Since 1848, C. has gradually died out. Its principles were not new. The duke of Richmond, in 1780, introduced a bill into the house of lords to give universal suffrage and annual parliaments. In the same year, Charles James Fox declared himself in favor of the identical six points which were afterwards included in the charter. And nearer our own time, earl Grey, Mr. Erskine, sir James Mackintosh, and many others, formed a "society of friends of the people," which aimed at obtaining a very large extension of the suffrage.
The great body of chartists were, however, not so much actuated by the weight of precedent or argument, as impelled by the pressure of actual want, and an indefinite feeling that the laws were somehow to blame for not providing them with the means of comfortable subsistence. But there were many among them who had studied the prin ciples involved in their demands, and maintained them from an intelligent conviction of their truth. These men declared that all persons had an equal natural right to share in determining the laws under which they lived; and further, that as they were required to contribute to the taxation of the country, they were justly entitled to be heard as to the application of the public funds. Taxation and obedience being universal, represen tation ought to be so. This view being conceded, all the other points of the charter naturally followed, they being merely arrangements for securing the free action of the right contended for. Some of the chartist advocates went far beyond this. There were those among them whose aims included little less than the reorganization of society-. One of the ablest advocates of the cause wrote in favor of nationalizing the land, and remod eling the currency; he also proposed a system of state loans for the assistance of laborers who desired to become capitalists, and national marts for the exchange of wealth on terms of equity and justice. Pressed a little further, these views would have developed into communism; but so far as we are aware, most chartists held so strongly the doc trine of individual rights, that they were not likely to subordinate Man to society. See
COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM. The object aimed at by the majority was merely the extension of the franchise to the masses, in the belief that they would use it wisely and honestly, and put an end to what they considered the selfish and interested rule of classes who had long monopolized the control of the state. The opponents of C. answered, that if the question was argued as one of right, it would go far beyond the conclusions which the chartists had reached. The right appertained to women as well as to men, and there was no just reason why sane persons under 21 should be deprived of it. It would also, they maintained, give all power to the most ignorant classes of the community, and thus subject intelligence to brute force. Government existed for the benefit of society, and ought, as far as possible, to depend on the wisdom, and not on the mere number of the people. Then if representation depended upon taxation, it should vary in proportion to the taxes paid. Finally, they denied that men as swell had a right to vote; their right was to be well governed, and universal suffrage was more likely to destroy society than to confer happiness or insure justice.
The cause which put an end to C. as an organization was undoubtedly the improve ment in the circumstances of the people which followed the repeal of the corn laws. Since then, the chief points of the charter have actually become law. A property quali fication is no longer necessary in a representative; the reform acts of 1867-68 have vir tually established manhood suffrage; and the act of 1872 gave vote by ballot. The efforts of the majority of those,who live by manual labor are now directed towards securing, by trades-unions and other means, a larger share than formerly in the profits of industry.