Aspects of Chartism: Did Chartism fail?

Repeated failure sapped the momentum of Chartism. To sustain the mass platform the movement needed to maintain a widespread belief that success was possible and the Chartists never came near to achieving their ‘six points’ in the 1830s and 1840s.. The events of 1839 seriously damaged its capacity to do this. The defeat of the general strike in 1842 and the crushing failure of 1848 completed the process. The mass imprisonment, transportation and successful confrontation of mass demonstrations during the three main phases of the Chartist agitation contributed significantly to the disintegration of the movement. This represented the growing confidence and enhanced efficiency of the coercive powers of the British State[1]. The authorities inflicted the most damaging psychological defeat on the popular reform movement of the century, bankrupting the long tradition of the mass platform. Without the physical assault on the militant sections of the Chartist leadership and of many of the secondary leaders, the aftermath in the 1850s might have been different.

In part, this was a result of the organisational weakness of the movement. Lack of administrative experience was clearly exposed by the ways in which the Conventions were organised and financed. Rejection of the three petitions showed how little parliamentary support the Chartists had. The reforming movement of 1830-32 and the activities of the Anti-Corn Law League, both of which used similar tactics to Chartism to gain support, were successful because they had parliamentary allies. With little parliamentary backing or solid middle class support, the Chartist movement found itself either having to give up or raise and maintain public support or opt for less peaceful methods. This divided leadership and rank and file, creating bitterness and lack of tactical direction. Chartists could agree on the Charter but on little else. To Lancashire cotton workers, Chartism held out the prospect of economic improvement and factory reform. To the London artisan, it pointed the way to political equality. The Chartist leaders also had different objectives. For Lovett the vote was part of a general programme of social improvement; for Ernest Jones Chartism was equated with socialism; and, for O’Connor the franchise was the political counterpart of his schemes at land reform. Loss of momentum within the movement meant that Chartism could not maintain a unity of purpose.

Economic conditions played an important role in failure to maintain unity of purpose. Though there has been a reaction against the simple economic explanations, the fundamental importance of the trade cycle cannot be neglected. The difficulty of maintaining unity, except during economic slumps, was universally recognised by contemporaries. The changes that occurred in the policies and attitudes of government, in part the result of Chartism can be seen as evidence of its partial success. The movement drew attention to social problems and the need to tackle them. There was some liberalisation of state policies in the 1840s. This weakened the Chartist case that only a reformed parliament would improve the conditions of the working population.

A final explanation for the demise of Chartism lies in the consolidation of industrial capitalism that had occurred by 1850. In the previous fifty years, industrial change had created militancy among the working population who believed that political reform alone could arrest or reverse this process. By 1850, this battle had more or less been lost and Chartism remained relevant only in places like Halifax and Bradford where the woollen and worsted trades still fought rearguard actions against mechanisation. Militancy was associated with the traumas of early stages of industrialisation. Chartism was crucial in the shift from older forms of popular protest to the development of new ones, like the general strike and pressure group activity, more effective in a mature industrial urban society.

Chartism was the first organised, mass movement of the working population in British history in terms of its geographical and occupational breadth and the unprecedented involvement of women. Nevertheless, it did not draw on trade unionism in any formal way or bridge the gulf between rural and urban workers. It did not mark a vital stage in the inevitable progress of organised labour. Chartism was motivated by ‘knife and fork’ issues but was also concerned with the dignity of the individual and the ‘rights of man’. It looked back to the campaigns of the 1790s and forward to the emergence of socialism as a political force from the 1880s.

• The main problem was how to achieve a revolutionary goal by constitutional means.
• It failed to obtain parliamentary support for the Charter.
• The middle-classes largely ignored, shunned or condemned Chartism.
• Chartists were divided among themselves. George Julian Harney, a Chartist leader said in 1848, “faction has cut the throat of Chartism”.
• Government handled the movement firmly and calmly.
• Chartist demands were too drastic.
• There was too much diversity in the intellectual and ideological aims of Chartism. This was particularly evident after 1840 though the division between the aspirations of artisans and the working class generally was evident from the outset.
• In 1839, the Chartist detected considerable indifference to the movement among working people. Many people were committed to the daily task of survival. Any serious commitment to political action depended on a conviction that this was relevant to survival. The task of the Chartists was to persuade them of this.
• Other movements like trade unions offering more immediate and tangible benefits attracted Chartists.
• The socio-economic position improved after 1842. Prosperity reduced mass support.
• Chartism and the Chartists were made to look ridiculous after Kennington Common and the failure of the Land Plan.
• The changing sociology of England after railways fragmented the ‘unity’ of the working classes.
• Chartism tore itself apart.

The fact that Chartism did not achieve the ‘six point’ does not mean that it achieved nothing. Chartism was fundamental to the development of a distinctive culture among working people especially in the industrial areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Although this culture was complex, certain aspects seem clear:

• There was considerable scepticism and often hostility toward the state that united the interests of the propertied middle and upper classes. For some Chartists, the state was opposed because it continued to represent (though in different ways and in different circumstances) the ‘Old Corruption’ of the pre-1832 period. For others, it was the increased power of the state after 1832 that was the main cause of discontent. Chartism accommodated both views.
• Out of this scepticism emerged a fierce determination on the part of the working classes to pursue interests independently. This involved a number of objectives (educational, moral, temperance, Christian, trade union etc.) that were not always mutually exclusive. Chartism, however, provided the essential focus.
• From Chartism, specific lessons in how to protest, to organise and spread the message of dissent emerged. These lessons were not forgotten whatever the direction that older Chartists took. The many autobiographies from the mid- and late-nineteenth century confirm the importance of Chartism on working class lives.

The variegated approaches to political and social change inherent in Chartism in the 1830s and 1840s continued after 1848. Ex-Chartists moved into socialism or into, or back into trade unionism. Others again agitated for temperance reform as the key to unlock the potential of the working man. Vincent and Lovett remained sturdy working class educators to the end. Many ex-Chartists found the mid-nineteenth century Liberal Party extremely accommodating as its Whig leaders saw the political advantage of encouraging a radical wing that no longer looked to pull down the pillars of the state. ‘Liberal radicalism’ became an increasingly influential force in the 1850s and 1860s and from it came renewed demands for parliamentary reform that was answered (somewhat opportunistically) by Disraeli and the Conservatives in the 1867 Reform Act.

Chartists after 1848 took different routes. In the textile and engineering centre of Oldham, for example, some ex-Chartists who had co-operated with the Tory humanitarian John Fielden during the factory reform campaigns of the mid-1840s grew closer to the Conservative Party because, as the Oldham delegate to the 1848 Convention asserted, the laissez faire ideology of Liberals and Peelites was “the most heartless and destructive doctrine ever taught in any country”. Others moved happily into Liberal radicalism. The records of the weaver-dominated Chartist branch of the National Charter Association in Great Horton (Bradford) survive from 1840 to 1866 and clearly show that it evolved into a very different organisation. In the 1860s and 1870s, it embraced the co-operative movement and Liberal radicalism.

The history of Chartism after 1850 showed that individuals had their own order of priorities, their own definitions of freedom and their own views of the relationship between power and knowledge and between the individual and the state. For this reason, Chartists reacted differently to the economic and political progress of the mid-Victorian period. Some became Liberal radicals; some moved into independent Labour politics while others retired in confusion and bitterness. However, they all retained that tough and independent spirits that had made them ‘irreconcilables’ in the 1830s and 1840s. The legacy of Chartism lay in a growing acceptance that accommodation was better than revolution as a means of extending direct working class involvement in the political process through the intensely symbolic right to vote and as a necessity for a state that recognised that change could not be resisted and that an individual’s ‘worth’ could not simply be defined in terms of property.

---

[1] John Saville 1848: The British State and the Chartist Movement, Cambridge, 1987 considers the development of the coercive powers of the state. It is also considered in volume 2: chapter 4.

Aspects of Chartism: The Final Phase 4

It is possible to consider the development of Chartism after 1848 in several ways. Some historians, notably Dorothy Thompson and John Saville, argue that the defeat of Chartism left popular politics polarised between middle class radicalism and an increasingly apolitical working class. Others, for example Margot Finn and Gregory Claeys, suggest that the later Chartist leadership became increasingly influenced by republican and socialist ideas that were hostile to mainstream radicalism. A third approach, argued by Miles Taylor, maintains that the Chartist leadership responded to the defeat of the movement and the loss of mass support, by being reconciled to the mainstream of radical and liberal politics. Historians face major problems in assessing the geography and significance of Chartism after 1848. As Harney wrote in 1851[1] “The Chartism of ’51 is not that of 1839 or 1848…The outward and visible form of Chartism perished in 1848…Defeated, disappointed of the political victory they had hoped for in 1848, the hard-working thinkers turned their attention to social questions.”

There are few studies of later Chartism at local level. Many contemporary writers ended their detailed accounts of the movement in 1848 and newspapers often ignored radical activities in the later period. David Jones[2] cites research on Wales and the Black Country suggesting that the resilience of Chartism has been underestimated. In North Wales and in parts of the West Country the movement may have entered a new phase. Chartists like A.W. Blacker of Torquay, Thomas Clewes of Stockport, Joseph Alderson of Bradford and Walter Pringle in Edinburgh campaigned with traditional vigour. Halifax was a particularly vibrant centre of later Chartism. The NCA, revived in 1849, never had more than 4,000-5,000 members during the following decade and perhaps many fewer. The executive and district councils lacked financial resources. The movement disintegrated further.

In April 1848, Lovett formed the People’s League supported by Miall, Vincent and Lowery. Two days later Cooper, Hetherington and Holyoake[3] founded a rival People’s Charter Union. Both were moderate organisations reflecting the great pains some Chartists took after 1848 to recast reform politics in a favourable light. The People’s League planned to align Chartism with an overhaul of the tax system but soon foundered. The Union was soon involved in reviving the agitation against the remaining stamp duty especially after March 1849 when the Newspaper Stamp Abolition Committee was formed. The NSAC gained support from several prominent radicals including Place and Holyoake. In February 1851, it became the Association for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge, essentially a middle class pressure group. The original Union had already disappeared with the failure of Cooper’s plan to organise individual petitions.

Continuing newspaper taxes were of particular interest to Chartists after 1848 largely because of the large number of Chartist and radical journals. Chartist literacy flourished. Gammage drew attention to the variety of publications, many often short-lived[4]. O’Brien ran The Reformer and then The Power of the Pence in which he put forward his individualistic socialist views. Others edited ultra-radical journals generally with a republican slant. Harney produced the Red Republican in 1850, the Democratic Review between 1849 and 1851, the Friend of the People in 1850-51 and again in 1852 and The English Republic between 1851 and 1855. Jones edited Notes to the People between 1851 and 1852 and the People’s Paper for six years after 1852. Passmore Edwards’ Public Good had a pacifist slant. Local journals also flourished like the Voice in the East in Wisbech and the Progressionist in Buckingham edited by Gammage himself. These publications reflect the intellectual maelstrom that Chartism had become with ever-increasing diversity of views among the declining Chartist ranks.

This diversity continued to weaken the NCA and O’Connor found his supremacy in the movement under considerable pressure. He became increasingly inconsistent and this was reflected in his frequent changes of mind[5]. He continued to be vindictive towards real and imagined enemies. He also vacillated over middle class alliances. In May 1849, Joseph Hume again called for household suffrage or ‘Little Charter’ movement and was roundly condemned by O’Connor. Yet, the following month he unsuccessfully asked Hume to adopt the Charter. Neither Hume’s proposal in June nor O’Connor’s own motion for the Charter the following month met with widespread support in the Commons. O’Connor then proceeded to collaborate with the middle class Household Suffrage Association. Such links disgusted some Chartists loyalists and further exacerbated divisions in the movement. In December 1849, a metropolitan conference of twenty-eight delegates met without national representation. It elected a provisional executive and then proceeded to argue over O’Connor’s middle class links. Harney joined O’Connor’s opponents and was dismissed from the Star. The following month, he formed his own organisation, the National Reform League for the Peaceful Regeneration of Society. Divisions widened further and O’Connor’s remaining allies finally lost control of the NCA. In March 1850, the short-lived rival National Charter League, which favoured links with middle class organisations, was formed. O’Connor sought to keep a foot in both camps. When, on 11^th July he again unsuccessfully raised the Charter in the Commons his preamble contained clear socialist overtones. This was the last time the Commons debated the issue.

The gulf between the Chartist leaders was now scarcely disguised. Attempts to weld the NCA, NRL, Fraternal Democrats, trade unions and the Social Reform League into the National Charter and Social Reform Union in 1850 failed. The major reason for this was the growing importance of socialism. Jones believed that a new unity could be achieved on socialist lines. He saw Charter Socialism as an organisation on strictly class lines against capitalism. Over optimistic as usual, he opposed any deviation. Co-operatives, trade unions, Christian Socialists, teetotal Chartists and republicans were all viewed as ‘Sham Radicals’. O’Connor was, however, not yet prepared to relinquish control of the movement and held a conference in Manchester to organise a ‘perfect union’. This provoked further division. Jones and the executive of the NCA were opposed but O’Connor pressed ahead gaining the support of a Manchester rally on 17^th November. The division was now clear. O’Connor and his allies stood for ‘the Charter pure and simple’ while Jones and his supporters argued for ‘the Charter and something more’.

The Manchester conference met on 26^th January 1851 and consisted of only eight delegates. It achieved nothing though both O’Connor and Jones attended to make their case. The intellectual debate had, however, left its mark. At the Chartist Convention in the spring of 1851 the Charter Socialists scored a substantial victory. The Convention began to assemble on 31^st March in London. Many districts could not afford to send delegates and the NCA was weakened by a number of secessions. Only thirty of the planned forty-nine delegates turned up and many lacked political experience. They rejected the ‘nothing but the Charter’ approach, opposed any middle class collaboration, planned a new petition and agreed that Chartists candidates would contest the next elections and that the organisation would be extended among trade unions, various working groups and the Irish. These proposals were nothing new. However, the Convention went on to adopt a new social programme. This sought to combine campaigning for the Charter with Poor Law reform, calls for state education, price controls, currency and taxation reform and nationalisation of land and the mines. The Convention dissolved on 10^th April 1851 leaving the executive to re-state its policies. But, as Ward states[6], “The brave new world was not to be.” The NCA only had around 4,000 members and they were divided. It was not in a position to revivify the increasingly moribund movement.

Ernest Jones was the dominant Chartist figure of the 1850s. However, he never achieved the supremacy over the movement that O’Connor had achieved in the 1840s. Many found it difficult to accept Jones’ innate optimism. This was already evident in the National Convention of 1848 and became more obvious in the following years. Jones inherited a movement already fatally flawed. Death and emigration had decimated the local Chartist leadership. Some members dropped out of formal Chartist completely and turned to other movements. In the North and Midlands there were rival attractions, like the revival of agitation for factory reform that seemed to offer improvements for working people. Local politics provided a worthwhile substitute for success on the national stage. Chartist methods and energies were injected into the council chamber and parliamentary elections. In his fight to retain a separate Chartist identity Jones faced considerable opposition from those who were prepared to ‘go for less’ but also from those opposed to his personal vision or Chartist politics.

Jones headed the poll in the winter elections to the NCA executive in 1851. His increasingly dictatorial manner alienated supporters like Harney. Even the ‘left’ within Chartism was divided. Jones now fought to dominate the movement. He backed a call for a convention to reorganise the movement, which met in Manchester from 17^th to 21^st May 1852. The end of the movement was protracted. Jones urged working class unity in support of the Preston cotton strikers in the winter of 1853 and called for a labour parliament to lead an allegedly reviving Chartism. The parliament, with some forty members, met in Manchester between 6^th and 18^th March 1854. A ‘Mass Movement’ was planned but, by August, it was pointed out that as far as the mass of the population was concerned that this had been another failure. Elections to the executive that year appear to have been fixed. Several districts refused to recognise the executive as a result and what remained of Chartism was further divided. Chartist audiences declined. Jones’ approach became increasingly dictatorial, explicitly so in early 1856. A last convention was held in 1858 with forty-one delegates. Jones renewed his demands for the six points but circumstances and his supporters induced him to take his stand on manhood suffrage alone. The convention saw the birth of the Political Reform League and the practical end of the Chartist movement. The NCA staggered on for two more years. By 1860 Chartism was, finally, dead[7].

---

[1] Friend of the People, volume 19, 1851.

[2] David Jones Chartism and the Chartists, pages 168-9.

[3] J. Bellamy and John Saville (eds.) Dictionary of Labour Biography, volume i, Macmillan, 1972, pages 182-189 for biography.

[4] R.G. Gammage The History of the Chartist Movement, from its Commencement Down to the Present Times, 1^st ed., 1855, 2^nd ed., Newcastle, 1894, pages 345-46.

[5] The growing inconsistency in O’Connor’s actions may well reflect the onset of psychological problems or might have been associated with the onset of syphilis. He was eventually taken into Dr Harrington Tuke’s asylum at Chiswick convinced he was a State prisoner. He died in 1855.

[6] Ward Chartism, page 228.

[7] Ward Chartism, pages 235-244 provides an invaluable discussion of what happened to the leading Chartists after Chartism.