The Chartist movement in 19th century Britain ultimately failed to achieve its goals but played a significant role in the development of British democracy. The movement centered around the People's Charter of 1838 which outlined six reforms, including universal male suffrage. While the Charter was rejected, it kept debates around democratic reform alive. Over the following decades, Britain gradually adopted reforms that realized the Charter's goals, including expanding suffrage and implementing secret ballots. By the early 20th century, Britain had become a modern democratic society, showing how the Chartist movement, though unsuccessful in the short term, was influential in the long term development of democracy in Britain.

1. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
1
Question Seventeen:
What is most significant about Chartism?
The Chartist movement in Britain ultimately failed in its short-term goals of
greater empowerment for the working classes. There are factors as to why
this occurred, however this does not mean that this period of British history
was not insignificant. In reality, the Chartist movement played a significant
role in developing a democratic system in the United Kingdom, and
ultimately other nations in the Commonwealth, such as Australia and New
Zealand. This essay will review the origins of the Chartist movement, and
the proposals that were put in place to change the political environment of
Britain, which will be primarily shown through the ‘Six Points’ of ‘The
People’s Charter’ of 1838 (The Charter). This essay will then analyse how
these demands failed during the mid-nineteenth century, but how its origins
eventually led to the political changes that the six points demanded in
Britain from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, turning
Britain into the democracy that we identify with it today.
People can often take for granted the typical democracy we see presently. In
the nineteenth century, British democracy was open to serious criticism
among the social and political elites.1 This correlates well with the
emergence of Chartism as a reactive political movement to Britain’s 1832
Reform Act.2 This Act was the result of much touted political reform in
1 Peter Gurney, ‘The Democratic Idiom: Languages of Democracy in the Chartist
Movement’, Journal of Modern History 86 (3), p. 567.
2 John K. Walton, Chartism (New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 1.

2. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
2
Britain, introduced by Edward Grey’s Whig Party Government. While these
reforms did bring anticipation of a step towards voting rights for some in the
working class (such as Francis Place, and William Cobbett), others were
more pessimistic. Political figure, Henry Hunt, pushed for a complete
overhaul of the way politics was run in Britain. So when the Reform Act
failed to extend any voting rights on men who owned property, this was
seen as a ‘great betrayal’ to the working classes.3 This later led to the
Chartists embracing democracy as a mass movement of the working class,
although Peter Gurney argues that this was not necessarily “well worked
out”, and not in the form that we see today.4 Whigs had never actually
promised to extend the rights of the workers. Richard Brown argues that
they were merely attempting to maintain the political environment Britain
was in, where the landed elites held the power of sovereignty.5 This is a
difficult point to dispute, as Europe had been dogged with a number of
revolutions involving the working class, such as the French Revolution. If a
revolution was also backed by those in the middle as well, the potential for
success in toppling the establishment would be heightened significantly, as a
greater number of people would feel frustrated by the political system. Even
though the movement failed, Chartism’s embracement of democracy meant
that the conversation never died. Martin Pugh agrees with this, stating that
individuals and ideas continued beyond.6 There were always conversations
on how to make Britain more democratic, and how the Charter’s ‘Six
3 Richard Brown, Chartism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 14-15.
4 Gurney, ‘The Democratic Idiom, p. 573.
5 Brown, Chartism, pp. 15-16.
6 Martin Pugh, The Making of Modern British Politics, 1867-1945 (Malden: Blackwell
Publishing, 2002), p. 28.

3. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
3
Points’ were achieved over time. Malcom Chase accurately points out that
ultimately, the Chartist movement was able move “British society closer to
the recognition of a profound truth: that humanity and dignity are protected
and preserved only when government answers to all people and not merely
the wealthy”.7 Jeremy Black, and Donald Macraild agree with this point,
noting that Chartism had been defeated, but pushes for reform continued
throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.8
The Chartist movement in Britain was centred around one document, known
as ‘The Charter’, which was primarily written and drafted by William
Lovett, and Francis Place, of the London Working Men’s Association
(LWMA). This was a group that was focussed on changing education and
morality in Britain.9 This document featured six points, all of which were
arguably well ahead of their time. Hugh Cunningham shares a similar
viewpoint, calling the movement revolutionary, but “thoroughly predictable
[that] it would be rejected.” 10 The Chartist movement allowed serious
discussion on their terms, and although the movement swiftly died, the
debates did not. There is little doubt that Chartists played a key role in
developing the principles of the Charter into the recognisable format which
we can see today, particularly in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
Malcom Chase believes however that historians cannot completely credit
7 Malcom Chase “Recognising the Chartists,” last modified November 1 2013,
http://www.historytoday.com/malcolm-chase/recognising-chartists.
8 Jeremy Black, and Donald M. Macraild, Nineteenth-Century Britain,(New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 143-144.
9 Brown, Chartism, p. 51.
10 Hugh Cunningham, The Challenge of Democracy: Britain 1832-1918 (Harlow:
Longman, 2001), p. 48.

4. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
4
the ideas pursued in the six points in the Charter to the LWMA and its
authors. There is likely to have been discussion on electoral issues in the
past. Irish Protestant, Fergus O’Connor had laid some of the groundwork as
early as 1835.11 While, John Cartright wrote a book in 1777 which provided
readers with a basic concept of how radical change to the British political
system can move Britain to a more representative democracy.12 Hugh
Cunningham also notes that some believe Chartism could have been a spark
for socialist movements in the late nineteenth, and early twentieth century.13
This is possible, but likely that Marxist theory played more of a key role
than Chartism.
The primary point in the Charter was the right of universal suffrage, or full
enfranchisement of men. The point expressed that all men, who were of
sound mind and legally binding citizens, over the age of 21 should be
enfranchised. This in turn followed on to another point that there should be
no property requirement in order to be eligible to vote.14 These demands
completely challenged the idea of political fitness, where political
participation was viewed to only affect certain classes, and so any
enfranchisement should only be limited to those classes. In response,
Chartism was labelled as radical, and swiftly rejected. However, the idea did
not die, campaigns for enfranchisement of working men eventually made
progress with the Reform Act of 1867. Robert Saunders described this as
11 Cunningham, The Challenge of Democracy, p. 47.
12 Malcom Chase, Chartism: A New History (Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press),
2007, pp. 7-8.
13 Cunningham, The Challenge of Democracy, p. 50.
14 British Library Board, “The People’s Charter,”
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source4/peo
plescharter.html.

5. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
5
“the most remarkable pieces of legislation of the Victorian period”, because
it enfranchised double the number of eligible men.15 It allowed for all
landowners over 21 to vote, and showed a gradual shift towards full
enfranchisement. Saunders analyses a recognition of industrial cities being
politically behind the agricultural sector, which correlates with the
campaign of industrial workers receiving enfranchisement.16
However, Eric Evans believes that political elites were persuaded to
enfranchise after a reduction in protest activities in the 1850s and 1860s.17
Involvement from the state on social issues (such as the Poor Laws) also
meant that political decisions affected more people than traditionally foreign
affairs, defence, and trade. Whether Chartists knew of this, there is no doubt
that the mind-set of a more inclusive political system would have the
consequence of a more social government. Although women were not
considered for full enfranchisement in the nineteenth century, Eric Evans
notes that although their enfranchise rights were not pursued by many
Chartists, women still played a key role in the movement.18 Arguably,
Chartism could be one origin for the creation of suffragette movements and
the promotion of women’s rights that emerged in the late nineteenth
century. It was not until 1918 when a gradual shift toward full
enfranchisement concluded with the passing of Representation of the People
15 Robert Saunders, ‘The politics of reform and the making of the Second Reform Act,
1848-1867’, The Historical Journal 50 (3), p. 571.
16 Saunders, ‘The politics of reform’, pp. 574-575.
17 Eric Evans, Parliamentary Reform, c. 1770-1918 (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2000), p.
41.
18 Evans, Parliamentary Reform, pp. 75-77.

6. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
6
Act, including all women.19 However, since the 1832 Reform Act, it took
less than a century for the working class to be fully enfranchised, after
countless refusal from the political class. The elitists that claimed politics
was only for those who were most affected, and educated enough to
understand it stepped aside. We can now see that the right to vote as a core
principle of democracy.
Chartismalsointroducedthe secretballot,agreatsteptowardthe development
of Britaintowardsa moderndemocraticsociety. It was designed to free voters
from intimidation, coercion, and bribery.20 For example, those particularly
vulnerable people who had voting rights, but relied on a landlord for shelter
were expected to toe the line, and vote for whoever was endorsed by their
landlord. The risk of not doing so could ultimately lead to eviction. Chartist
Thomas Powell noted that an absence of a secret ballot was a form of
suppressing free speech.21 The Chartists argued that an open ballot made it
easier for the elite to maintain control of the political system by using fear.
Additionally, an open ballot provided an incentive for the franchised to sell
their vote, a blatant act of corruption. Long-time Chartist, John Bright
argued this point in 1868, which shows that the Chartist movement did not
vanish.22 It was only four years later that Parliament recognised the
problems of an open ballot and passed the Ballot Act 1872. This enforced
secret ballots in order to reduce observation of voters, although this law had
19 British Library Board, “Chartism- A Historical Background,”
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/introduction/historyofchartis
m.html.
20 Walton, Chartism, p.6.
21 Chase, Chartism: A New History, p. 89.
22 Evans, Parliamentary Reform, p. 107

7. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
7
a sunset clause. This required constant renewal until it became a permanent
fixture in 1918. Bribery and corruption became limited and over time
would be frowned upon by British society, which again shows that Chartism
paved the cornerstone how a model democracy is shaped to what we see
today.
The points of paying Members of Parliament (MP), and the elimination of
the requirement to hold property had similar justifications for their
existence. This led to a complete change in 1918, after a gradual shift
towards professionalising politicians was experienced. Removal of the
property qualification justified the Charter as the ‘People’s Charter’, on the
basis that direct contribution in British Politics would be encouraged. All
citizens would be eligible to seek election as an MP. Because an MP was
not paid to perform their duty the property qualification provided an
assurance that they were financially secure to hold office. In reality, it was
just an instrument to exclude groups from politics, MPs made income
through corruption and bribery. It took a constitutional crisis for MPs to
finally be paid. The Parliament Act 1911 established this and as a result,
played a role in the campaign to reduce corruption in the political arena,
something which John Gerrard described as just as important as full
enfranchisement in 1918. This is not only to reduce corruption, but to create
an opportunity for everyone to stand for election, including low income
earners.23
23 John Gerrard, Democratisation in Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), p.72.

8. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
8
Chartists were forward thinking enough to realise that any modern society
often requires an input from a range of people across the political spectrum.
The only point in the Charter that was not met was the length of Parliament
to one year. Although the Parliament Act 1911 did Parliamentary term from
seven to five years. The final point to cover is that of equal representation.
The 1832 Reform Act had done some work at abolishing ‘pocket boroughs’.
These were electoral districts in Britain that had Parliamentary seats, but
they were effectively controlled by a single patron such as a landlord.
Because there were no secret ballots, anyone who did not rubberstamp the
landlord’s choice could face eviction. Additionally, there were
constituencies that had a disproportional number of members for their
population size, whether that be too many MPs for the number of
constituents or vice versa. It took until the Reform Act 1885 to alter
constituency sizes, and limit the number of elected members per
constituency to one.
In conclusion, Chartism played a significant role in developing Britain’s
democratic system into the form of the present day. It was a movement that
embraced thought that was ahead of its time in a bid to gain full
enfranchisement for men. Although the six points of the Charter were not
originally created by the movement, it was the first time which such a large
group of people had embraced it. Ultimately, the Chartist movement was
doomed to fail. However, continued discussion and debate on achieving the
six points created pressure on the Governments of the time to change
gradually an move towards full enfranchisement, removal of the secret
ballot, and the reorganisation of constituencies. This allowed for more

9. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
9
people to participate in politics, while reducing the risks of corruption and
coercion. In less than a century five of the six points from the Charter were
met. This shows that a movement that failed in its time, was significant in
producing a fairer and more inclusive society that we see Britain today.

10. Cameron Gruschow Department of History Universityof Canterbury
10
Bibliography
Jeremy Black, and Donald Macraild, Nineteenth Century Britain, New
York, 2003.
British Library Board, “The People’s Charter.” Accessed May 15, 2016.
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsour
ces/source4/peoplescharter.html.
British Library Board, “Chartism- A Historical Background.” Accessed
May 15 2016.
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/introduction/h
istoryofchartism.html.
Richard Brown, Chartism, Cambridge, 1998.
Malcom Chase, Chartism: A New History, Manchester, 2007.
Malcom Chase “Recognising the Chartists.” Accessed May 27, 2016.
http://www.historytoday.com/malcolm-chase/recognising-chartists.
Hugh Cunningham, The Challenge to Democracy: Britain 1832-1918,
Harlow, 2001.
Eric Evans, Parliamentary Reform, c. 1770-1918, Harlow, 2001.
John Gerrard, Democratisation in Britain, Basingstoke, 2002.
Gurney, Peter, ‘The Democratic Idiom: Languages of Democracy in the
Chartist Movement’, Journal of Modern History 86 no.3 (2014), pp. 566-
602.
Martin Pugh, The Making of Modern British Politics, 1867-1945, Malden,
2002.
Saunders, Robert, ‘The politics of reform and the making of the Second
Reform Act, 1848-1867’, The Historical Journal 50 no.3 (2007), pp. 571-
591.
John K. Walton, Chartism, New York, 1999.