ing eyes of Marx and Engels saw. It was political. It sought "no isles of the blest in the quiet sea of rest." It did not trouble its head about communities; it saw that economic problems were national not municipal; it saw further that national problems could only be solved by national machinery. That was the philosophy of the Charter. The Reform of 1832 had blessed the middle class only. Why were the working classes left out in the cold? They did not want to be in for mere ceremony's sake. They wanted to be in because the feast was spread inside. They stood like the foolish virgins at a barred door, without having the comfort which the foolish virgins had—that they themselves were to blame. "We will get the land," they sang in one of their songs, "only when we get the Charter." The Charter was a means to an end. In the background of the Chartist mind was land reform, reduction of factory hours, better education, the control of machinery, associated industry. Chartism rose and fell. It is said that the workmen have always suffered from dishonest leaders. That does not go to the root of the matter, and is misleading. The Chartist movement shows not the dishonest leader but the wind-bag charlatan leader. The people have been sold, but only after they have shown an incapacity to choose leaders.
Thus, in the 'thirties, we find a condition in England similar to what we have found in France. Gropings after association, an optimism regarding the curability of economic
