The study of working class radical protest in Britain during the
late 1830s and 1840s is dominated by differing interpretations of
the origins, development and ultimate failure of the Chartist movement.
For many historians, Chartism - its name derived from the Six Point
'People's
Charter' or list of political demands drawn up by the movement's
early leaders in 1838 - represents the first genuinely national
and, even more importantly, first genuinely political
movement of the industrial working class in Britain.
On three occasions - 1839, 1842 and finally in 1848 - the movement
petitioned Parliament to consider its programme of democratic reforms:
- universal male suffrage (one man, one vote)
- a secret ballot
- the abolition of property qualifications for MPs
- the payment of MPs
- equally-sized electoral constituencies
- annual parliaments.
None of these reforms were achieved during the period of Chartist
activity. Yet, despite this failure, Chartism still occupies for
many historians a unique place in the history of British radicalism.
Unlike the largely localised and economically-triggered protests
of the period 1789-1832, those workers who joined the Chartist movement
did so because they now recognised that it was only in uniting behind
a coherent and nationally co-ordinated programme of political reform
that they might exercise any control over their lives.
Chartism is therefore sometimes interpreted as representing the
culmination of what the historian E P Thompson has described as
the 'making' of working class political consciousness. It drew together
for the first time in a single movement the previously separate
strands of radical protest, which had been developing in Britain
since the mid 18th Century.
On the other hand, there are historians
who challenge this view of Chartism's nature and significance.
As the historian Asa Briggs has put it, "it may be better to talk
about 'Chartists' rather than 'Chartism'".
This view implies that the movement never fully overcame regional
differences, lacked national unity and in fact still remained, like
many earlier forms of protest, essentially a 'knife
and fork question' - strong in periods and areas of economic
hardship, but abandoned by all but the most committed of its supporters
once times and trade improved.
This debate about the underlying nature of the movement runs through
historians' differing analyses of
- the reasons for Chartism's emergence,
- the pattern of its subsequent growth and support
- the quality of its leadership
- the changing tactics that were adopted as the movement developed
over time
- a consideration of why the movement failed to achieve the demands
put forward in the Charter
