'Chartism: Why Did It Happen?' - Sharon Chau

'Chartism: Why Did It Happen?' - Sharon Chau

“The approaching termination of the great war, the burdensome weight of taxation, the increasing distress of the people revived popular agitation. The vain struggle against machinery attested to the misery of the people and the incompetence and heartlessness of their rulers” .

This quote by George Julian Harney, a critical Chartist leader, demonstrates the hardship from which Chartism was born. At its core, Chartism argued that “all men are born with equal rights” and consisted of a large group of working and middle-class individuals calling for parliamentary reform and universal suffrage. Demanding six terms, namely Universal Manhood Suffrage, abolishing property qualifications for MPs, holding yearly elections for the House of Commons, establishing equal electoral districts, a salary for MPs, and a secret ballot, Chartism was seen as one of the most influential working-class movements in the nineteenth century. However, it was also seen as a “knife-and-fork” movement correlating with rising economic woes as much as it was a political one.

In this essay, the reasons leading to the rise of Chartism will be examined, including long-term economic and ideological factors and shortterm economic and political factors.

For the long-term, these include the process of industrialisation, the influence of the French Revolution, Britain’s intellectual climate and the nature of the Chartist movement; for the short-term, these include the economic depression and rise in food prices, as well as disappointment towards the Great Reform Act and Whig reforms and the growth of the popular press. These factors were all indispensable to the rise of Chartism, but ultimately short-term economic and political factors were the matches that set alight the powder keg of economic hardship and intellectual radicalism.

The first long-term economic factor for Chartism’s rise was industrialisation, which had three crucial effects. Firstly, industrialisation caused increased job insecurity. Royle notes that industrialisation and urbanisation were transforming the lives of the people drastically , as the rise of automation meant that much of the working class had been replaced or were worried about losing their jobs to machines. Secondly, industrialisation led to increased economic inequality and an unequal distribution of benefits to the population. Such inequality left the working class feeling “isolated, neglected, and exposed” , prompting action to be taken for social change. Thirdly, industrialisation created worse working conditions. A pertinent example was the rising mining industry - reports illustrated a state of “filth, barbarism, and demoralisation which both beggars description and defies belief ” . Horrific working conditions, long hours and low pay caused many individuals to dread going to work every day and wish for a better future. Nonetheless, economic discontent had to be translated into action. Hartwell argues that the industrial revolution “enabled the working classes, for the first time in history, to organise effectively, both industrially and politically . This was mostly due to the urbanisation happening along with industrialisation. In 1801, 78% of the population lived in the countryside and 22% lived in towns; but in 1851, 50% of the population was living in towns. Briggs notes the “rapid increase in the size of towns” which “provided new opportunities for political discussion and action” were often “centres of subversive ideas” . Such urbanisation united agitation, allowing radical ideas to spread more quickly through word-of-mouth.

However, industrialisation alone is insufficient in explaining the rise of Chartism. Firstly, it does not explain why Chartism was a political instead of an economic protest movement; and secondly, given the gradual process of industrialisation, it does not explain why there was a sudden tipping point which mobilised people to the Chartist cause. Hence, one potential theory for this gap is intellectual and ideological radicalisation, which could explain the political nature of the movement and the incentives for the mass mobilisation that happened.

The first ideological factor was the impact of the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Hovell argues that “in a world of injustice and inequality, the working men found hope and a call to action in those theories of natural rights and justice which the French Revolution had popularised” , with the Revolution providing persuasive intellectual theories for people to rise against tyrannical governments . Mainstream newspapers at the time echoed this sentiment, with the Times writing, “while all our neighbours are having their revolutions, we must have a revolution of our own” . The fact that the most popular paper at the time was inciting subversion suggests that the message reached a wide audience and that a significant portion of the population supported this idea. Those in government were not also immune to the seduction of the French Revolution - an 1830 pamphlet by MP Henry Brougham emphasised “the effects of the French Revolution must teach him the absolute necessity of reforms in all the abuses of our system” , supporting his argument for necessary parliamentary reform. Despite this, one must keep in mind the limited extent to which the working classes genuinely knew or cared about the French Revolution, as argued by E.P. Thompson. Chartism, an ostensibly working-class movement, was mostly shaped by the response of the middle and upper classes to the French Revolution .

Secondly, Britain’s intellectual climate, including the beginnings of trade unionism and increased class and political consciousness, led to the rise of Chartism. Organisations such as the British Association for the Promotion of Co-operative Knowledge and the Metropolitan Trades’ Union combined traditional political goals, particularly the vote, with demands for measures to secure the working classes’ independence from the capitalist’s economic power . These institutions fostered and consolidated radical political thought which was crucial to Chartism by disseminating information and encouraging unionisation. The strong class divide within Britain was also ripe for new political theories. Marx and Engels wrote, “In England, there exists the most numerous, most concentrated and most classic example of a proletariat” , demonstrating the clear separation between the upper and working classes which amplified the reason for social agitation. This demonstrates how ideas of class consciousness, and equality and universal suffrage had already existed before the start of the movement, so they were not entirely novel ideas which would be harder to accept.

However, the importance of the Charter and Six Demands in the eyes of working-class Chartists is questionable. Woodward argues that “the charter was to some of its supporters almost an end in itself ” and “there was a finality about the establishment of a political democracy” . However, it seems dubious that much of the working class was motivated by these high political ideals, or by philosophical arguments against despotic tyranny and for a social contract. The French Revolution had happened around fifty years ago, so there must be an alternative reason for Chartism to arise not then but in the 1830s. Moreover, support for Chartism waxed and waned according to the economic situation at the time, suggesting that many Chartists did not genuinely have a sustained wish for parliamentary reform, but merely joined Chartism as a protest movement. Woodward concedes that to some, “the attainment of political power was the first stage in the establishment of a new economic order of society” , implying that political change was merely a means to a better economic end. Indeed, the future disagreements between Chartists along class lines demonstrate that many Chartists, especially those from the working class, did not have political aims in the forefront of their minds. Hence, we ought to examine more short-term economic and political reasons as factors for the rise of Chartism.

A crucial short-term economic factor is the correlation between support for Chartism and economic conditions. For example, the 1843 economic improvement saw an immediate decline in Chartist participation, the 1847 financial crash witnessed a rise in Chartist activity and the post-1850 Victorian prosperity coincided with the decline of Chartism. Rostow’s “social tension chart” which identified years between 1790 and 1850 when social tension was unusually high or low , demonstrated an evident correlation with Chartism, especially during the economic downturn in 1830s and 1840s. This strongly rebuts the theory that many Chartists were largely politically motivated - if this were true, support for Chartism should have been constant regardless of the economic situation at the time. Royle supports this theory, pointing out “the political message of Chartism did find its readiest, most widespread and most violent responses in years of business depression and high bread prices” . The most intuitive explanation for this correlation is that Chartism was primarily a protest and agitation movement and its supporters wanted economic changes instead of political ones. Cobbett, an MP at the time, once said, “I defy you to agitate a fellow with a full stomach” . This illustrates how those content with their material wellbeing are less likely to participate in protest movements - firstly, because their opportunity cost of not working is higher; secondly, because they have more to lose if they are arrested or punished; and thirdly, because those suffering economically have more to be angry about. Hence, the fact that Chartism strongly correlated with economic cycles provides damning evidence against political factors as a motivation for Chartism.

At this point, the questions of why there was a mass mobilisation of people for the Chartist cause and why thousands of people turned up to mass rallies are mostly explained - there was a large economic impetus to do so. However, the gap now is how the movement became political. Hence, we should examine the shortterm political causees and its interaction with the working class to establish why Chartism was so political in its goals.

The first political reason was disappointment towards parliamentary reform, especially towards the Great Reform Act of 1832. The growth of the electorate created by the Act was limited and still required property qualifications, causing the working class to view this as an act of treachery. The British Charter Association wrote a publication in 1840 lamenting how “the hopes of the nation were laid prostrate by the failure of a measure they had been accustomed to consider as the precursor of universal suffrage” - the bitter disappointment this caused prompted many to further agitate for genuine reform. Brown and Daniels argue that the importance of this Act lay in “what it did not do”. It did not introduce democracy nor give the working-class control of the political system “which continued to lie with the aristocratic elite until at least 1867” . Additionally, Chartists questioned the government’s intent to reform through this Act. The Guardian illustrated this sentiment, arguing that those who passed the Act did not wish to subvert aristocratic institutions but wished to there was a mass mobilisation of people for the Chartist cause and why thousands of people turned up to mass rallies are mostly explained - there was a large economic impetus to do so. However, the gap now is how the movement became political. Hence, we should examine the shortterm political causees and its interaction with the working class to establish why Chartism was so political in its goals.

The first political reason was disappointment towards parliamentary reform, especially towards the Great Reform Act of 1832. The growth of the electorate created by the Act was limited and still required property qualifications, causing the working class to view this as an act of treachery. The British Charter Association wrote a publication in 1840 lamenting how “the hopes of the nation were laid prostrate by the failure of a measure they had been accustomed to consider as the precursor of universal suffrage” - the bitter disappointment this caused prompted many to further agitate for genuine reform. Brown and Daniels argue that the importance of this Act lay in “what it did not do”. It did not introduce democracy nor give the working-class control of the political system “which continued to lie with the aristocratic elite until at least 1867” . Additionally, Chartists questioned the government’s intent to reform through this Act. The Guardian illustrated this sentiment, arguing that those who passed the Act did not wish to subvert aristocratic institutions but wished to “consolidate them by a reinforcement of sub-aristocracy from the middle classes”. This suspicion towards the government’s intentions left many middle and working-class individuals feeling alienated. Hence disappointment towards parliamentary reform and the perception that the Great Reform Act was a cunning government manoeuvre for “the preservation of subordination” was a key reason why many turned to Chartism.

Large-scale opposition towards Whig social legislation also contributed towards people joining the Chartist movement. Royle notes that “in the popular journals and radical speeches of the 1830s the image was built up of the Great Whig Betrayal - one of the myths on which… working-class consciousness was founded” . The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 generated particular resentment, as it cut relief to able-bodied persons and their families unless they entered a workhouse . Many viewed this as double punishment for individuals who did not have power over their circumstances and were forced to leave their families under the harsh law. According to Hovell, the act was “a piece of cruel and calculated tyranny” which spurred political protest against the government. Another significant Whig failure was the failed restriction of working hours to ten hours per day, which was a change many industrial workers had hoped for. Hovell notes that “when the salvation promised by the Whig reform of 1832 proved illusory”, it was “perfectly natural” to agitate for popular “consolidate them by a reinforcement of sub-aristocracy from the middle classes”. This suspicion towards the government’s intentions left many middle and working-class individuals feeling alienated. Hence disappointment towards parliamentary reform and the perception that the Great Reform Act was a cunning government manoeuvre for “the preservation of subordination” was a key reason why many turned to Chartism.

Large-scale opposition towards Whig social legislation also contributed towards people joining the Chartist movement. Royle notes that “in the popular journals and radical speeches of the 1830s the image was built up of the Great Whig Betrayal - one of the myths on which… working-class consciousness was founded” . The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 generated particular resentment, as it cut relief to able-bodied persons and their families unless they entered a workhouse . Many viewed this as double punishment for individuals who did not have power over their circumstances and were forced to leave their families under the harsh law. According to Hovell, the act was “a piece of cruel and calculated tyranny” which spurred political protest against the government. Another significant Whig failure was the failed restriction of working hours to ten hours per day, which was a change many industrial workers had hoped for. Hovell notes that “when the salvation promised by the Whig reform of 1832 proved illusory”, it was “perfectly natural” to agitate for popular People’s Charter. This demonstrates how the Whig government’s failure to legislate reforms meant that popular anger was directed towards the government, contributing to the rise of Chartism.

The growth of the popular press was the last political factor for the rise of Chartism. The press was able to spread ideas through publications like the Northern Star and the Poor Man’s Guardian - E.P. Thompson calls the nascent radical political journalism of the working class “the literary culture of the radical artisans” . These news publications were extremely important because Chartist groups in different parts of the country were forbidden to correspond officially, so newspapers were the primary means of communication . The Northern Star, for example, was willing to include almost all news it received relating to the movement, making it the main channel of communication among Chartists . Additionally, publications were crucial for integrating local agitation into the national Chartist movement and gave local radicalism national coverage . The impact of the Chartist publications can be evidenced by Engel’s letter to Marx which praises O’Connor’s article in the Star - “it is a masterpiece… even better than Cobbett and recalls Shakespeare” . Of all publications, the Northern Star was the most important and largest Chartist newspaper. Glasgow illustrates its impact by noting that “no description of the Chartist movement would be satisfactory if it ignored the Northern Star… it exercised an immense influence among the mass of the population, left discontented and turbulent as a result of drastic economic and social changes” . The Star had also eclipsed every other paper’s sales less than two years after its establishment; only The Times sold more papers in a week than the Star in 1839 , demonstrating its popularity and ascension into mainstream content. Hence, the growth of the popular press, with the widespread popularity of the publications coupled with its strong Chartist arguments, contributed significantly to the rise of Chartism.

In conclusion, the Charter became “a battle cry for those who… were suffering from the increasing competition of machinery, the long months of a trade depression, and the hardship of the poor law”. There was a complex web of reasons why the Chartist movement came about in the particular time it did, why it enjoyed its extent of support and why it had a political nature and specifically agitated for parliamentary reform. The long-term factor of industrialisation and urbanisation made a small but significant contribution to Chartism - it created discontent, job insecurity and poor working conditions, as well as concentrated pockets of workers in towns that prevented the movement from being geographically dispersed and weak. However, industrialisation alone does not explain the trigger that transported people into the streets, nor does it explain why the Chartist movement was about political change instead of economic ones.

Intellectual reasons including the impact of the French Revolution and Britain’s intellectual climate explain to some extent why Chartism was political from the top-down, but to use it as an explanation for the rise of Chartism assumes that the working class was politically conscious, which is discredited by the wavering support for Chartism based on economic conditions. Short-term economic conditions successfully explain the mass mobilisation of people into the streets protesting against their current conditions, but it is ultimately three political reasons that explain why Chartism was centred around the Six Demands - the disappointment towards the failure to enfranchise through the Great Reform Act, the failure of Whig social legislation, and the rise in the popular press which exposed the masses to radical political ideas and made mainstream the concepts of parliamentary reform and universal suffrage. The disappointing political circumstances crystallised within the minds of the working class a fledgling political consciousness upon which they were willing to act in a time of economic hardship.

[Sharon Chau is a second-year PPE student at University College. She served as Women*s Officer in Hilary Term 2022]