Stephanie:
Chartism-
• “It was an emotional reaction against a changing economy and society, which was unjust and bewildering to the working man - a cry for help”
• It was a product of industrialization
• Chartism peaked in times of depression and unemployment
• Lasted almost 20 years from 1830’s to 1850’s
• It was during the shift from agriculture to industry
• It was a working class movement
• Strongest in areas of declining industries(textiles) and single industry towns
• Weak in agriculture areas (the south-west)
• Encompassed a diverse occupation from craftsmen to miners and railmakers
• It was born out of despair, failure, and desperation on 2 main causes political and economic , born of poverty and self-destruction almost built in
• It failed because it tore itself apart and also because there were almost as many types of Chartism as there were Chartists
¬ Main problem was figuring out how to establish revolutionary goals by constitutional means
¬ Didn’t obtain parliamentary support (Attwood's speech on presenting the 1839 Charter to Parliament, 14 June 1839
¬ They were divided among themselves
¬ Their demands were too drastic
♣ Demands stated in the “People’s Charter”
♣ In areas of male suffrage, electoral districts, duration of Parliament, election and nomination arrangements (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/chartism/peopchar.htm )
¬ There were other movements at the time that offered immediate and tangible benefits
• Significant in development of working class movement
¬ Established order in a time of shock which was much needed
¬ Improved working class morale
¬ “It provided the prototype for later working-class movements by demonstrating the importance of a working-class voice: intelligent, ordered, and philosophical.”
¬ Raised the issue of class consciousness
¬ Showed necessity for action in response to conditions and limitations of the social system of a workers
¬ Working class learned from their mistakes; gaining self-generated leadership
¬ Legalized
♣ Universal male suffrage
♣ Secret ballot
♣ Equal electoral districts
• “Charter” was the only the bond of several movements

Dan D.:                
Chartism was a movement that sought to dramatically overhaul the social, economic, and political structure in Britain, many of its practices and beliefs have become things that today we both accept and expect, fair treatment of workers, fair conditions, “universal” suffrage, and education equality. However, despite its leaders and support, Chartism did not appear as a viable option to many, especially to those in power; legislation that came across the House of Commons supporting the goals of the Chartists was soundly defeated and the amount of public support the movement would have needed to overcome this wasn’t enough. It can be argued though that the real downfall of Chartism came when the leaders themselves began to split, some emphasized their views through education, others religion, while others sought temperance and in Feargus O’Connor’s case a whole separate community devoted to the rural worker.
                  The Chartist movement depended on the support of the poorer, working classes, if they lost this backing in any way than any kind of momentum they had would go with it. In 1848 Ireland was devastated by famine with the potato blight, much of poor, rural population died or left, what this meant to Chartism was a massive loss of support due to the Irish population having more pressing concerns.
                  Much of what was most appealing to those who supported Chartism was concerning living conditions for the poor in Britain. At this time Europe was undergoing dramatic change due to revolution and ideas such as Communism were beginning to take shape. The British government realized that it simply wasn’t possible to keep such a large segment of their population so unhappy, with legislation such as the Repeal of the Corn Laws, free trade, the Factory Act, and the Public Health Act, many saw hope and the need for a movement such as Chartism wasn’t seen as necessary. Chartism didn’t succeed because despite consisting of progressive and positive ideas and having a relatively strong support base, the movement didn’t have the necessary support in government nor the devotion necessary among the public to force legislation; the movement died down when the leaders split to their own ideals and the government in place established laws that matched up with some ideals of the Chartists.

Akil:
Why did Chartism fail?

Katy;
The main problem of chartism was finding a way to achieve, by constitutioanl means, a revolutionary goal. The Charter failed to obtain parliamentary support. This is because no Member should make a petition speech. Sir GH Smyth was appealed when Mr. Attwood made the speech because he believes that he should know these rules by now and should have not made that decision. Another reason for failure was because the middle classes ignored or shunned Chartism. Since it involved the working lower classes, the middle classes gave it no support and did not agree with it. Also, the demands of the Chartists were too drastic. They asked for too much for their needs to be incorporated. There was too much diversity in the intellectual and actual aims of Chartism. These differences eventually tore Chartism apart.

Evan:
The urgent demands that Chartism sought to respond to were:

In terms of if these differing definitions helped explain the different strategies, the answer is yes. The definitions are reasonable.
They seek to describe/explain their success or lack thereof by many ways. The Chartists failed to succeed because of the lack of middle class support; this is due to the high level of intensity and demands by the Chartists. The formation of new social reform groups took away many members and potential members from the cause.  Although the Chartists failed to achieve all of its goals, it benefited positively by increasing awareness of common social issues needing to be addressed. Lastly it built a foundation for the future of later working-class establishments.

Emily:
The conclusion of Chartism
After researching the Chartist movement, I predict that Chartism failed, because it seems that Parliament didn’t want to issue more voting rights to the middle and lower classes. Factory reform wasn’t popular either, though the middle and lower classes wanted shorter work days, higher wages, rising the age of child labor, as well as factory inspection. Factory owners and the upper class that owned the companies disagreed with the Chartist movement, because higher wages and lower hours would reduce the amount of goods that are produced, as well as more money would be taken from the companies, because of the rise in wages. Though it seemed like there was a lot of reform and organization through the Chartist movement, I am predicting that the movement had failed.
Beginning in 1846, after the Corn Laws had been repealed, Chartism had begun to show signs of failure. In late 1846, Peel had resigned from office, and moving into early 1847, financial crisis begun to increase within the lower and middle classes. Through 1847, the Whigs won the general election, unemployment sharply rose, and by 1848 revolution sparked within France. By spring of 1848, there were mass riots, rebellions, arrests, and the capture of Chartist leaders. A reform movement was pushed on by Chartist leaders to parliament, where their ideas for reform were overruled by the central government. By 1855, the main Chartist revolutionary, Feargus O’Connor passed away, and three years later the last National Chartist meeting took place, and I am guessing that after the last convention, the Chartism movement was disbanded and obviously failed.

Kim:
There was an urgent pressure for the Corn Laws to be repealed because the wheat prices were not being stabilized through the utilization of this system.  As the Peel Web describes it, “The industrial/commercial class resented the landed political power monopoly; they also wanted cheaper bread, and to reduce their wages bill.”  This was a feeling that found great support and desire for change.  This issue was clearly one that needed to be addressed as it had been on going for many years expanding from area to area as people began to see the injustice of the Corn Laws.  The urgent needs that would be addressed by the repeal of the Corn Laws are listed on the Peel Web as follows:

The obstacles the Anti-Corn Law movement faced were that the wealthy didn’t have a problem with the price of bread, employment or any of the other urgent needs and therefore did not back the movement.  As is constantly seen throughout history, the wealthy class always holds a great deal of power in these types of matters.   The conservatives were a large source of opposition as well as they felt that people were helping to, “assist the Anti-Corn-Law League all in his power to embarrass the Government.'...” (Peel Web).  This particular group felt that the Anti-Corn Law leaguers were doing more harm than good and causing great distress for the workers who were employed. 

The Anti-Corn Laws were successful for many reasons. There was such a large and effective group backing the movement that it was fairly clear from the beginning that victory was in the future for them.  Mainly middle class backed the movement which was a huge chunk of the population and a very vocal demographic as well.  Along with being very vocal about the issues at hand, the Anti-Corn Law protesters, “had an excellent campaign organization. They used the press (the Manchester Guardian, The League), the platform, pamphlets (especially after 1841), the Penny Post, the telegraph, railways. The two latter were in the hands of the middle classes, which gave the Anti-Corn-Law League easy access to the facilities,” (Peel Web).  It was also a great advantage that the Anti-Corn Laws had an immense amount of political power on there side.  For one, almost the entire middle class had voting power not to mention people from other demographics who may have had this ability.  Juxtaposing that, several faces in government positions were for this movement including Peel, Villiers and Thornley.  I believe that the main reason the Anti-Corn Laws were so successful was that such a mass quantity of people looked at the above list of possible achievements with the repeal and felt such an urgent need for those results for such a long period of time meant that the repeal of the laws was inevitable and something truly necessary of being done.  Had this particular campaign been unsuccessful there would have been another, and others to follow that until there was change and I feel that the government was aware of that.

Katie:
Predicaments:

Definitions:

Success:

 

Zach:
Reasons for the Anti-Corn-Law League's success
 

John:
The Chartism movement was largely based upon economic problems.  Around 1830, there was an economic collapse in Europe.  There was no capital for businesses to extend their businesses and capital was pushing the working class into the ground.  At the time, the Whigs were in power and decided to not take any action to help the lower class during this economic time of need.  Instead, they chose to help out the middle class, further dividing the space between the middle and the lower class.  Chartism was a movement of political reformation in order to achieve economic reformation.  There were several specific reasons that different groups had for Chartism.  For example, working class in the North, Midlands, and Whales thought Chartism would solve some of the economic problems created by Protectionism.
               Many people in the working class became discouraged after the Reform Act of 1832 because they had supported the middle class for all of these years, but were still denied the right to vote.  Chartism became the go to organization for anybody with problems with the upper class or the government.  The working class hadn’t received their demands in a long time, and they believed that this was because they had no say in the government.  As far as political status is concerned, the working class was a “nobody”.  This is one of the reasons why they believed Chartism would work.  They believed that if they achieved political significance, then they could potentially be heard by the government and could receive the needs they currently had.  
               The working class was the backbone of the Chartism movement.  Being a fairly new class with the introduction of the industrial revolution, the people had little credit in society.  It failed because it was less acceptable to the establishment and less respected.  These people were seen as just another group of citizens wanting something more.  Even one of the leaders of Chartism, O’Connor realized that Chartism was doomed to fail because an economic reform was in need before any political reformation was done.  The working class wanted the right to vote and to change the way the voting process worked mainly because they wanted to elect members of the working class into office so their problems may be heard.  Even if the working class gained the right to vote, the changes they were looking for in the economy were still many years away.  This was an economical problem that called for an economic solution, not a political solution.  It seems a confusion of what the people truly wanted was a big downfall for the people.  

Dylan:
Chartism was a response to “predicaments” of an economic and political nature. On the economic end, the working class was disgruntled by factory discipline, low wages, periodic unemployment, and high living costs. This was also combined with the perception of a “widening gulf between rich and poor”. In terms of politics, much of the working class felt disenfranchised. The 1832 Reform Act which the working-class largely supported ended up only benefiting the middle-class. Meanwhile, the Whigs and Tories offered little reform and that which they did offer often hurt the working-class. This offered little hope and gave way to the ideals of Chartism. However, many factors would play into the failure of Chartism:
 
Some Major Reasons for Failure of Chartism:
 
Conflicts with Parliament:

Doug:
I believe that Chartism did not succeed quite simply because those in power did not want it to succeed, and those attempting to gain power did not have the means to acquire it. After Parliament overwhelming rejected both the first and second petitions, even though there was over 3 million signatures on the second one. Beyond that, there was nothing else to do, short of violence. After the rejection of the second petition, the movement became fragmented and disjointed, as individual groups split off to focus on specific issues of suffrage and the British political system, furthering their inability to accomplish real political change. The obstacle to success here was mainly the British upper class, especially the members of Parliament, who had already achieved a high level of political power, and saw no reason why they should potentially give up some of that power to please the millions of members of the lower classes.

The People's Charter began as follows:

"Be it therefore Enacted,

That from and after the passing of this Act, every male inhabitant of these realms be entitled to vote for the election of a Member of Parliament, subject however to the following conditions.

That he be a native of these realms, or a foreigner who has lived in this country upwards of two years, and been naturalised.

That he be twenty-one years of age.
That he be not proved insane when the list of voters are revised.
That he be not convicted of felony within six months from and after the passing of this Act.
That his electoral rights be not suspended for bribery at elections, or for personation, or for forgery of election certificates, according to the penalties of this Act..."

Here, their goals and ambitions are clearly laid out for Parliament to see, but for the majority of those with political power and influence in Britain, it was not in their own interest to increase suffrage, which in turn would level the playing field so to speak, allowing those from the lowest classes to exert political muscle.

Tom:

Why It Failed

Why It Had Success

Penny:
February 11th, 2010

                  Chartism did not succeed because its goal was unrealistic, the idea of having six political demands solve all the problems of society was not only naïve but it was a goal that would have never passed.
Reasons Chartism was started:

Ways in which Chartism sought to fix the situation:

*Because the Chartists asked for so much at one time they were unsuccessful, if they had decided to choice only one main ideal they would have succeeded and the rest of their goals would have followed

Although the Chartists were well organized, they were overly ambitious in the idea that they could solve all of the industrial and agricultural issues simply by their six ideals, had they figured this out and started smaller, they would have succeeded easily.

Bill:

Chartism was in the end a failure.  Lack of organization and unification killed the Chartist movement in the end.

 

 

-Economic:
-Disapproval of industrial/modern life.
-Factory Exploitation/conditions.
-Corn Laws.
-Large deficit/bank failure.
      -Political:
-Working class had supported middle class in the 1832 Reform Act. The     middle class was not reciprocating the support.
-Due to legislation, Unions were hard to establish or be given support for by employers.

 

 

 


Maciek:

-When the Anti-Corn Law league was first established, its funding and support was minimal, at best. The hopes for success were pretty slim and it may have seemed hopeless. Nonetheless, despite these odds and factors of opposition, the league remained steadfast in the direction of fighting the Corn Law. In the beginning, the League was short on funding due to the Economic Depression of the time. As a result, the League's leaders designed a campaign fund which was brilliantly planned and brought in a lot of much needed liquidity. Sometimes, as much as 50,000 pounds would be collected. On top of this, since there was a fee required to join the league, roughly 5 pounds per person and 50 pounds to vote, admittance was allowed only to the Middle Class and Upper Class. This also brought in revenue. Therefore, with these funds, the League became well-funded, and I think that this contributed greatly to the success of the campaign as it allowed for the spread of propaganda, public events, speeches, etc. Thus, influence was heavily increased and the League's message was able to be heard.
-On top of funding, the movement had a well-organized back-up plan as well as a strong and persistent attitude toward any opposition. Strong and reliable support was also given by the Middle Class and there was a tight class unity.
-Most importantly, the movement had sound arguments that were not only accurate, but that also succeeded.            
            "the Anti-Corn-Law League used sound arguments, which eventually prevailed. At times they did seem prone to exaggeration but the 1840 Select Committee's Report on Import Duties gave a strong objective reinforcement of the League's arguments. Villiers and Thornley both sat on the committee, which reported in favour of lower tariffs. Basically, the Anti-Corn-Law League had got the answer to the "Condition of England Question" right."
This, I think, was the most valuable asset that eventually guaranteed success to the league. Despite the fact that some of the arguments were sometimes a little exaggerated, overall, they were solid. This was solidified even more by the winning of Parliamentary seats and representation as well as the establishment of registration societies.
-In terms of Propaganda, the League used many forms of news and media to spread their word. Some examples were:
            "They used the press (the Manchester Guardian, The League), the platform, pamphlets (especially after 1841), the Penny Post, the telegraph, railways."
-The fact that the League was able to recruit some ex-Chartists and agricultural supporters  also helped.
-All-in-all, Cobden's final speech sealed the deal for the repeal of the Corn Laws thus causing the League and the movement to be ultimately successful.

Laura:
Why it Started:

Urgent Demands:

Anti-Corn Law Association:

Anti-Corn Law League’s Successful Path/ Obstacles (upper class and Peel):

He says “I think it is better to use the word bread-tax than the Corn Law. A bread-tax is a good term to fix upon our opponents.”

Danielle:
Why the Anti- Corn League succeeded
“The League expanded by winning the support of the Manchester liberals and businessmen and by corresponding with similar societies. League members were a mixture of manufacturing and trading classes; often they were Dissenters or humanitarians. These latter were important because they provided the 'moral' element.”
Having support such as those appeals to the common man, allowing more people to sympathize and understand their cause; making people more likely to follow the crowd. Having a moral element is also important because it makes people feel guilty and since most people are followers of God they want to live a moral life. So in order to relieve this guilt and feel moral they will follow the League.
“the Anti-Corn-Law League used sound arguments, which eventually prevailed. At times they did seem prone to exaggeration but the 1840 Select Committee's Report on Import Duties gave a strong objective reinforcement of the League's arguments. Villiers and Thornley both sat on the committee, which reported in favour of lower tariffs. Basically, the Anti-Corn-Law League had got the answer to the "Condition of England Question" right.”
Having smart talkers and people who understand the cause helps to win over more people. If someone sounds like they know what they are talking about and proves their point, it is very easy to listen to them and follow what they are saying; therefore creating more supporters.
“they attracted some ex-Chartists and some agricultural support; the new Conservative Party was willing to listen even if it was slow to act. The Anti-Corn-Law League was fortunate in having Peel as Prime Minister”
Once again having people who are well seen in the community helps to boost support from others, it also helps to have someone who is a religious figure because now not only do they have politics on their side but they have religion as well.
“they gave their campaign the guise of a religious crusade. In August 1841 the Church Conference in Manchester gave the Anti-Corn-Law League its full support. Dr Pye Smith said, 'The doctrine and practise of free trade was in harmony with the essential principle and the benevolent design of the Gospel' and Archibald Prentice commented cynically, 'I thought that the Bible might as well be quoted as the Wealth of Nations'”
It is still true today; religion does play a big role in winning votes. Minister Peel played a big role in this campaign.

Jennifer S.:
“The Anti-Corn-Law League <http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/acll.htm> tried to show that all classes would benefit from the repeal of the Corn Laws <http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/c-laws.htm>  but met the suspicion of the working classes because of the results of earlier agitations.” It seems like this meant that there was suspicion as to whether the Anti-Corn-Law League could possibly be successful, but with their strong campaign they proved themselves.
What stands out to me is the organization of the Anti-Corn-Law League.  They set up a very strong campaign with many different plans to get in with different groups of people. –“ Gradually the leaders built up support and the Anti-Corn-Law League's <http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/acll.htm>  finances were efficiently organised and brilliantly led as a campaign, dominated by the middle class. As a result, the League could draw on great funds - £50,000 campaigns were launched with great success.”  
It was dominated by the middle class, but “The League's activity was continuous: they employed regional agents, had an efficient propaganda machine, used the penny post to collect funds and distribute their information. Their first newspaper, The Anti-Bread Tax Circular first appeared in 1841; The League was established in 1843 and gave publicity to their meetings among other things. Their MPs were paid by the League. This enabled parliament to be lobbied. The League also persuaded wealthy men to buy land in order to qualify for the franchise themselves and to give land to their sons as 21st birthday presents. All this created great public interest.”
So much went into this campaign, such as fundraisers , concerts, bazaars, etcetera.  They did a really good job of getting public attention and support of other people. It seems like they were going to do anything that it took to make their league succeed. At one point it may have seemed exaggerated, but exaggerated or not, it worked.  

Jennifer R.:
There were many urgent demands that caused the Corn Law to be repealed. Some of the most important problems that the Anti Corn law addressed were that it lowered the price of bread so that more people could afford staples to feed their family. Another problem that the Anti Corn Law addressed was that it allowed for more outlets for manufacturers to sell their product. This would jump start the economy and allow people to earn more money by selling their goods. The Anti Corn laws also expanded employment and made more jobs available so people could earn money to support their families with the proper needs. The laws also made British agriculture more efficient and productive. It also exposed trade and agriculture to foreign competition. If they had competition it would make them not raise their price too high because if they raised their price too high their customers would just buy their goods from a foreign company. This caused them to be more cautious with their prices. The idea of social peace was addressed by promoting international peace through trade contacts. This allowed countries to be on good terms with each other because their imports depended on other countries. One of the main reasons that the Corn Laws were repealed was because of the potato blight. The authorities thought that by repealing the Corn Laws it would cause less of a disaster. If there were no potatoes and price of bread was really high people could not afford the staples that allowed the families to eat. Even though the laws in the Anti Corn Law did not effect the situation the prime minister did what he thought was right and repealed the Corn Laws. Some other reasons why the people pushing for the Corn Law to get repealed succeeded were because the got to the point where they were refusing to pay taxes. They also did everything in their will to embarrass Parliament and the government because they believed so strongly in the repeal of the Corn Law. Some of the advocators took it to the extreme and closed down their factories to cause unemployment to cause the government to pass the Anti- Corn Law. This would cause them to pass it because the Anti- Corn Law caused more employment. This goes to show that the Anti- Corn law was very important to many people and caused them to act in many extreme ways.

Jaime:
            Urgent demands:
                        Lower crop prices- prices to high to afford, no foreign trade
                        Universal suffrage- wanted equal rights, no matter the sex, wanted to vote
                        More jobs- many were unemployed and could not afford to buy goods
                        Free trade-desired after the trade collapse of 1836 (because of no foreign trade)
           
Obstacles
                        High crop prices- infuriation of citizens made them ignorant towards organizations
                        Unemployment- thousands were jobless and desired to work to make money for the family
                        High tariffs- lack of foreign trade led to the trade collapse
                       
                       
            Why the Anti-Corn Law worked:
                        Gave manufacturers more outlets for their products- new and more factories were built, where manufacturers could produce their own products and trade with foreign countries. The array of countries they could trade with opened up more possibilities and ideas of their own trade, along with receiving diverse goods.
                       
Expanded employment- gave more jobs because of new factories and other job-bearing industries. Chartists wanted job, so this pleased them.
                        Lowered the price of bread – by creating more places to grow and harvest grain, the competition within the states lowered the price by itself, let alone the appeal of the tariffs
                       
                         Exposed trade to foreign competition- repealed the tariffs on foreign goods, namely corn, and U.S expanded its horizons by trading with foreign nations. This would promote competition and lower prices, along with other goods that were not made in the U.S.
                       
Promoted world peace through foreign trade- with trade involving trustworthy partners and respectful individuals, peace was promoted through the work of trade and the foreign communications between nations
                        *This was all achieved through the repeal of the Corn Laws and the system of free trade.

The Anti-Corn Laws were successful because they agreed with every person. The ideas expressed in the repeal of the Corn Laws were favorable to all classes, upper class all the way to the lower class. The Chartists, for example, wanted universal rights because the majority of them made up the lower class. They thought that if they could be treated just the same as everyone else and could vote, then the world would be a better place and their lives would be much more enjoyable. However, their most desired goal was to have more jobs. With the expansion of the economy and more outlets for manufacturers’ products, more jobs were created to perform the necessary work to make the goods.  Free trade was the driving force in this system, which opened up a whole new dimension to the U.S ‘s economy and its economic policy.

Emma:
The Anti-Corn Law League was successful on many levels for a variety of reasons. Unlike the Chartism campaign, the anti-corn-law league had a single and clear objective. Even when faced with persistent opposition, its organized background allowed for a strong backing. Also unlike the chartist movement, the Anti-Corn-Law league had the middle class backing them up. This allowed for a strong until and financial backing. At the time, the chartists were appealing to only a small group whereas the Anti-Corn-Law League appealed to the masses, thus allowing it to become more successful and powerful. Members of the league were elected to Parliament and as a result had power in British society. Another key factor in the success of the Anti-Corn-Law League was the fact that its supporters had the right to vote. Because the league promised benefits that would appeal to the masses, it gained support and was a major factor in its success. This certainly helped make their strategies stronger. It seems like the Corn Law leaguers had an understanding of what they needed to do in order to get their voices heard and power seen in the political world. They understood that in order to be successful, they needed to do more than make petitions. As a result of this organized and well thought out system, the laws were successfully abolished.

Ryan:
            The Success of Anti-Corn Law Reform can be attributed to two major events of the 1840s; the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League and the Irish Potato Famine. The Corn Laws of 1815 and the strain that they placed on the British Economy demanded that citizens respond urgently.
            The Anti-Corn Law League represented the beginnings of change. Like most revolutionary acts, it started with a small group of intellectual citizens that were not content with the current legislation. Furthermore, the Anti-Corn Law League members were not government bigwigs. Instead they were middle-class workers and tradesmen, Like Cobden:

“Perhaps the most famous of the founders of the movement was Richard Cobden. He was a Manchester manufacturer who came from a Sussex farming background. He was an economist; cool and politically shrewd. Also he was a tactician and a rationalist…He was the only man ever to beat Peel in debate in parliament” (“Anti-Corn Law League”, Bloy)

Cobden was a natural leader for the Anti-Corn Law League because he not only spoke for free trade, but also was also able to communicate this main objective of the League to all classes. He was able to encourage laborers of the higher wages and competition that free trade policy would bring, and in turn was able to convince Parliament that the Corn Laws had to be repealed. In additon, the fact that he beat Peel in Parliament represented a significant blow to Corn Laws as they stood.
            The occurrence of the Irish Famine demanded that the Corn Laws be changed as well. When the potato blight hit Europe, it devastated crop production and starved laborers. The laborers had relied on potatoes as the staple food product for years, and this severely hindered their working ability. Farmers could not grow and subsequently harvest a crop with ailing workers. Under the Corn Law, imports were necessary to feed the hungry and replace domestic corn. In turn, the economy was severely weakened, and Peel’s government bled even more cash:

“During the winter of 1845-1846 Peel's government spent £100,000 on American maize which was sold to the destitute. The major problem was not that there was no food in Ireland - there was plenty of wheat, meat and dairy produce, much of which was being exported to England - but that the Irish peasants had no money with which to buy the food. Peel was replaced in office in June 1846 by Lord John Russell and a Whig administration dedicated to a laissez-faire policy”
            (“Irish Famine”, Bloy)
Peel was replaced because he simply could not meet the demands for affordable food under the original Corn Laws. His large period of inaction sealed his fate and brought the Anti-Corn Law Reform to a head. His replacement, Lord John Russell, fully realized the Anti-Corn Law League’s long-term goal of laissez-faire, or free trade.

Works Cited

"The Anti-Corn-Law League." Home Page. Ed. Marjie Bloy. Web. 09 Feb. 2010. <http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/acll.htm>.
"The Irish Famine." Home Page. Ed. Marjie Bloy. Web. 09 Feb. 2010. <http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/famine.htm>.

Chelsea:

Tiffany:
I believe that the Anti-Corn Law agitation was successful because of the great deal of citizens that were involved.  Clearly with the amount of people unhappy with the Corn Laws, the Anti-Corn Law movement was “something that alert minds cannot ignore.”  It was quite obvious that the “urgent demands [of the people] and the obstacles to social peace or progress,” all stemmed back to the Corn Laws, which can be identified as the source of the social unhappiness. The Anti-Corn Law responded to the demands of the angry people, and therefore, it was eventually successful.  I believe the statement, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” can be applied to everyday life and past historical events.  The people that made up the Anti-Corn Law movement had something that they were standing for and eventually, with enough velocity, they were heard and granted their wishes.