WHAT IS A CHARTIST
"The Question - 'What is a Chartist' - Answered" was a tract issued in February 1839 by the Finsbury Tract Society which published similar tracts and pamphlets. What is a Chartist was numerously advertised in the newspapers for 1s. 6d. per hundred, or five for one penny. The Charter newspaper exhorted its readers to give this admirable tract an extensive circulation, and said there will be a liberal allowance to those purchasing to give away. The Odd Fellow published the tract in full in 1840 saying it was "... calculated to remove the ignorance and prejudice which pervade the public mind respecting the principles of Chartism ..."
Mr Doubtful. Good morning to you, friend; I understand you profess Chartist principles, and as I confess, in common with many others, my ignorance of what Chartism means, I should be obliged by your informing me what is the meaning of the term 'Chartist.'
Radical. It is one who is an advocate for the People's Charter.
Mr D. The People's Charter, pray what is that?
Rad. It is the outline of an act of parliament, drawn up by a committee of the London Working Men's Association and six members of parliament; and embraces the six cardinal points of Radical Reform.
Mr D. What are these points?
Rad. There are six, and they are named as follows: Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, Equal Representation, Payment of Members, No Property Qualification.
Mr D. Do you mean by Universal Suffrage, that men, women, and children should vote?
Rad. No, we do not: it is often difficult to find a term which shall clearly express what you mean, and perhaps universal adult male suffrage would have been a more near approach to our meaning; but we mean by the term that every man twenty-one years of age, unconvicted of crime and of sound mind, should have a vote in the election of the representatives who are to make the laws he is called upon to obey, and who lay on the taxes he is required to pay.
Radical. It is one who is an advocate for the People's Charter.
Mr D. The People's Charter, pray what is that?
Rad. It is the outline of an act of parliament, drawn up by a committee of the London Working Men's Association and six members of parliament; and embraces the six cardinal points of Radical Reform.
Mr D. What are these points?
Rad. There are six, and they are named as follows: Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, Equal Representation, Payment of Members, No Property Qualification.
Mr D. Do you mean by Universal Suffrage, that men, women, and children should vote?
Rad. No, we do not: it is often difficult to find a term which shall clearly express what you mean, and perhaps universal adult male suffrage would have been a more near approach to our meaning; but we mean by the term that every man twenty-one years of age, unconvicted of crime and of sound mind, should have a vote in the election of the representatives who are to make the laws he is called upon to obey, and who lay on the taxes he is required to pay.
Mr D. Do you think this essential to obtain and secure good government?
Rad. I do, for the following reasons: first, because the possession of the franchise is the only difference between a freeman and the Russian serf, who is sold with the land and the cattle, as part of the farm stock; or the slave of South Carolina, where it is punishable to teach a slave to read; it is the only security against bad laws and for good government; and while the exclusive few have a profitable interest in bad laws, there will be no barrier to tyranny and corruption, but the fear of resistance on the part of the enslaved many.
Mr D. Why do you prefer Annual Parliaments to septennial as at present?
Rad. Because we should be enabled by this means to get rid of a bad servant at the end of one year, instead of being fixed with him for seven, as at present.
Mr D. But would a man be able in one year to obtain an insight into the forms of parliament? and would it be prudent to dismiss a man as soon as he became useful?
Rad. This is begging the question: we should not dismiss an honest and capable man, and the sooner a dishonest or incapable one was dismIssed, the better. With respect to obtaining an acquaintance with the forms of parliament, every man must at his first entrance be ignorant of the practice of the house; and the knowledge he would acquire in the first year would enhance his value, and, provided he was honest and capable, would ensure his re-election.
Mr D. By Voting by Ballot of course you mean secret voting; what benefit is expected from that?
Rad. The prevention of bribery or intimidation at elections; or the influencing a man to vote against his own will or judgment;
Mr D. Oh, but consider how un-English it is in character, and what lying and deception it will occasion.
Rad. I am not so bigoted an admirer of English customs as to refuse to adopt the regulations of other countries, where they are proved to be beneficial; besides, the practice is not so un-English as you seem to think; those very consistent and independent gentlemen who profess so much care for the morals of the electors, and such a horror of the Ballot, constantly make use of it for the protection of themselves in the election of the members in their clubs. With regard to the deception, it is admitted that the Ballot is merely a remedy for a disease; and if it can be proved (which I believe it can to demonstration) that the evil the Ballot will remove is so enormous compared with any it can possibly inflict, the question will resolve itself into a balance of evils, and of course the lesser evil is preferable to the greater.
Rad. I do, for the following reasons: first, because the possession of the franchise is the only difference between a freeman and the Russian serf, who is sold with the land and the cattle, as part of the farm stock; or the slave of South Carolina, where it is punishable to teach a slave to read; it is the only security against bad laws and for good government; and while the exclusive few have a profitable interest in bad laws, there will be no barrier to tyranny and corruption, but the fear of resistance on the part of the enslaved many.
Mr D. Why do you prefer Annual Parliaments to septennial as at present?
Rad. Because we should be enabled by this means to get rid of a bad servant at the end of one year, instead of being fixed with him for seven, as at present.
Mr D. But would a man be able in one year to obtain an insight into the forms of parliament? and would it be prudent to dismiss a man as soon as he became useful?
Rad. This is begging the question: we should not dismiss an honest and capable man, and the sooner a dishonest or incapable one was dismIssed, the better. With respect to obtaining an acquaintance with the forms of parliament, every man must at his first entrance be ignorant of the practice of the house; and the knowledge he would acquire in the first year would enhance his value, and, provided he was honest and capable, would ensure his re-election.
Mr D. By Voting by Ballot of course you mean secret voting; what benefit is expected from that?
Rad. The prevention of bribery or intimidation at elections; or the influencing a man to vote against his own will or judgment;
Mr D. Oh, but consider how un-English it is in character, and what lying and deception it will occasion.
Rad. I am not so bigoted an admirer of English customs as to refuse to adopt the regulations of other countries, where they are proved to be beneficial; besides, the practice is not so un-English as you seem to think; those very consistent and independent gentlemen who profess so much care for the morals of the electors, and such a horror of the Ballot, constantly make use of it for the protection of themselves in the election of the members in their clubs. With regard to the deception, it is admitted that the Ballot is merely a remedy for a disease; and if it can be proved (which I believe it can to demonstration) that the evil the Ballot will remove is so enormous compared with any it can possibly inflict, the question will resolve itself into a balance of evils, and of course the lesser evil is preferable to the greater.
Mr D. Pray, what is meant by Equal Representation?
Rad. It means that the country should be divided into equal electoral districts (say 300) each containing, as nearly as conveniently may be, an equal number of inhabitants, each district to send one representative to Parliament.
Mr D. Is it not divided into electoral districts at present?
Rad. It is, but not equal; for instance: - Harwich sends two members to Parliament, and numbers 156 electors, while Westminister, with 13,268 electors, sends no more; so that, if it is right that Harwich should send two members, Westminister should send 170! nor is this a solitary instance. There are ten boroughs sending twenty members, the total of whose electors amount to 2,411, while ten other boroughs, also sending twenty embers, number 86,072 electors; so if it be right that the ten small boroughs should send twenty members, the ten large boroughs should send about 700!!
Mr D. What proportion do the electors bear to the whole male population above twenty-one years of age?
Rad. About one to seven and a half: the total number of registered electors being 839,519; and the number of males twenty-one years of age is 6,023,752. [Note: This pamphlet was published in 1839]
Mr D. We will now come, if you please, to the next point of your Charter, which I think is Payment of Members; do you not think, if men capable of the duty can be found to execute it for nothing, it would save money?
Rad. I doubt much whether it would save money. If I gave a servant no wages, and he paid for his place as servants in hotels and members of parliament do at present, I should suppose he expected to make more by it than he could fairly ask as wages.
Mr D. But it seems to me a sort of degradation that a Member of Parliament should receive wages like a servant.
Rad. You have no good grounds to think so. Does anyone consider the great officers of state, the judges etc, etc, degraded by receiving the salaries they do? If a man devotes his time and talents, he is fairly entitled to remuneration; and it is proposed by the Charter to give each member £500 per annum. Besides, there is nothing new in this. Members of Parliament used to receive wages. There is an account in a not very ancient chronicle, of a Member of Parliament who was also Recorder of the borough, who agreed, upon condition of being re-elected, to forego his wages: we may image that, like the modern members, he discovered there were pickings in Parliament which would enable him to work for nothing and pay for his place.
Rad. It means that the country should be divided into equal electoral districts (say 300) each containing, as nearly as conveniently may be, an equal number of inhabitants, each district to send one representative to Parliament.
Mr D. Is it not divided into electoral districts at present?
Rad. It is, but not equal; for instance: - Harwich sends two members to Parliament, and numbers 156 electors, while Westminister, with 13,268 electors, sends no more; so that, if it is right that Harwich should send two members, Westminister should send 170! nor is this a solitary instance. There are ten boroughs sending twenty members, the total of whose electors amount to 2,411, while ten other boroughs, also sending twenty embers, number 86,072 electors; so if it be right that the ten small boroughs should send twenty members, the ten large boroughs should send about 700!!
Mr D. What proportion do the electors bear to the whole male population above twenty-one years of age?
Rad. About one to seven and a half: the total number of registered electors being 839,519; and the number of males twenty-one years of age is 6,023,752. [Note: This pamphlet was published in 1839]
Mr D. We will now come, if you please, to the next point of your Charter, which I think is Payment of Members; do you not think, if men capable of the duty can be found to execute it for nothing, it would save money?
Rad. I doubt much whether it would save money. If I gave a servant no wages, and he paid for his place as servants in hotels and members of parliament do at present, I should suppose he expected to make more by it than he could fairly ask as wages.
Mr D. But it seems to me a sort of degradation that a Member of Parliament should receive wages like a servant.
Rad. You have no good grounds to think so. Does anyone consider the great officers of state, the judges etc, etc, degraded by receiving the salaries they do? If a man devotes his time and talents, he is fairly entitled to remuneration; and it is proposed by the Charter to give each member £500 per annum. Besides, there is nothing new in this. Members of Parliament used to receive wages. There is an account in a not very ancient chronicle, of a Member of Parliament who was also Recorder of the borough, who agreed, upon condition of being re-elected, to forego his wages: we may image that, like the modern members, he discovered there were pickings in Parliament which would enable him to work for nothing and pay for his place.
Mr D. The last is No Property Qualification. Pray what is meant by that?
Rad. We mean, that the choice of the electors shall be the only qualification necessary.
Mr D. But would you send men to Parliament not worth a shilling?
Rad. I doubt whether a man without a shilling would be elected: but the present property qualifications is a fraud. If a man has money or interest enough to get into Parliament, he can purchase a sham qualification for £25. But why should not a poor man, if he have ability sufficient, and a majority of the electors have confidence in him, be elected? If none but rich men are sent to Parliament, the feelings and wants of the poor cannot be fairly represented. In Norway, the peasant farmer in his grey, homespun doublet, sits in the House of Deputies beside the noble; and there the laws are just and equal, while here, because the law makers are the few, the laws are unequal and oppressive.
Mr D. But where is the clause for the distribution of property? Have you forgotten that?
Rad. That is a base and slanderous calumny, which those who profit by things as they are have forged to damage our cause. There never was the slightest foundation for such a charge, although Judges on the bench and parsons in the pulpit have not scrupled to give currency to the falsehood.
Mr D. What are the benefits you anticipate from the adoption of the Charter?
Rad. A reduction of taxation, by which the productive industry of the nation would be increased; the reform of the enormous abuses of the civil law which amount in most cases to an utter denial of justice to the poor; a large and liberal system of national education, without reference to creed, which would tend at once to diminish crime, by striking at its root. The cost of the civil and criminal justice in this country is above two millions, while only £30,000 is devoted to national education. Would it not be far better to diminish the former amountby increasing the latter?
Mr D. Why this certainly appears reasonable: are there any other benefits you expect?
Rad. Yes, certainly; more than I can now enumerate. There is the expense of the State, the civil list as it is called, amounting to about £1,000,000 sterling, while the United States' civil list is not £20,000; I think we might be as well or better governed for less money by half than we pay at present.
Mr D. Oh, but consider: the expenditure of this money makes good for trade - what should we do without it?
Rad. That is a mistaken notion. If the money were left in the pockets of the people, they would spend it in comforts for themselves, and thereby make better for trade than if it were spent in luxury by idle and useless placement and unworthy pensioners.
Mr D. Well, your objects seem more reasonable than I expected, so I wish you success. Good morning to you.
Rad. We mean, that the choice of the electors shall be the only qualification necessary.
Mr D. But would you send men to Parliament not worth a shilling?
Rad. I doubt whether a man without a shilling would be elected: but the present property qualifications is a fraud. If a man has money or interest enough to get into Parliament, he can purchase a sham qualification for £25. But why should not a poor man, if he have ability sufficient, and a majority of the electors have confidence in him, be elected? If none but rich men are sent to Parliament, the feelings and wants of the poor cannot be fairly represented. In Norway, the peasant farmer in his grey, homespun doublet, sits in the House of Deputies beside the noble; and there the laws are just and equal, while here, because the law makers are the few, the laws are unequal and oppressive.
Mr D. But where is the clause for the distribution of property? Have you forgotten that?
Rad. That is a base and slanderous calumny, which those who profit by things as they are have forged to damage our cause. There never was the slightest foundation for such a charge, although Judges on the bench and parsons in the pulpit have not scrupled to give currency to the falsehood.
Mr D. What are the benefits you anticipate from the adoption of the Charter?
Rad. A reduction of taxation, by which the productive industry of the nation would be increased; the reform of the enormous abuses of the civil law which amount in most cases to an utter denial of justice to the poor; a large and liberal system of national education, without reference to creed, which would tend at once to diminish crime, by striking at its root. The cost of the civil and criminal justice in this country is above two millions, while only £30,000 is devoted to national education. Would it not be far better to diminish the former amountby increasing the latter?
Mr D. Why this certainly appears reasonable: are there any other benefits you expect?
Rad. Yes, certainly; more than I can now enumerate. There is the expense of the State, the civil list as it is called, amounting to about £1,000,000 sterling, while the United States' civil list is not £20,000; I think we might be as well or better governed for less money by half than we pay at present.
Mr D. Oh, but consider: the expenditure of this money makes good for trade - what should we do without it?
Rad. That is a mistaken notion. If the money were left in the pockets of the people, they would spend it in comforts for themselves, and thereby make better for trade than if it were spent in luxury by idle and useless placement and unworthy pensioners.
Mr D. Well, your objects seem more reasonable than I expected, so I wish you success. Good morning to you.