A quick history of the Chartist movement

Britain’s Chartist movement was one of those inspirational failures that people who try, against all the odds, to change the world love to talk about. They remind us not to count the game as lost until several generations after our deaths. At which point we can pretty well count on not knowing or caring who won.

Okay, that was more downbeat than I meant it to be. The Chartists lost but in some very real ways they also won. 


The basics

The Chartist movement began in 1838 with a People’s Charter, drafted by the London Working Men’s Association. It demanded six things:

  • Universal manhood suffrage. At a time when women had only recently been invented, that could almost pass for everybody having the right to vote. 
  • Electoral districts of equal size, meaning all voters would have equal influence. Or that was the theory anyway, and it was quite radical at the time.
  • Voting by secret ballot. That’s right–it hadn’t been instituted yet.  
  • Yearly elections for Parliament.
  • Abolition of property qualification for Members of Parliament.
  • Payment for MPs, which would open up the position to people who worked for a living.

The goal was to give working people political power. In other words, the charter gathered an impressive list of enemies. 

The ideas weren’t entirely new–you can find a lot of them threaded through English history–but it was new that in spite of some middle-class and gentlemanly leaders, the movement’s base was in the working class.

Irrelevant photo: It’s been a while since we’ve had a cat photo, hasn’t it? This it L’il Red Can, who’s no longer so little but can’t seem to escape his name. He is entirely apolitical.

The background

The movement began at a time when political reform was in the air, aggravating many an allergy among the aristocrats’ delicate breathing systems, since the aristocracy still held political power, although economically they were being eclipsed by industrialists.

In response to much popular campaigning, the 1832 Reform Act had made a few gestures in the direction of cleaning up the electoral system. It gave the vote to small landowners, (some) tenant farmers, (some) shopkeepers, and (some of the more solvent) householders even if they didn’t actually own the property they lived in. It also got rid of a fair number of rotten boroughs–constituencies where almost no one lived but that sent representatives (controlled by the local landowner) to Parliament. 

The Reform Act meant some 200,000 more men could vote, but that was out of a population of maybe 10 million. Admittedly, that included children and women, who so clearly wouldn’t know what to do with a vote if they fell over one, but it still left a lot of men voteless.

This was also a time of economic woe: 1837 and 1838 were depression years. Think low pay, hungry people, and unemployment, all aggravated by an 1834 law that replaced the earlier system of relief for the poor with workhouses. They’d be cheaper. They’d be more efficient. They’d get beggars off the street, attack the moral failings that led people to be paupers, and encourage them to work. 

Doesn’t that sound familiar? 

So, no more handouts just because you were out of work and starving during a depression. The poor would go into workhouses,  families would be separated, their lives would be controlled, and they would be set to work under deliberately harsh conditions.  

Semi-relevantly, the government that introduced this was led by Earl Grey, who gave his name to that elegantly flavored tea. 

It was also a time of rebellion. The Swing Rebellion and movement to defend the Tolpuddle Martyrs were in the recent past.

So working people weren’t in a good mood and it wasn’t irrational for them to think that if they could vote they’d be represented in Parliament in proportion to their numbers, and that would bring about a more just organization of society.

It hasn’t exactly worked out that way, but it made sense at the time. 


The story

The Chartist movement centered on a petition that gathered more than 1.2 million signatures at a time when petitions were pieces of paper (you remember paper?) and had to be passed from hand to hand and delivered as actual physical objects.

You remember physical objects?  

To gather those signatures, speakers fanned out across the country, addressing actual groups of people (you remember people?), and all of this running around and meeting and speaking built an organizational framework that brought together English, Scottish, and Welsh radicals, as well as Irish supporters of Home Rule, making it not just a movement of working people but a fully national one. 

Inevitably, different parts of a coalition will pull in different directions, and the most important one was what to do if (or as many expected, when) Parliament rejected the petition. Call a national strike? Rely on moral force? Rely on physical force?

The question hadn’t been settled by the time Parliament rejected the petition, and it probably couldn’t have been. Some coalitions are hard to hold together and talking doesn’t resolve all disagreements. Riots broke out, some of which were intended to turn into full-scale uprisings and at least one of which was set off by Birmingham’s authorities banning gatherings and then breaking up the one that happened–not to mention arresting two of the more moderate leaders.

But let’s not slog through this battle by battle, attack by retreat, riot by gathering. Soldiers were called out. People were arrested–550 of them in 1839 and 1840. People were killed. Leaders were convicted of treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered–a sentence so out of keeping with the times that in the face of protests it was commuted to the harsh mercy of transportation to Australia.  


Parts 2, 2 ½,  and 3

The second petition was delivered in 1842. It had twice the number of signatures and Parliament was impressed enough to say, “Why should we care about you? You can’t even vote.”

Okay, that’s not an exact quote but it does catch the spirit of their response.

Violence broke out here and there, and respectable opinion held the Chartists responsible for it, but around the country wages were being cut and in response workers were going out on strike. This was the beginning of what was known as the Hungry Forties. Some Chartists inevitably would’ve been involved, but the strikes were more spontaneous than organized.

No union movement existed to support them, and none lasted long.

Having said that, though, at least one source talks not about strikes but about a general strike–one that had not just economic but also political demands: the adoption of the Charter.

After that we get six years of Chartist energy pouring into model communities of various sorts, generally involving equal ownership of land or assets. Some were trying to make their participants eligible to vote so they could elect MPs to represent them.

A third petition made the rounds and was presented in 1848–a year of revolution in continental Europe. Presenters claimed it had 5.75 million signatures. Three days later, the Commons Committee for Public Petitions said it had counted all the signatures and found fewer than 2 million, some of which–including Queen Victoria’s–were obvious forgeries. 

Feargus O’Connor–an MP, a Chartist elected to Parliament to represent Nottingham, and the person who’d presented the petition–said three days wasn’t enough time to count all the signatures.

Was so too, the committee said.

Was not never, O’Connor said. 

And those aren’t exact quotes either.

O’Connor challenged another MP to a duel, then withdrew the challenge.

It was not the finest moment of the Chartist movement.

The petition–to no one’s surprise–was rejected. A few riots followed and a planned rebellion failed. Almost 300 Chartist leaders were arrested and sentenced to transportation or long imprisonment, although death sentences were again commuted. 

Chartism didn’t die on the spot, but between internal divisions, questions about the petition’s validity, repression, and a better economic situation (which at least one source says didn’t trickle down to rank and file Chartists and therefore was unlikely to have had an effect) it was never again the force that it had once been.


Women in the Chartist movement

The Chartist leadership was male, and to the limited extent that women’s right to vote was discussed, the movement backed away from it–on some people’s part because of the assumptions of the day (women belonged at home; women needed the vote almost as much as soldiers needed water wings) and on others’ because it would make the movement too controversial and open it to ridicule, since the idea of women voting was inherently absurd. 

Even so, women got involved. They came from families; they had families of their own. The vote was a weapon that might improve their families situation, even if they didn’t get their own hands on the weapon. So they attended meetings. They raised money. They organized tea parties and boycotted anti-Chartist  shopkeepers. 

A few women leaders did emerge, although they never became as well known as the men. 

I know. You’re shocked. 

Mostly, though, the women worked within their socially acceptable role, pushing its edges outward, and none of what they learned at those edges was likely to have been lost.

Sometimes it’s the right time for that and sometimes it isn’t, and sometimes it depends on what each individual can do. But never underestimate the women who don’t break out. They start out by making tea and worshiping heroes and the next thing you know they want to vote and be heroes themselves.  


The aftermath

Chartism continued in one form or another for some ten years after the third petition, but its high point had passed. Some of its leaders–and probably if less verifiably, some of its followers–took their skills to other campaigns. 

The right to vote did expand, but the government wasn’t in any kind of a rush about it. Before 1918, only 58% of adult men could vote. That year, property restrictions were abolished for men and women over 30 were given the vote–but they still had to own property. It was 1928 before women could vote on equal terms with men.

As for the other demands:

  • The secret ballot was introduced in 1872.
  • These days, constituency borders are regularly redrawn to keep them of roughly equal size–sometimes controversially, but the principle is there. I’d love to tell you when that started, but I got bored witless before I found an answer.
  • The property qualification for MPs was abolished in 1857, but it didn’t become a paid job until 1911. 

That only leaves one of the Chartists’ demands unmet: yearly elections for MPs.


In addition to the links, I’ve also relied on David Horspool’s book The English Rebel

12 thoughts on “A quick history of the Chartist movement

  1. Such a good article Ellen, working class history should never be forgotten. Even in a serious subject, I love your humour, you apply it in a very skillful manner. Love you to bits xx (I think it’s about time you took off your mask and gave us all a smile )

    Liked by 2 people

    • A smile? Me? Nah. I’m trying to make grumpy into an art form. I did break down and submit a picture of my entire face when my publisher wanted a photo for Other People Manage, but I wouldn’t say I’m exactly smiling. Something more along the lines of squinting at the world to make sure it really does look like that. Or that it’s really serious about being so fucked up.

      I’m with you entirely on working class history. It’s been shoved to one side but at least there it’s been able to grow into a specialist subject and some exciting work’s being done. I was lucky enough to stumble into it as a kid, thanks to being able to free-range through my parents’ bookshelves, and I’ve never lost my respect for it–or for the courageous people who made it happen.


  2. Lively and informative. Yearly elections? Hmmm not all ideas are good. Our US House members serve two year terms. Mostly they just run for re-election. But most of the Chartist agenda was positive and they ultimately got their way and Britain has been better for it. Good read.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good point, to which I’d add that yearly elections would contribute to even shorter-term thinking, and governments don’t seem to be doing a great job of looking ahead as it is. But I do understand the temptation. Every system has its built-in problems, and one problem with longer terms is that short of thoroughly egregious behavior, we’re pretty much stuck with whoever we elect, even if they turn out not to be at all like what they promised when they were running. (You’re shocked that a politician could act that way, I know.)


  3. E.P. Thompson ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ remains the classic text for English working class history.
    I suppose we will know that the ‘Enough is Enough’ movement is gaining momentum when it gets the Corbyn treatment from the media.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Just to let you know how ignorant I am, when I read the headline I was thinking of The Covenanters.

    Trying to help the working people and their families is a good idea that for some reason breeds so much opposition. I was active in the teachers’ union and even was part of the contract negotiation team twice, and a lot more places (Amazon…Wal-Mart…lots of grocery stores) could benefit from unions. For some reason that scares people. The Teachers Unions aren’t exactly the Molly McGuires, even though one of them IS associated with the Teamsters. You have to start somewhere and these people gave it a good kickoff. Thanks for making sure that those of us who are on the dimbulb side of retirement get reminded of history.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m mostly drawn to the history none of us got taught, so we all have an excuse for not knowing it–especially the history of how unions campaigned for the 40 hour week, wages people could live on, job security, all those things that are under attack all over again now that (hmm, you’d almost think there was a connection here) the unions aren’t as strong as they used to be.


  5. I think the demand for annual parliamentary elections goes back to at least the Agreement of the People in the Civil War period. Needless to say, the Parliamentary leaders, while content to do without the king, weren’t so keen on submitting their own authority to the electorate (even the limited number of landowners considered at the time) that often.

    The notion of redistributing seats to ensure better representation sort of trickled into the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, but the principle of aiming for equailty appears to have come in with the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for both bits of insight. The whole issue of what constitutes not just equal size districts but some sensible ones would make an interesting post–for someone other than me. I’m sitting here in what I think is still scheduled to become Devonwall–a mix of Devon and Cornwall that infuriated people on both sides of the border, although it dropped out of the papers some time ago and I’ve lost track of the issue. Having watched version after version of US gerrymandering in order to skew election results, I can testify that equal size is important but far from enough to ensure fairness.


    • There wouldn’t have been that many of them, and the further back you go the fewer there would’ve been. But you do raise an interesting question: Did each electoral district keep a register? Probably. I expect someone’s studied it (and I expect the lists, if they exist, are the kind of thing historians love), but I’ve never seen anything like that mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

Talk to me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.