that were fragmented over a large area. Furthermore, he intervened with regard to the size and the title of the counties in order to limit the power of the counts. As far as the recruitment of the feudal class was concerned, with the exception of the areas previously under Lombard control, all the new lords were Normans; the natives were found much more frequently among the lower levels of the nobility, especially the knights.

The functioning of the Norman rural lordships in southern Italy was based on the possession of land. Often the lords divided their land into lots, distributing these among the peasants (the contracts were known as livelli). The rents often took the form of a share of the harvest, which was very high, especially for the produce that was non-essential (wine, etc.).  Despite the fact that their lordship was essentially a banal (i.e. fiscal and military) one, the Normans did not manage to preserve the complex Byzantine system of direct taxation. They made great use, however, of indirect taxation (already applied in the Lombard principalities): an example of this is the tax on the forest paid by the community to the vassals; other taxes included the herbaticum (for pasture) and kalendaticum (paid on the first day of the month). As far as juridical rights are concerned, although the Norman lords administered civil law, only rarely were they responsible for criminal law.

The fortified residence of a lord, the castle was an absolutely new element in the landscape of southern Italian, symbolizing the new seignorial power of a military nature. It is no coincidence that the sources record frequent attacks by the citizens on such buildings. Today all that is left of the Norman castles are a few isolated towers.  The principal function of the castles was that of imposing the new power on the local population; their use for warfare was of secondary importance. In general, they were built immediately after the conquest (the castle of Bari dates from 1075, that of Troia, 1080, and the same applies to Palermo), with the dual purpose of control and defence. Although castles were generally associated with towns or villages, they were located outside them and were often built on mottes, large man-made mounds, for example, San Marco Argentano, in Calabria. On the other hand, very little is known about their interiors. During the period of the kingdom, some castles had a purely military function; in this case they were commanded by a castellan and did not constitute the residence of a lord.

The official members of the aristocracy were milites or knights. In order to serve in the higher ranks of the fighting forces it was, in fact, necessary to be rich enough to pay for the equipment. In the case of the Normans, this comprised a pointed helmet with a nose-guard, a coat of mail down to the knees, an almond-shaped shield (in wood and leather), a sword (90 cm) and a lance (2 m). The most expensive item was the horse, armoured for battle. A knight was admitted to the military career with a ceremony of investiture (adoubement), during which he received a cingulum, the belt to which his arms were attached, and his sword. Radical changes resulted from the advent of the monarchy in the twelfth century. The permanent state of war, typical of the ducal states, disappeared, thanks, above all, to the process of transformation, initiated by Roger II of the vassals themselves into royal officials. War became specifically a royal prerogative; the policy of the Hautevilles provided for a strategy that was, on the whole, defensive. In fact, it was founded, on the one hand, on the castles and, on the other, on military service organized in individual fiefs. Roger meticulously recorded the latter in an important administrative document (corresponding to the Domesday Book in England) known as the Catalogus Baronum.

Before the institution of the monarchy, the lords dispensed justice themselves, employing officials and assistants with a wide range of titles and functions (sometimes these were Byzantine titles, such as protocamerarius, strategos, catepan, etc.). With the advent of the monarchy the lords’ freedom to deal with public law was limited and royal officials, such as justiciars and judges, appeared. Another important activity of the vassals was hunting, mainly of large game, which conferred prestige on those who caught it (bears, deer and wild boar). In the late 12^th century, falconry, an eminently aristocratic form of hunting, first made its appearance.   Other seignorial activities included pastimes about which, however, little is known: games of chance certainly played were dice and aliossi (knucklebones). The chronicler Hugo Falcandus referred to hastiludia, a game that involved breaking lances while running.

The most important legislative act of Norman rule in Italy was unquestionably the body of laws known as the Assizes of Ariano. Having gained political control of his kingdom, Roger II promulgated a series of laws during a general assembly of the barons meeting at Ariano Irpino in 1140. The Assizes constituted a synthesis of different juridical traditions (Lombard and Byzantine) grafted onto Roman law. This represented a sort of constitution for the new kingdom, which was founded on the centrality and quasi-sacredness of the monarchy, and was opposed to any disruptive force, especially the feudal one (thus following the example of Anglo-Norman law). The laws of Ariano broke the principle of the rights of personal status, replacing it with that of territoriality. The privatistic tendencies typical of early medieval criminal law (based on pecuniary settlement) were supplanted by a system of state criminal law. Judges had wide discretionary powers when deciding on punishments. These were of three types: pecuniary, deprivation of freedom and corporal

During their progressive penetration of southern Italy, the Normans adapted themselves to the monetary systems existing in the different areas, in much the same way that they did in England. There were two pre-Norman monetary areas: on the mainland, where Byzantine gold and copper coins were in use and, in Amalfi and Salerno, the tari, imitations of Arabic coins; in Sicily the Arabs had a monetary system based on the gold dinar and the silver dirhem. The first coins minted in Italy by the Normans were a number of anonymous follari struck under Robert Guiscard and Roger I. The latter, after the conquest of Sicily, introduced new types of tari, kharrube and follari to the island, stamped with a tau. However, the true monetary reorganisation took place under Roger II: the king prohibited the circulation of foreign coins and introduced one of his own, the ducat. With the monetary reform of 1140 the Sicilian tari was imposed as the standard coin throughout the kingdom. The striking of coins was limited to just a few mints: Palermo and Messina for the Sicilian tari; Salerno[3] for the follari of the duchy of Apulia; Amalfi for the tari of base gold.

---

[1] Ortensio Zecchino ‘Les Assizes de Roger II (1140)’, Les Normands en Méditerraneé, University of Caen, 1994, pages 143-159 is a useful account.

[2] Evelyn Jamison Catalogus Baronum, Rome, 1972 is the most recent edition of this central source.

[3] Paolo Peduto ‘La monnaie normande a Salerne, de Roger Borsa a Tancrède (1085-1194)’, Les Normands en Méditerraneé, University of Caen, 1994, pages 151-160 is an important paper.