The Use of Romantic Poetry in the Chartist Public Sphere
byDaniël van Heijningen
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Literary Studies - Literature and Culture - English
University of Amsterdam June 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 1
1. Chartism: The Rise of a Working-Class Subaltern Counter Public ... 4
Social Unrest in the 19th Century and Chartism ... 4
Different Conceptions of the Public Sphere ... 7
Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere ... 8
Criticism of Habermas’s Concept of the Public Sphere ... 10
Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere ... 14
The Public Sphere and the Literary Analysis of the Chartist Press ... 18
2. The Use of Romantic Poetry in the Chartist Public Sphere ... 22
The Chartist Press ... 22
Poetry in the Chartist Press ... 23
The Chartist Circular ... 24
Shelley's “Song to the Men of England” ... 26
Coleridge's “Religious Musings” Lines 288 to 315 ... 33
A selection from Shelley’s Queen Mab; A Philosophical Poem ... 41
“Politics of the Poets No. III”: Wordsworth’s Poems on Liberty ... 51
“To Wordsworth” ... 51
Sonnets Dedicated to Liberty ... 52
The Sonnets of 1802 ... 56
3. The Use of Romantic Poetry in The Northern Star and The Chartist Circular ... 61
Romantic Poetry in The Northern Star ... 61
Discussion ... 67
Conclusion ... 73
1 Introduction
The early 19th century saw Chartism rise out of the social unrest that had been brewing in Britain for some time. This radical working class movement demanded change in the electoral system; the Chartists believed these changes would allow the working class to voice their problems in parliament and change society. Chartism was the first successful national working class protest movement and soon became more than just that as it developed a political, social and economic program.
This thesis will study Chartism within the framework of the public sphere. With the term “public sphere”, Habermas refers to the (abstract) social spaces where individuals discuss their common concerns; these discussions took place in physical spaces, such as cafes and public squares, as well as in the media through papers, letters and art. In the process of discussion, the individuals become a public, which in turn forms a public opinion (4). Through this public opinion the public and therefore indirectly the individuals can influence political action by using publicity. The public sphere is thus a social space that mediates between the individual citizen and the state (27). Approaching Chartism through the theoretical framework of Habermas’ public sphere seems promising, as Chartism was in substance a new segment of the public that wanted to partake in the public discussion in order to be able to defend their rights and improve their living conditions.
From the beginning in 1838, Chartism rapidly expanded over the British territories, which was in large part due to the Chartist newspapers, pamphlets and similar forms of publication. Through these papers, the Chartists were able to spread ideology, information and tactical advice quickly. Moreover, because these papers reported on local radical activities all over the country it created a sense of national connectedness; in this way Chartism was able to unify a collection of impulses that previously had acted alone under the banner of the Charter. In their papers, the Chartists reserved a significant amount of space for poetry. Poetry formed an integral part of the Chartist working class culture; they considered poetry an
2 effective medium for galvanizing the people into political action. The majority of the poetry in the Chartist papers was the work of working class poets, yet they also frequently used Romantic poetry. In this thesis, I will investigate why and how the Chartist papers used Romantic poetry in their propagation of the Chartist cause. The main question this thesis will try to answer is what is the function of Romantic poetry in the Chartist public sphere? To answer this question, this study will pose three sub-questions to examine the articles containing Romantic poetry. First, why did the Chartists use this specific poem? Second, why were the specific lines of that poem chosen and others excluded? Finally, how does the poem relate to the rest of the article that encompasses it?
This thesis consists of three sections. The first part will discuss Chartism in the context of Habermas’ theory of the public sphere. It will focus on Habermas’s
original conception in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Fraser’s critique on Habermas’ theory. By considering the different approaches to the public sphere, we can determine how Chartism should be interpreted within this analytical framework. In short, I will argue that the case of Chartism demonstrates the value of certain conceptions of the public sphere while simultaneously demonstrating the inadequacy of others.
The second part of this thesis will deal with the use of Romantic poems in The
Chartist Circular. Considering that Chartism was essentially a working class
movement, discerning the reason why the Chartists used poetry from authors outside their own class can provide insight into the workings of Chartist
newspapers. This study will demonstrate that considering the public sphere in the literary analysis of the Chartist press, creates a deeper understanding of certain aspects of their use of Romantic poetry.
Four reasons guided my choice to study The Chartist Circular. First, The
Chartist Circular is one of the Chartist papers that are accessible online. Second, The Chartist Circular was one of the journals Shabaan searched for instances in which
3 use of poetry in The Northern Star, the biggest and most influential stamped
newspaper, the smaller unstamped papers, like The Chartist Circular, have so far received little attention (Sanders, 2006). These unstamped papers played an
important part in the Chartist movement, as they offered the possibility for different currents within the same movement to express themselves, as well as the possibility to elaborate on local issues (Thompson, 44). As a consequence, the unstamped
Chartist Circular might have used poetry in a very different manner and thus fulfilled
a different role in the public sphere. Finally, analyzing an unstamped paper provides the possibility of comparing the results to those of Sanders study of The Northern
Star. The third and final part of this thesis will investigate this hypothetical
4 1. Chartism: The Rise of a Working-Class Subaltern Counter Public
This chapter will study Chartism in the context of the public sphere and consider what benefits this has for literary analysis. To begin with, it will briefly introduce Chartism. Second, it will analyze which conception of the public sphere is best suited to study Chartism. There are various theories on the public sphere and not all perceive Chartism in the same way. Finally, this chapter will consider how analyzing Chartism as a public sphere can contribute to a deeper understanding of the Romantic poetry in the Chartist press. This study will argue that studying
Chartism as a public sphere is beneficial not only for our understanding of the social protest movement, but also for our understanding of the way the Chartists used Romantic poetry.
Social Unrest in the 19th Century and Chartism
Nineteenth century Britain was a country in political and social unrest. The industrial revolution, urbanization and a significant increase of the population had changed society. In contrast, the legislature had practically remained the same. The introduction of machinery halfway through the eighteenth century combined with the continuous technological progress increasingly led to the replacement of manual labor by a more mechanized production process. This change to a more mechanized production process had catastrophic consequences for the working class, as it caused the rate of unemployment to rise significantly. This significant degree of
unemployment in turn caused greater competition amongst the workers and a drop in wage levels to under the amount the workers needed to sustain themselves (Shabaan, “Shelley’s Influence” 159-160).
The first reaction to these changes came in the form Luddism. Between 1811 and 1817, on various occasions, workers united to express their rage by destroying the frames and machines that had replaced them (Steedman, 225-250). The economic
5 discontent in the beginning of the nineteenth century caused an ever-increasing call for electoral reform amongst the lower classes. Especially during years of economic agitation, the support for a parliamentary reform increased and masses protested in the streets for democracy or republicanism (Lambert).
Between 1829 and 1832, various political movements came into existence. However, these movements focused primarily on supporting the middle-class struggle for parliamentary reform. The working class supported these initiatives under conviction that the middle class would in turn help them in obtaining suffrage for their class (Shabaan 161). When the Reform Bill of 1832 turned out only to serve the purposes of the middle class, the coalition between the working and the middle class disintegrated and the workers continued on their own.
Another event that strongly increased the support for radical working class resistance and later on Chartism was the New Poor Law Amendment of 1834. This law aimed at lowering the cost of the poor relief system by applying the principles of the market (Westmoreland). The law consisted of two specific measures. First, the government created workhouses that aimed to repel all but the neediest by making the conditions worse than the lowest paid worker would live in. Within these
workhouses, families were separated and the inmates were forced to execute heavy, often pointless labor (“Human Rights 1815-1848”). Second, the government decided to make all poor relief to able-bodied people outside of the workhouses illegal, thereby making these places the only option for the unemployed poor. These workhouses became an object of hate for the poor and the poor started referring to them as “poor law bastilles" (Bloy “Economic and Political”). Westmoreland argues, “the Poor Law act of 1834 probably did more to convince the workers of the need for radical change than anything else” (“Chartism: The Birth”).
In 1837, the London Working Men's Association (LWMA) published William Lovett’s The Peoples Charter. It was this political manifesto gave the name to the
6 followers of this movement (Chartists), and the movement itself (Chartism). The
Peoples Charter demanded six basic reforms: universal voting rights, secret ballot,
abolition of property qualifications for MPs, compensation for MPs, equally sized constituencies, and annual elections. In practice, this manifesto asked for the right to vote and the ability to represent their class in parliament, so that working class could give voice to their problems and improve the conditions they were living in.
The demands of Chartism were not new; what was innovating and what gave Chartism its strength, was its national reach. For the first time, a national working class movement supported one program. Although there had been a long tradition of radicalism before Chartism, these were all local and unconnected groups, based on specific local issues. The Charter became a symbol of resistance and hope for a better future, under which the poor and disgruntled working class gathered. Chartism thus came forth out a collection of impulses that previously had acted alone; it was able to unify these groups under the banner of the Charter, even though they suffered from different forms of social, economic and political oppression. Chartism thus established the first national working class public sphere.
Although Chartism started out as a working class protest movement reacting to the economic disgruntlement, it soon grew out to become more than that, as the movement developed a political, social and economic program (Shabaan 159). In other words, what started out as social and economic unrest, became a political campaign by a well-organized movement. What is important and necessary to understand the novelty of Chartism, is the ways in which Chartism is fundamental different from preceding radical groups:
Chartism was the demand for recognition by articulate and self-conscious working people. It was not a demand for the replacement of the existing institutions … It was the demand for the inclusion in a political system, in whose efficacy they believed, of labourers who could see themselves as part
7 of an expanding economy, but as the victims of the system they were helping to create (Shabaan 95).
This is significantly different when compared to preceding movements. While previous movements such as the Luddites had cooled their rage on machinery, the Chartist demonstrated a deeper understanding of the social relations of the
nineteenth century society. The Chartists understood that if they wanted to protect themselves against the interests of others, they needed to be able to participate in the political system. The Chartists demonstrated awareness of the social conditions of their time and a willingness to enter in the public discussion in order to obtain the right to vote.
The main reasons we should study Chartism as a public sphere are the three aspects that make Chartism different from their radical predecessors: rational critical debate, national unity, and the use of publicity to obtain their objectives. However, there are various ways to conceive the public sphere. The next paragraph will consider different conceptions of the public sphere to discover which one is best suited to study Chartism.
Different Conceptions of the Public Sphere
Academics from various fields have weighed in on the discussion
surrounding Habermas’s concept of the public sphere (translated from the German
öffentlichkeit). Even though his theory has generally altered the way we conceive the
role the public plays in a democracy, certain aspects of his theory have been widely contested. Especially Habermas’s choice exclusively to analyze the liberal bourgeois public sphere caused dissent. The rest of this chapter will consider the debate
surrounding Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, focusing mainly on Fraser’s critique, but also on the criticism of Calhoun, Eley, Kaelble, Kellner, Lunt and Livingston.
8 Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere
With the term public sphere, Habermas refers to the (abstract) social spaces where individuals discuss their common concerns. In the process of discussion, the individuals become a public, which forms a public opinion. Through this public opinion, the public can influence political action by using publicity. It is thus a social space that mediates between the individual citizen and the state (Habermas, S. Lennox, and F. Lennox 49-50). The public sphere is a place where individuals can freely discuss matters on the basis of rational arguments, without interference from the state (Eriksen 25). A last important aspect of the Public sphere that Habermas discusses is the central role of the press. He argues that the press is a fundamental tool in guaranteeing the accessibility of the public sphere. Habermas even claims the press is “an institution of the public itself, effective in the manner of a mediator and intensifier of the public discussion” (Habermas, S. Lennox, and F. Lennox 53).
Habermas, in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into
a Category of Bourgeois Society, takes the bourgeois public sphere as the exemplary
model of a public sphere. He situates the upcoming of the liberal model of the bourgeois public sphere during the 18th century, and considers it as a way in which civil society balanced absolutist states. This sphere held the absolutist states in check by publicly discussing its functioning. These discussions took place in salons, clubs and reading societies, but even more essential to the development of the public sphere was the upcoming of newspapers and therefore the availability of
information regarding the functioning of the state. Later on during the 18th century, changes in the law guaranteed the protection from economic and political forms of control through freedom of speech, assembly and press and eventually
parliamentary representation. A change thus took place from a sphere where the rulers presented their decisions to the people, to a sphere in which the bourgeoisie monitored the functioning state and with its public discussion tried to steer the state in the right direction (1-14).
9 Habermas’s public sphere rested on three fundamental principles. First, he argues that within the discursive associations that made up the bourgeois public sphere there was a disregard of status, as the quality of the arguments was more important than the participant’s social status (36). Second, the bourgeoisie opened the discussion on which issues belonged to the domain of common concern, making culture and society available as a topic for discussion (36). There were, however, limitations to what participants could discuss in the bourgeois public sphere. Habermas makes a strict distinction between the public and the private domains. The public sphere is were private people discuss public issues, while private issues pertain to the private sphere and should not be discussed in the public sphere. Third, the public was inclusive, as all who were “propertied and educated” were able, through the participation in discussion groups or the acquisition of periodicals, to participate in the debate (37). There was a general idea that everyone should be able to take part in the discussion. The separate discussion groups understood
themselves to be part of a bigger public. A last element, which Habermas considers vital for the functioning of the bourgeois public sphere, is the strict division between civil society and the state. This is why Habermas stresses that: “the public sphere, made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state, was itself considered part of the private realm” (176).
In The Structural Transformation, Habermas argues there is only one public sphere. Initially this public sphere was homogenous as its members all belonged to the bourgeoisie. However, by the end of the 19th century other groups entered the public sphere (175-181). According to Habermas, this expansion of the public sphere led to the degeneration of the public sphere. It caused the blurring of the clear
divisions that had characterized the bourgeois public sphere on two levels. First, the boundaries between the private and the public sphere became less clear, because with the entrance of new groups private interests started competing in the public sphere. Instead of ignoring class divisions, they became the basis of discussion and
10 action. Second, the strict separation between civil society and the state disappeared, as the “occupation” of the political public sphere by the “unpropertied masses” caused an interlacing of the state and society (177). He argues that because these masses were without property they had no interest in keeping private matters out of the public sphere. By eliminating these divisions, they removed the fundaments of the public sphere without creating a new one. The result of this was the interference of the government in the social order “through advance planning, distribution, and administration” (178).
Habermas argues that ultimately, the expansion of access changed the way in which the public participated; “the key tendency was to replace the shared critical activity of public discourse by a more passive culture consumption on the one hand and an apolitical sociability on the other” (Calhoun 22). Habermas argues that in our modern society the public no longer participates through active debates, but instead reacts to politics by demonstrating their approval or disapproval. Accordingly, states do not respond to the critical public but use publicity to gain support for their
actions (The Structural Transformation 178-181).
Criticism of Habermas’s Concept of the Public Sphere
Through the years, academics have both acclaimed and criticized Habermas’s
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. This study will briefly discuss three
recurring points of criticism, as they are of interest to the discussion at hand. First, Calhoun argues The Structural Transformation deals with the various periods in an asymmetrical manner, as “Habermas tends to judge the eighteenth century by Lock and Kant, the nineteenth by Marx and Mill, and the twentieth by the typical
suburban television viewer” (33). Similarly, Kaelble argues that Habermas is too skeptical about the 19th century while he idolizes the public sphere of the
11 Second, Habermas underestimates the potential of the plebeian public sphere in society. Habermas, in the introduction of The Structural Transformation, stated:
Our investigation is limited to the structure and function of the liberal model of the bourgeois public sphere, to its emergence and transformation. Thus it refers to those features of a historical constellation that attained dominance and leaves aside the plebeian public sphere as a variant that in a sense was suppressed in the historical process. (The Structural Transformation XVIII) In reaction, several authors have demonstrated that the plebeian public sphere deserved more credit than Habermas gave it (Kellner; Negt & Kluge; Calhoun; Fraser). They describe plebeian public sphere as an autonomous sphere parallel to the bourgeois public sphere.
Finally, critics have often accused Habermas of idealizing the bourgeois public sphere because he presents it as an open arena of rational debate, while in reality the discussion was mainly between educated, propertied men and excluded other social groups (Kellner). In his Marxian consideration of the public sphere, Habermas addresses the fact that the bourgeois public sphere represented its own class interests as well as the fact that class and property dictated whether one could participate in the debate (The Structural Transformation 124). Habermas thus
recognizes these flaws in the bourgeois public sphere and admits he is presenting “a stylized picture of the liberal elements of the bourgeoisie public sphere and of their transformation in the social-welfare state” (XIX). However, Habermas does not treat these aspects extensively as they would hurt his historical ideal.
Based on the criticism of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas altered his view on the public sphere. In his chapter in Calhoun’s
Habermas and the Public Sphere, he reflects on how his opinion has changed:
Rereading this book after almost thirty years, I was initially tempted to make changes, eliminate passages, and make emendations. Yet I became
12 increasingly impressed with the impracticability of such a course of action: the first modification would have required me to explain why I did not refashion the entire book. This, however, would be asking too much of an author who in the meantime has turned to other matters (Habermas, “Further Reflections” 421)
He addresses his neglect of the working class public sphere, which he had characterized as a mere “variant of the bourgeois public sphere that remained repressed in the historical process” (Habermas 423). New studies have convinced him that he had underestimated the plebeian public sphere:
The emergence of the plebeian public sphere thus marks a specific phase in the historical development of the life relations of the petit bourgeoisie and the strata below it … it is more than a mere variant, since it develops the
bourgeois public sphere’s emancipatory potential in a new social context. The plebeian public sphere is, in a manner of speaking, a bourgeois public sphere whose social preconditions have been rendered null. (Lottes in Habermas, “Further Reflections” 426)
A second issue Habermas adresses is the accusation that he idolizes the bourgeois public sphere. He argues he should have specified more clearly that he was not providing a normative ideal that we should implement in our society, but an ideal type to which to compare the present (Habermas, “Further Reflections” 422). He argues he should have more clearly described the differences between the ideal and the actual bourgeois public sphere. In his later work this conflict between his historical representation and normative objective, caused Habermas to shift his attention from searching for an ideal in a historic context to analyzing the rational potential of everyday communicative practices. He thus shifted from an historic ideal to a more abstract one. Lunt and Livingstone aptly illustrate Habermas’s reconceptualization of the public sphere:
13 [T]he rethought public sphere is inevitably dispersed, and its legitimacy rests less in the nature of the place where communication occurs and instead in the nature of the communication itself. … Habermas now embraces the contested nature of public life, the importance of recognition of diverse identities and, therefore, the legitimacy of multiple forms and sites of deliberation. … No longer is bourgeois conversation specifically idealised, as in Habermas’s original formulation of the public sphere, because he has moved away from conceiving of the idealised political consciousness of the participant in the public sphere (Lunt and Livingstone 6).
Ultimately, the weaknesses of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere are related to the objective of the author. In his book, Habermas wished to
demonstrate the pitiful state of our present-day public sphere, where rational debate is nearly absent. To achieve this he needed a strong normative ideal to which to compare modern society, as a bigger contrast would render his point more forcefully. Habermas chose to analyze “a particular historical moment at which certain possibilities for human emancipation were unlocked, possibilities that for Habermas were ordered around the ‘central idea of communicatively generated rationality’” (Eley 290). However, as Eley argues, Habermas is more interested in creating a strong ideal against which he can compare the modern public sphere, than in the particular political histories of the eighteenth and nineteenth century (“Further Reflections” 328). There is thus a tension between the normative intensions and the historical facts. All these elements make that Habermas’s conception of the public sphere is not very useful to study Chartism. Now that we have discussed the problems inherent in Habermas’s conception of the public sphere, it is time to consider another approach to the public sphere, which is more suited to analyze Chartism.
14 Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere
Coming from a feminist point of view, Fraser analyzes the way in which non-dominating social movements express themselves in the public sphere. Social movements are a vital part of democratic politics and public discourse, as they can change the content of the public debate by introducing new subjects (Calhoun 37). Calhoun argues that Habermas’s neglect for social movement points to negligence towards agency, towards the struggles, which reform the public sphere and its participants. Although Fraser does not reject the idea of the public sphere itself, she identifies four crucial claims Habermas made about the bourgeois public sphere that are problematic if they are confronted with a critical evaluation of historical facts. Of the four claims Fraser discusses in her article, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, three are of interest in this discussion.
The first claim deals with intra-public relations. Habermas argues that the public sphere was openly accessible and that within this public sphere the
participants did not consider status. Fraser, on the other hand, argues that although formally there were no restraints to participations in the bourgeoisie public sphere, the protocols of style and decorum served as informal restraints. These protocols limited the participation to the white male members of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, groups that did not belong to the upper classes did not have the same opportunities to contribute to the debate in the media, as members of the higher classes owned the media. This combination of cultural exclusion and political economy did not create an equal opportunity of participation (59-60). A last remark she makes on the subject is that disregarding social status means that participants cannot discuss social
differences, but this issue relates to the contents of the public deliberation, which is part of the third claim treated below.
Chartism, in a way, demonstrates the consequences of the limited accessibility of the bourgeois public sphere, which was open to all that were “propertied and
15 educated” (Habermas, The Structural Transformation 37), and thus led to the exclusion of the majority of the population. This exclusion in the public sphere was also part of the system of parliamentary representation. It was this exclusion that caused the social agitation in the United Kingdom from the end of the 18th, beginning of the 19th century. Chartism meant the end of the social exclusivity of the public sphere. The result of the exclusion of the working class from the bourgeois public sphere was the formation of a parallel working class public sphere.
The second claim deals with the inter-public relations. Habermas’s argues there is one public sphere and that a plurality of publics causes dissolution and deterioration, which negatively influences the public sphere (175-181). In contrast, Fraser argues that in a society characterized by inequality, multiple contending publics serve the democratic principle of equality of participation better (71). If only one public sphere existed, non-dominant social groups would have no place to discuss their common concerns. This is why Fraser argues we should consider the existence of multiple parallel public spheres, which can overlap or contend each other (72). She argues that subordinated groups have often organized themselves in discursive spaces outside the dominant public sphere. She calls these groups
subaltern counter publics. These counter publics have a dual function, they serve as an enclave,” a space of withdrawal” , but also as a bases from which to participate in a wider debate in various ways (68). She sees the contestatory function of these counter publics as fundamental against separatism. She considers the counter publics to have an emancipatory function, as they participate in a discussion that is not limited to their group only (67). These counter publics thus do not limit
themselves to discussing their issues within their own ranks, but use publicity to make their problems known in a wider arena, for example in the form of petitions or manifestations.
Fraser approaches the concept of the public sphere from the standpoint of subordinated social groups that want to alter the existing system. This contestatory
16 function seems a fitting description of the function of Chartism. Before Chartism so publicly and articulately expressed the problems of the working class were facing, these problems might have been largely unknown outside that class.
The third claim deals with the content of the deliberations in the public sphere. Habermas argued that in the public sphere private persons discuss public matters; Fraser problematizes this distinction between private and public. She argues that it is a subjective distinction. She states that in a democracy, counter publics should have the possibility to put any subject up for discussion in order to try to convince the rest. Fraser discusses two rhetoric practices through which some topics are rendered ineligible for discussion by privatizing them; these are the rhetoric of domestic privacy and economic privacy, both of which are relevant to the discussion at hand (73). Through the notion of economic privacy, which regarded ownership and the commerce of commodities as private affairs, the discussion of other systems than the liberal laissez faire was ruled out. It also means that participants in the public sphere could not discuss the relations of domination and subordination as this concerns private interests.
The problem that Fraser recognizes is that in a society based on domination and subordination, the dominating group decides what the common concerns are. The same is true for choosing which issues belong to the private sphere and which issues belong to the public sphere. Chartism is a perfect example of a subaltern counter public using its contestatory function to try to change society. Chartism was able to make male suffrage a public matter, by publicly discussing issues, which the dominant public sphere considered private. They also made the working and living conditions of the working class into a topic that was debatable in the public sphere and from the 1840’s on the government started to try to improve the condition of the working class (Brown).
A last aspect of importance is the division between civil society and the state. Fraser discusses the desirability of this separation, but for the purposes of this study,
17 it is more interesting to consider whether this division between civil society and the state actually existed. Kaelble argues that the division between the state and civil society, as envisioned by Habermas, is more accurate if related to the absolutist states, and less applicable to democratic societies of the 19th and 20th century (11-12). According to Kaelble, the state and civil society influenced each other reciprocally. On the one hand, power holders influenced and sometimes even arranged public discussion. In addition, power holders also have the power to try to keep certain groups out of the public debate. On the other hand, the whole point of the public sphere is that through deliberation the public sphere can influence those in power. In addition, some of the citizens that make up the public sphere held a position of power themselves (23).
In the case of Chartism and the preceding radicalism in Britain, it is possible to identify examples of both types of intertwining of the state and civil society that Kaelble mentions (11-12). On the one hand, in some occasions politicians and citizens work together. More significant in the case of Chartism however, was that the state influenced the public sphere, by actively trying to restrain the radicals from
participating in the public debate. The British government cracked down on the Chartist movement not only by forcefully putting down riots and incarcerating Chartist leaders, but also by restricting their possibilities of free press and assembly. The government forbade seditious writings and gatherings of more than 50 people. They also taxed the press in such a manner that it was unaffordable to the lower classes. The government thus actively repressed the possibility of the working class to participate in the public debate. Considering that the state was actively limiting who could participate in the public sphere as well as restraining what participants could say within the public sphere, it is evident that there was no clear division between state and civil society in the beginning of the 19th century. Chartism also stands for the beginning of what Habermas considers a problematic issue, the intertwining of the state and civil society through the direct intervention of the state
18 in the economy in order to improve the plight of the lower classes. However, the state had already been intervening in the economy in the interest of certain groups for a long time, just not the working class.
In conclusion, the case of Chartism demonstrates the weaknesses of certain aspects of Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Especially the strict division between public and private and between the state and civil society are problematic when analyzing Chartism. Habermas’s focus on the normative ideal over the
historical accurateness makes his conception of the public sphere suitable to criticize modern society, but less useful for analyzing historical movements. Finally, his lack of attention for social movements, combined with his idea of a single public sphere, make it hard to use this conception to study changes in the public sphere. Fraser’s approach, on the other hand, focuses on social movements and the way they change society. Chartism is a good example of a subaltern counter public using its
contestatory function. A fundamental difference between Fraser and Habermas is that in Habermas’s conception, the public sphere is not a social space where
participants can discuss the relation of domination and subordination, while Fraser devised her concept of subaltern counter publics to describe exactly that
phenomenon. Considering that Chartism was all about questioning the relation between classes and trying to alter the power relations, Fraser’s conception of the public sphere is simply better equipped to analyze Chartism.
The Public Sphere and the Literary Analysis of the Chartist Press
Now that we have considered the way Chartism fits into the framework of the public sphere, this paragraph will focus on demonstrating how this influences the literary analysis made in this thesis. It will discuss three aspects related to the
Chartist public sphere, which alter our understanding of the use of Romantic poetry in the Chartist press.
19 The first aspect is the division between public and private discussed above. As Calhoun argues, social movements are a vital part of democratic politics and public discourse, by introducing new issues they can change what the participants discuss in the public debate (37). In the case of Chartism, this introduction of new topics has a more significant role, as it alters which issues belong to the private sphere and which belong to the public sphere. Of particular interest for our literary analysis is the rhetoric of domesticity. The rhetoric of domesticity was the Chartist answer to the middle class gendered notion of virtue, which marked the working class as morally inferior (Clark, “The rhetoric” 66). The middle class did not use this rhetoric of virtue to impose domesticity on the working class, but to deny the
working class the privileges associated with it. In order to construct a more positive image of the working class, Chartists made the domestic into a political issue, defending it and using it as a political asset (67). One of the main argumentative structures used by the Chartist was that of blaming familial misery on exterior elements such as the masters who exploited them, the government that did not protect their interests (the New Poor Law), and the aristocracy that ruled them. In their rhetoric, the ideal (middle class) form of domesticity and the associated role of women were unobtainable because of the exploitation by the higher classes. In practice, the Chartist turned what the dominant public sphere considered the most private matter into a public resource. This study encountered multiple accounts of this rhetoric in articles containing Romantic poetry. If this study would not approach Chartism as a public sphere, it would neglect the Chartist struggle of making private issues into public matters, which was a fundamental part of Chartism. It would thus fail to understand the Chartist’s use of the image of the domestic fully.
A second important aspect of Chartism was the self-education of the working class; self-education was vital for the movement as it “was directed at identifying a producerist interest within a monopolized and hierarchical societal structure that impoverished their members and excluded them from politics” (Niemi and Plante
20 158). Self-education played an important role in the identity of the movement. A frequently used argument to counter the Chartists call for suffrage was the claim that the working classes were to ignorant to be given the right to vote, this made self-education all the more important. The demand for universal self-education and thus the end of exclusion of the working class on economic grounds was one of the central policies of the Chartists. Education was also one of the informal restraints keeping the working class out of the public debate and the Chartist wanted society to consider them worthy of participation. They also wanted the working class to be conscious of how the upper classes were exploiting them. This inherent aspect of the Chartist public sphere is a recurrent theme in the analyzed articles.
A final aspect of Chartism that is important to consider in the context of the public sphere is the main internal division. The Chartists were divided into two camps the moral force and physical force Chartists. This division centered around which political strategy was best suited to obtain the Charter. The moral school was convinced that they could obtain electoral reforms through self-education and manifesting moral values, the people needed to be educated and enlightened in order to be able to induce the government to recognize the rights and liberties they should rightfully have. On the other hand, the physical force school argued that self-education and morals were not enough and that violence might be a necessary tool in the process of obtaining male suffrage (J. Morgan, “Rise Like Lions”). Most modern interpretations of Chartism claim that previous scholars overemphasized this division, as the physical force Chartists often used a rhetoric of violence and took part in the occasional riots, but never actually chose for armed struggle as means of winning the Charter (Thompson 2). However, as Shabaan argues it is impossible to state with certainty if using a violent rhetoric was a deliberate choice the physical force Chartist made to scare the authorities or that they actually meant their threats (167). Walton argues that the two different schools of thought were dependent on each other as the moral force approach needed the threat of
21 insurrection for credibility while the physical force approach needed the
legitimization of having tried alternative approaches first (59). Whatever the case may be, what is important for the discussion at hand is that the physical versus moral force debate was important within the Chartist movement. The fact that there was public discussion on subjects as important as the main strategy demonstrates how Chartism functioned as public sphere of its own (Clark, “The Struggle” 225-226). This division between moral force and physical force Chartism sheds light on the reason Chartists chose to use certain Romantic poems.
22 2. The Use of Romantic Poetry in the Chartist Public Sphere
This chapter will consider the use of Romantic poetry in the Chartist public sphere. It will analyze the Chartist press as an expression of that public sphere. The Chartist press is one of the few aspects of this public sphere that remain intact. In specific, this chapter will analyze why and how The Chartist Circular used Romantic poetry in order to propagate the Chartist cause. This chapter will address four questions related to the instances in which The Chartist Circular used Romantic poetry. First, why did the paper use this specific poem? Second, why were the specific lines of that poem chosen and the others excluded? Third, how do these poems relate to the rest of the article? Finally, what is their function in the Chartist public sphere? However, before we start to analyze the instances in which The
Chartist Circular used Romantic poetry, it is necessary to discuss briefly the Chartist
press and the significance of poetry in the Chartist press.
The Chartist Press
As mentioned in the previous chapter, one of the aspects that made Chartism substantially different from other preceding protest movements was its national reach. The fact that Chartist activities from all over the country were reported on in the Chartist press, made all these small groups feel they were part of a greater movement; this sense of national unity could not have been obtained without the Chartist press (Thompson 55). Moreover, through their newspapers the Chartists could rapidly diffuse ideas, information, and suggested strategies, thereby making it a fundamental tool for spreading the ideology and strengthening the idea of
knowing what was happening within the movement (Thompson 40). However, the Chartist papers did not exclusively serve as a weapon in the struggle for civil liberty it was also a means of educating the people. Some authors even argue that if there had not been newspapers to provide propaganda at a local level there would have been no Chartist movement at all (Hugman 25).
23 In 1836 the British government passed the Newspaper Act, this law reduced the duty on newspapers from 4d to 1d, thereby making newspapers commonly available to the middle class. At the same time, the 1836 act rendered unstamped papers legal as long as they did not report on news. However, it also severely augmented the penalties for publishing or owning unstamped newspapers that did report on news. This made it more difficult for the working class to obtain news (Thompson 41).
The result of the 1836 Newspaper Act was the creation of two different types of Chartist papers. On the one hand, there were small-sized cheap journals with no duty stamp on them and therefore limited to commenting, as they were not allowed to report any news. These unstamped journals did not get concessions with the post and railway and were thus more limited in their reach. On the other hand, there were larger legal newspapers selling at a much higher price but with a wider reach (“Chartist Newspapers”). These two different types of papers served different purposes within the movement. Due to their high costs, only one stamped Chartist newspaper managed to maintain itself: The Northern Star. It was this stamped
newspaper that held the national public together by reporting on all radical activity.
The Northern Star was the biggest newspaper reaching the largest audience, but also
one that the working class could not easily afford. Even if The Northern Star was the most influential newspaper, the smaller and unstamped papers also played a significant part in the movement. They offered the possibility for different currents within the same movement to partake in the discussion and they offered the
possibility to elaborate on local issues. The unstamped papers also served the purpose of providing information on the Charter at a local level.
Poetry in the Chartist Press
Poetry was a very common part of newspapers in the nineteenth century and the Chartist press was no exception to this phenomenon. Nearly all Chartist
24 newspapers contained a poetry column and these columns were one of the main sources of poetry for the working class. The majority of the poetry published in the Chartist journals came from artisans and factory workers and contemplated the concerns of the working class. Many of the Chartist poets came from illiterate families that could not afford education for their children, and were thus
autodidacts. According to Sanders, writing poetry had a specific function for the Chartists; it served to demonstrate what the working class was capable of, it was a symbol of their sophistication (62).
Poetry was without a doubt a political tool; the Chartist not only used poetry to express the dire living conditions of the lower class, but also to inform and
mobilize people (“Chartist Poetry”). Due to the low diffusion of literacy and the high tax on papers it was difficult for the working class to keep itself politically and
culturally informed; poetry provided a way of keeping themselves informed without relying on information coming from the higher social classes. Moreover, poetry was easier to put to mind because of its rhyme pattern. Shabaan argues that to the Chartists, poetry “became a means of resisting tyranny and despotism on the one hand, and of enhancing the search for freedom and happiness on the other, till 'All genuine poets' were taken to be 'fervid politicians'” (183).
Chartist newspapers however, were not limited to explicitly Chartist poetry of the moment; they also frequently used Romantic poetry. Considering that Chartism was a working class movement and that poetry written by members of this class served to demonstrate the sophistication of the working class; analyzing the purpose of using poetry of members of competing classes/publics can be of value, especially if applied to the conception of the subaltern counter public.
The Chartist Circular
This study chose to analyze The Chartist Circular, a smaller unstamped paper, based on three factors. First, while Sanders has analyzed the use of poetry in the
25 most important Chartist stamped paper, The Northern Star, the unstamped journals have received little attention. Second, considering that The Chartist Circular was unstamped it might have used poetry differently, for as argued above unstamped papers offered the possibility for different currents within the same movement to partake in the discussion and offered the possibility to elaborate on local issues. This might have translated into a clearer taking of positions in the public sphere. Sander’s research can thus service as reference material to which to compare the findings of this study. The last reason behind the choice for this journal is a practical one, The
Chartist Circular was one of the journals Shabaan searched for instances in which
Romantic poetry was used, but did not analyze (28).
The Chartist Circular was an unstamped, four-page journal sold at the price of
1/2d that came out weekly. The paper ran from September 1839 to July 1842, during its first year the paper sold 22,500 copies a week (“Chartist Circular”). It was one of the most successful and long-lasting Chartist journals in Scotland. The Chartist
Circular was under the guidance of the Universal Suffrage Central Committee for
Scotland and its aim was to disseminate the Chartist message in Scotland (“Chartist Circular: the voice”). Because the paper was unstamped and therefore not allowed to contain any news items, it focused on creating a better understanding of the Charter and its objectives (Fraser, “The Chartist” 82-86).
During the three years The Chartist Circular was in print, it published
Romantic poetry on nine different occasions. This study will analyze the first four of these instances in their order of their appearance. First, Percy Bysshe Shelley's “Song to the Men of England” in The Chartist Circular of 19 October 1839 (16). Second, an extract from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's “Religious Musings” in The Chartist Circular of 18 April 1840 (121). Third, a selection of stanzas from canto III of Shelley’s Queen
Mab; A Philosophical Poem in The Chartist Circular of 25 July 1840 (178). Finally,
selections from five poems by Wordsworth in The Chartist Circular of 1 August 1840 (182).
26 Shelley's “Song to the Men of England”
“Song to the Men of England” is the most frequently used Romantic poem in the Chartist press (Shabaan, “Romantics” 25-46). Shelley wrote this poem in reaction to the Peterloo Massacre. In 1819, the emerging labor unions had gathered 60.000 people to demonstrate peacefully for political reform at St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester. The authorities, fearing disorder or even a revolution, reacted in a disproportionate manner. Before the orators had the possibility to speak the yeomanry, a cavalry police unit made up of aristocrats, attacked the gathered protesters leaving eleven people dead and several hundred others wounded. Soon after radicals started referring to the demonstration as the Peterloo massacre in reference to the bloody battle of Waterloo that had taken place 4 years earlier (Evans). This incident achieved an almost myth like status amongst the
contemporary radicals and amongst the Chartists two decades later (Sanders 89). The poem addresses the living conditions of the working class and the conflict of this class with the higher classes that oppress them. In the poem, Shelley directly addresses the men of England, asking them various questions. Why work for the idle aristocrats who oppress them? Why work if they do not share in the spoils of their labor? He asks them what advantages they obtain for their work. Through these questions, Shelley shows them that they obtain no benefits for their work, for the ruling class claims all they produce. The scope of all these questions is to make the working class readers think about the social conditions of the society they live in. He wants them to ponder why they allow the higher classes to exploit them. The stanzas that follow, five and six, are central to the poem’s purpose and significance.
The seed ye sow, another reaps; The wealth ye find, another keeps; The robes ye weave, another wears; The arms ye forge, another bears.
27 Sow seed—but let no tyrant reap:
Find wealth—let no imposter heap: Weave robes—let not the idle wear:
Forge arms—in your defence to bear (17-24).
In stanza five by repeatedly stressing the difference between the ones who produce, “ye”, and the ones who obtain the benefits of the production process, “another”, Shelley incites his readers. Moreover, the contrast between the verbs sow and reap, weave and wear, and forge and bear emphasizes the differences in the social system between workers and their masters. Shelley illustrates this contrast in the language of those addressed in the poems, the people of England, with activities related to their professions of farmers and artisans.
In stanza six he echoes stanza five but replaces another by the words “”tyrant”, “imposter”, and ”idle”, he thereby stresses his strong objections
concerning the exploitation of the workers. In fact, Shelley is telling the Englishmen to keep what they produce instead of yielding it to the higher classes. In particular, the phrase “Forge arms, in your defence to bear” (24) is noteworthy because it insinuates the use of violence to defend their property and liberty (Provost).Shelley dares the workers to revolt, but in the last two stanzas also threatens the workers by stating that if the situation does not change it will have dire consequences. He argues that if the workers lack the courage to start a revolution, they will have to “Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells” (25) and they will have to “Trace your grave, and build your tomb” (30) until “England be your sepulchre!” (32).
The poet uses the simple metaphor of the beehive in his poem, describing the workers as bees and the owners as drones. This is a striking metaphor because in the bee community, the bee does all the work, while the drones live exploiting the work of the bees. To understand how much influence this poem had, it suffices to read what Briggs writes; he says that despite the big differences between the different
28 groups of Chartists of different cities “all Chartists would have thought of
themselves, however, as ‘sons of toil’, bees, not drones, members of the ‘industrious classes’” (Briggs 93).
The language used by Shelley in this poem is simple; just like the metaphor he uses is simple. The reason for this is that he wanted the poem to be accessible for people that did not enjoy a lot of education. The whole poem can read as a political speech at a working class rally where Shelley is addressing the crowd. First, he asks them rhetorical questions to make them understand their situation. Second, he explains how exactly the exploitation takes place. Third, he tells the crowd to resist and take what is rightfully theirs. Finally, he threatens the crowd by stating that inactivity will have dire consequences in order to push them over the edge.
The predominant logic in “Song to the Men of England” is an economic one, although if we consider work ethics as a moral question, then the repeated criticism of idleness also functions as a moral condemnation of sorts. Shabaan considers Shelley’s insights as ‘strikingly advanced’ especially considering that his analysis predates Marx. She argues that Shelley approaches Marx’s theory of labor-value and surplus value in his analysis that demonstrates that the people produce wealth but they are not the ones to claim the benefits (140).
In his poem, Shelley seems to have two different attitudes towards the working class. On one side he feels compassion for the situation they live in, on the other side he disdains them because they permit the people in power to exploit them. First, Shelley encourages the people of England to revolt explaining why they should do so; later Shelley speaks in a derogatory way to them men of England because he does not understand why the working class does not rebel. However, Shelley might have used the disdain towards the working class on purpose, to give the workers the additional push by enraging them. Shelley, by being slightly
offensive and making clear that if the workers do not act now it will be their doom, hopes to anger them enough to spur them into immediate action. This rhetoric
29 would probably have worked well for the Chartists as they considered the
Romantics and Shelley in particular as a cultural, moral, and political authority (Randall 172).
What is it that attracted the Chartists to this poem? First of all, Shelley wrote “Song to the Men of England” as a response to the Peterloo Massacre, an event that caused a great amount of indignation in the social protest movement. It is true that the massacre occurred before the rise of Chartism, but it had been a peaceful
demonstration asking for parliamentary reform and can be considered as one of the myths of English radicalism. When writing this poem, Shelley seems to have had the average protester in mind, for he writes the poem in simple language so they could understand it. In this poem, Shelley seems to be at one of the Chartist public
gatherings speaking to them, for example by asking the questions in the beginning of the poem, he knew he would have stirred up the crowd. Shelley treats themes that are very important for the Chartists, such as the inequalities in division of wealth and labor. However, the aspect that probably spoke most to the mind of the Chartist was the bee metaphor. The Chartists were very proud of the fact that they worked hard and Shelley’s beehive metaphor pleasingly contrasts the workers with the image of the useless exploiting aristocracy. Shelley was not the first to use this beehive metaphor, which opposes the working bees to the drones, as this metaphor dates back to ancient Greece (Liebert). However, the metaphor had become widely diffused. Morgan argues that in the nineteenth century, the notions of the busy bee and the drone had become idiomatic (V. Morgan 166). Although there were other instances in which poets used a beehive metaphor, considering the success of “Song to the Men of England” amongst the Chartists and its numerous appearances in the Chartist press, it is probably this poem that made the metaphor popular. The
Chartist press borrowed this beehive metaphor frequently. For example, O’ Connor’s opening editorial in The Northern Star described the exploitation of the working class as: “the absorption of the honey of the factory bee, by the drone who owns the key”
30 (1). The Chartist Circular discusses the same exploitation in a front-page filling article entitled “The Doings of Drones” (325).
The way The Chartist Circular introduces the poem gives some indication as to why the Chartists admired Shelley to such an extent. The author calls Shelley one of the 'poets of the people', and praises several of his characteristics first the fact that Shelley, who was born an aristocrat, later severed all bonds with his own class (Shelley rejected his inheritance of his father’s estate and his seat in parliament). Second, Shelley was always critical of the aristocracy and sympathized with the working class. The author states that Shelley believed that eventually a clash
between the classes would inevitably occur and Shelley was on the side of the people and he taught them the “laws of union and the strength of passive resistance”.
However, more factors made Shelley a favorite of the Chartist public that the author of the article does not mention. Shabaan identifies three other important causes (1-20). First, she argues that the Chartist considered Shelley to be more essentially radical, meaning that he supported a different kind of political philosophy compared to most other radical philosophers and poets of his time. Shabaan divides the
political philosophers and poets into two categories; on the one hand, there are radicals, who try to identify the root of the problem and resent the injustice they, but do not call for immediate political action. Shabaan mentions Godwin as an example of this group (17). On the other hand, there are reformers, radicals with a clear plan on how to improve society and the political system. She places Shelley in the second category as he considered that “that man has not only the right, but even the duty to rebel against injustice” (18). Shelley did not consider education alone enough to achieve the reformation of society, nonetheless he saw education as the necessary basis for political struggle. His work was more immediate than that of most other poets, in the sense that he did not only seek enlightenment but argued for concrete action. In particular, “Song to the Men of England” with its call for immediate action and the use of weapons was probably very attractive to the physical force Chartists.
31 A second reason for Shelley popularity is that the Chartist not only agreed with his ideas about the reforms that were necessary, but more specifically they were
strongly attracted to his visions of a better future (J. Morgan “Shelley in the 19th”). The last factor, and the one Shabaan considers the most important of all, is that Shelley was a political poet and the Chartists considered poetry one of the most important ways of mobilizing the people. The fusion of poetry and politics in Shelley’s work matched with the Chartist idea that poetry was the best literary means in the struggle for political reform (Shabaan II). The Chartist Circular contains an example of this conviction:
Many facts could be drawn from history to prove the great influence of poetry in moulding the popular mind to its will. Take, for instance, Dante, in the 13th century, exposing the errors, and laughing at the claims of an arrogant state church, and declaiming against its abuse in its own territories … Poets and their poetry have, and will continue to exert an extensive influence on the destinies of mankind (“Politics of the Poets No. I” 170).
A fundamental aspect this study still needs to address is how to interpret The
Chartist Circular’s use of the poem “Song to the Men of England” in relation to its
function within the public sphere. This study will elaborate on five elements in particular. First, the scope of this article was to claim Shelley as part of the Chartist subaltern counter public as a “poet of the people”. This was very satisfying for the Chartists considering that Shelley, even though he was born in the upper class that was part of the dominant public sphere, had chosen not to be part of it.
Second, the poem serves the didactic purposes of the Chartists, which was central to the Chartist movement, as the Chartists considered education and
awareness the first steps in the direction of political change. The poems mobilizing tone reinforces this function. Shelley’s “Song to the Men of England” is a very sharp description of the socioeconomic situation at the time and the poem expresses exactly what the Chartist editors wanted to instill upon their readers, namely how
32 the rich were responsible for the suffering of the poor. Moreover, this educative function is something that Shelley seemed to have consciously embedded in the poem. The structure of the poem leaves room for reflection by the reader.
Third, the poem is a good example of how something that was considered a private matter by the dominant public sphere, ownership and the commerce of commodities and its connection to social labor and the living conditions of the working class, were turned into a public matter by the Chartist subaltern counter public.
Fourth, the use of poetry of a famous Romantic poet added persuasiveness to the Chartist arguments as the Chartists considered them figures of authority.
However as argued above, Shelley held a special position in the Chartist public sphere. Morgan argues Shelley was “a political chip in ideological battles between the Chartists and their liberal rivals in print culture on the meaning and direction of history” (“Shelley in the 19th”). According to Foot, Shelley tried to convince the working class to rebel against the system of exploitation because he was an “enemy of all irresponsible authority, especially the irresponsible authority which derives from wealth and exploitation” and “sided on every occasion with the masses when they rose against their oppressors” (26).
A final function of Romantic poetry in this article is the reinvention of the working class identity. Fraser argues non-dominant social groups operate in parallel discursive arenas where they can develop and spread counterdiscourses, which allow them to devise their own view of their own identity, necessities and desires (67). The appropriation of Shelley’s metaphor should be considered in this light. While the upper classes had negative considerations of the working class, the Chartists constructed a more positive image of their identity, which was focused on the fact that they worked hard. Shelley’s metaphor suited this function perfectly.
33 Coleridge's “Religious Musings” Lines 288 to 315
Coleridge started writing the “Religious Musings” in 1794 at the age of twenty-two. During the period that Coleridge composed “Religious Musings”, the French Revolution was taking place and Coleridge supported this revolution. The main themes in the “Religious Musings” are Unitarianism (the belief that the father, the son and the Holy Spirit are one God), government, property, the French
revolution, and the apocalypse. While Coleridge was a supporter of radical ideas at a young age, later, when the outcome of French Revolution disappointed him, he put aside his radicalism and focused on Unitarianism.
The Chartist Circular did not print the extract from the poem under its original
title “Religious Musings”. Instead, the Chartists put another title above it: “The Corn-Law Repealers”. They place the poem, which Coleridge had written on the French Revolution, in the context of the Anti-Corn Law movement. The British government implemented the Corn Law in 1815; it highly taxed imported grain, rendering importation practically unprofitable. The government, under pressure of the landowners, passed this protectionist law to protect its own agriculture. These laws kept the prices of grain artificially high and because of this law in times of famine no extra grain could be imported cheaply (Simkin). This was very
problematic for the working class; because their main food source was bread, they felt the blow of the rising grain prices the hardest. The images in the extract from “Religious Musings” in The Chartist Circular fit the protest against the Corn Law perfectly.
In the extract of “Religious Musings” in The Chartist Circular, Coleridge laments the effect that the oppression of the higher classes has on the working class. He starts by describing how the greedy oppressors are keeping the masses from the abundance of food; this fits well considering that the Corn Law effectively made it impossible for the working class to obtain food at a low price, while at the same time
34 protecting the rich landowners. These circumstances force the poor, who remain with so little they cannot survive, to do things they otherwise would not have, to the extreme of committing bloody acts. He gives five examples of moral degradation caused by the exploitation and the resulting poverty. The first example, is that of a man that forced by hunger resorts to violent muggings. The second is a girl that forced by poverty, prostitutes herself to drunks. The third is an old woman who lives of charity and dies slowly of a chronical lack of food. The fourth example talks of the despaired beggars who are turned away from the full poorhouses, already half dead they suffer even more under exploitation of the rich, who Coleridge describes as “the vulture's beak” (307). Coleridge thus metaphorically compares the exploitation to the plucking of flesh from a corpse by carrion birds. The last example is that of a poor widow who wakes up screaming from the dreams of her murdered husband and who during the cold winter nights in her desolated cottage has to curl up around her crying baby to keep it warm. Coleridge then tells these “Children of Wretchedness” to rest and says there will be more suffering before it will be over, but he stresses the day of retribution is near (311-315).
The poem “Religious Musings” is 426 lines long but The Chartist Circular uses only 28 lines. Why did the editors select these lines in the poems and exclude others? Coleridge's “Religious Musings” is as the title suggests for the biggest part a
religious poem, but the Chartist were not interested in this aspect. The fragment of the poem is the beginning of the thirteenth stanza of the poem, but the end cuts the stanza abruptly for it continues for another 18 lines. The part of the poem as printed in The Chartist Circular has several elements that would clearly be interesting to the Chartists: the oppression of the masses by the rich, the suffering and hunger of the poor due to the exploitation and the dire consequences this exploitation has:
O thou poor Wretch
Who nursed in darkness and made wild by want, Roamest for prey, yea thy unnatural hand
