Origin of Modern Politics

Tuesday, December 13 2011, 1:44 PM

European States System
Nature & Character
The European States System in 18th century was based on 3 pillars: Monarchy, Church and Landed Aristocracy.
Monarchy
1. Monarchy was an essential feature because it avoided the struggle for power and each monarch had in his interests to pass on a stronger kingdom to his
son. It was also accepted because in those days, the role of state was seen to be very limited to protect the state from internal and external threats only.
This specialized job had to be left to specialists. The concepts of popular participation had not yet emerged. The king who succeeded in doing this won
the loyalty of his subjects. In the absence of nations, it was beneficial to show allegiance to the king only and this allegiance to the king provided a
general bonding to the society.
2. The monarchs added the concept of absolutism in 17th century. This absolutism led to growth of internal and external conflicts. So a better
administration and efficient taxation system was needed to preserve the monarchy.
3. So the absolute monarchs started to become more benevolent and reform oriented. This also won them popular support which they needed against the
feudal lords. In fact until 1792, most of what French Revolution did was simply an accelerated implementation of reforms the monarchs themselves were
looking to do.
4. However, as a result of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, the institution of monarchy lost its status as monarchs were tossed around like
footballs by him.
Church
1. The church used to dominate the religious, philosophical an educational lives if European people.
2. In countries which came under the impact of revolution, church suffered irreversible losses. Still after 1815, she got back control over education and
land grants. In other countries, she retained her land and privileges.
Landed Aristocracy
1. In the age where industrialization was still in the bud, land formed the most important form of property and hence socio-political power. The revolution
tried to change it, but the land which was taken away from the church and nobles was mostly usurped by bourgeoisie and some by peasants. After the
distributions and redistributions, the land ownership was still very confined to aristocrats and wealthy middle class.
2. The limited diffusion of land led to limited diffusion of political rights since everywhere the voting rights were property-wise. Parliaments represented
property and not people. No party system was possible in such situations. On top of this the upper houses of parliaments in France and England were
drawn almost exclusively from aristocracy and clergy and most of the ministers were selected from the same class. Thus all revolution succeeded in
doing was to force the nobles and clergy to share some of their power with the bourgeoisie.
3. In eastern europe, in the absence of strong middle class, the regimes remained a mere perpetuation of ancien regime. Even where serfs were freed like
Germany, they had to cede their land to the landlords as a compensation. So the grip of landed class over the administration remained.
Challenges
Population Growth
1. European population grew rapidly from 1750. For such a massive demographic transition, new social and political systems were needed.
Urbanization and Industrialization
1. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the domestic system was dominant form of secondary production. But the invention of new expensive machines
necessitated the movement to cities and produced disruptive changes in the social order. New kind of organizations like trade unions, companies etc.
began to grow and the old systems found themselves incapable of handling these. They tried to resist, but eventually had to give way.
2. The
contribution
of
industrialization
in
changing
the
state
system
was
the
growth
of powerful capitalist class and the growth of proletariat. The immediate interests of both classes coincided like free trade, cheaper food, political repres
entation. Aristocracy clearly had to give way. But scared of the proletariat, an alliance emerged between the aristocracy and the middle class.
3. Though it took a much longer time for workers' demands to be met, the whole thing changed the entire framework in which a state's role was seen.
Now
it
was
no
longer confined to protection from internal and external threats but a more intimate and intricate relationship emerged between the state and its citizens.
Thus the institutions of monarchy, church domination and landed aristocratic domination began to crumble.
Liberalism
1. It believed that there should be more organic relationship between the government and society. The government should not be above or apart from the
society but at least should be based on the consent of the important sections and should work for the benefit of the people.
2. The biggest obstacles in the path of liberals were the aristocracy and clergy. So they attacked feudal and church rights most vigorously. The most
preferred government was a constitutional monarchy where constitutional arrangements, checks and balances, rule of law and meritocracy prevailed.
3. This was distinct from democracy as liberalism believed in the sovereignty of the constitutional arrangements and parliament and not of the people. They
valued liberty more highly than equality and fraternity.
4. Their objections to settlement of 1815 was less on nationalistic grounds and more because it restored aristocracy and clergy.
Democracy
1. It stressed on equality more than liberty and fraternity. They even wanted more social and economic equality and thus were hated by liberals. But like

liberals,
they
were
opposed
to
the
ancient
regime
as
well.
But
unlike
sovereignty lay in people and not in constitutional arrangements.
2. They favored universal male suffrage and sometimes even direct democratic tools like plebiscite and referendum.
3. To resist the democrats, liberals were often ready to ally with aristocrats.

liberals,

they

believed,

Socialism
1. It stressed more on fraternity than liberty and equality. Men in natural state are good and cooperative.
2. Earliest socialism was found in Americas in some communities which had escaped from Europe.
3. Like the democrats and liberals, their ideals were derived from French Revolution too.
America
Revolution
Constitution
Civil War
Abraham Lincoln
Abolition of Slavery
France
Role of Philosophers
1.
2.
3.
4.

They didn't preach Revolution and in fact most were ready to lend support to any monarch who would patronize them and adopt their teachings.
Their followers were mainly aristocrats and the lawyers, businessmen, local dignitaries etc. who by no means were the oppressed lot.
The doctrines of the philosophers were used by the revolutionaries later on only to justify their actions.
Their contribution was that they made men more ready to question the existing system.

What made people revolt in spite of themselves was the revolutionary situation
1. The core of the revolutionary situation was a king in desperate financial crisis. All the conventional ways of taxation had been exhausted.
2. France was a large, powerful, rich country in Europe at that time. It had a larger middle class and a better off peasantry compared to rest of Europe.
But even these conditions turned against the establishment.
3. Its not the people who have something to gain who revolt, its people who have something to lose who revolt. These people wanted to protect their
belongings.
4. The decision of the king to summon estates-generale won him popularity initially, but he could not capitalize on it and ultimately it led to the revolution.
5. By now the socio-economic system in France had greatly outgrown her politico-administrative system. The decision to summon Estates-Generale
brought various people together who wanted social and political reforms.
6. Thus the act of summoning actually crystallized the revolutionary situation.
It was only the King, in the eighteenth-century France, who could create a Republic
1. Despite the revolutionary situation, no one of significance was demanding the head of the King.
2. The king had in fact won popularity by his decision to summon the Estates-General and then by increasing the strength of the 3rd Estate representatives.
3. If he had followed it up by declaring a joint session of the Estates-General then with one stroke he would have gained immense popularity with the
people and also destroy the nobles and clergymen which had been keeping checks on him.
4. However, his indecisive policies since then led to a failure on his part to actually be a part and leader of the revolution and gave opportunities to others.
5. Despite this, until the very last act of the King, republicanism was not a popular opinion. People were looking for reforms under the king and didn't want
to depose him.
Only a monarch prepared to be a revolutionary could have escaped the dilemma which plagued the eighteenth century French monarchy
1.
2.
3.
4.

The French monarchy was absolute in theory and the kings claimed to be ruling by divine right.
In the past, his authority had been checked only by powerful nobles and local parliaments which had been considered generally illegitimate.
However, his wielding of absolute authority was so enmeshed in the system that he became a slave of the system to rule that way.
He could rule only through the privileged orders of the society and through wasteful expenditures. Any other way of ruling would have been considered
a weakness and brought about his own downfall.
5. But if he continued to rule that way, he was fueling the revolutionary situation by perpetuating the reactionary socio-administrative system.
6. Thus only a monarch who was prepared to provide leadership to the revolution could have save the monarchy in France.
Factors behind the rise of Parisian Mob
1. During past few decades, the growth in prices in France had outpaced the growth in incomes by a factor of 3. Factors responsible for this price rise was
the accumulation of precious metals due to overseas trade, expansion of credit and slower expansion of production. This had made life very difficult for
the people living at the sustenance level and they had no option but to flock to the towns to take any meager jobs.
2. Also during the preparation of the meeting of the National Assembly in May 1789, local bodies were supposed to send them cahiers or list of demands.
Most of the peasantry demand either failed to be reflected in the cahiers or they were not raised by the National Assembly. Thus the National Assembly
lost touch with the public opinion and the peasants and migrants had to take direct action.
It was not the National Assembly but the peasants who had really overthrown feudalism
1. The demands of the peasantry were not raised by the National Assembly and it lost touch with the popular opinion. The reason for this was it was
dominated by bourgeoisie and thus was interested in pressing for their demands only like equality before law, protection of liberty and property, merit
and not birth being the basis of holding higher offices etc. The National Assembly was only interested in getting rid of the less valuable feudal rights so as
to protect the more valuable property rights.

2. However, the pressure from peasantry was rising as was evident from the Fall of Bastille. Also everywhere in France the peasants had been burning
the feudal archives called the chateaux, confiscating feudal property and asserting their freedom.
3. It was only under this immense pressure from the peasant class that all feudal rights were abolished.
The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen was not a manifesto of democracy
1. The citizens meant only the voting class or the active citizens. A vast majority remained the passive citizens.
2. There was no universal male suffrage in France and only propertied class were allowed to vote.
3. The declaration contained rights which were typically the demands of the middle class like equality before law, freedom from arbitrary arrest or
punishment, meritocracy, right to property, freedom of speech and press and equal distribution of tax burdens.
4. If the Declaration began to inspire democratic movements later in the world, it was due to subsequent events and not on its own.
The Declaration was a challenge to entire Europe
1. The Declaration contained Rights of Man which were universally applicable to all men living anywhere in the world who wanted to be free. This
universalism posed a direct challenge the existing order in rest of Europe.
2. The doctrine of sovereignty of the nation which means people and the doctrine that "law is the expression of general will" conflicted with the existing
autocratic, absolute monarchist systems in Europe where law was the whims and wishes of the ruler.
The most revolutionary doctrine of the Declaration - Right of Resistance to Oppression
1. It is also found in the American Revolution. It was revolutionary in the sense that it ex ante gave legitimacy to any movement to overthrow an
oppressive rule. Thus it was invoked later in October to legitimize the extinguishing of king's right to veto all legislation.
2. However, the reasons for including it were also ex post as the actions of Bastille and of the National Assembly had to be legitimized.
Factors behind the transformation of the Revolution into a war
1. The Civil Constitution of Clergy was one source of trouble. It sought to turn the church into a state department and severe all its relations with Rome.
Most of the Europe was deeply catholic in those days and this act was disliked.
2. The influence of the migrs who fled to other countries and encouraged those powers to invade France.
3. The universality of the principles of the Revolution and the challenge they posed to the existing order in Europe.
4. The French Assembly declared that any territories occupied by France would be freed from feudal obligations and the church and aristocratic property
would be confiscated.
5. Thus Europe witnessed a war - not the traditional mercenary kind of war fought for territory - but one fought by a nation for an ideology.
Factors leading to the rise of Jacobianism
1. The
execution
of
the
king
after
his
act
of
running
away
provided
a
death
blow
to
the
advocates of constitutional monarchy and increased the popularity of Jacobians who were republicans.
2. The same act of execution led to escalation of conflicts - France now had to fight Britain, Spain, Holland and Hungary as well.
3. With the escalation of conflicts, French army began to suffer reverses. So the Giordins who were advocates of war and were in control of power at that
time lost their popularity.
4. In Robespierre, Jacobians had an able leader who could channelize support behind him.
Factors behind the rise of Robespierre
1. His personality - he could easily sway masses and parliamentarians, his personal life, philosophy, fanaticism all appealed to French in the hour of crisis.
2. The Jacobian Club had a very sound organization with centre at Paris and branches in all provinces and cities thereby enabling him to mobilize opinion
and carry out his work.
3. Many communes had come up in the revolution. These communes were mostly irregular municipal governments and were full of radical elements. They
rallied the Paris mob. Robespierre became the head of the Paris Commune.
4. The nature of the legislature at the time had given most executive powers to the Committee of Public Safety. He became the head of it and could easily
exercise dictatorial power.
5. A special court called Revolutionary Tribunal was setup to bypass normal judiciary and convict the alleged enemies of revolution. This helped him in
eliminating many of his opponents.
Significance of the Cult of Supreme Being in Notre Dome
1. It established Deism as against Catholicism.
2. The Deism required its followers to practice human duties. This was complementary to the Declaration of Rights in the sense it was like a Declaration of
Duties. This symbolized that the revolution had grown tired.
Reasons for the Reign of Terror
1.
2.
3.
4.

The significant pressure exerted by the Paris mob forced each parliamentarian to become more radical.
The familiar forms of government had been tried and had failed. So there was chaos.
There was threat of foreign invasion and internal challenges.
The large scale emigrations helped strengthen the notion that enemies of the revolution were enemies of the state as well and hence should be
prosecuted.
5. Eventually the terror was used just to prolong the dictatorial rule of Robespierre.
Impact of the Revolution on War
1. The notion that in times of emergency ordinary public could be called upon to render service and sacrifice property emerged and gained ground. Thus it

eventually turned wars from being battles between armies to being conflicts between whole nations.
2. It transformed the wars into one of economic attrition through the Continental system and British blockade.
3. It led to the notion of the duties of the state towards its citizens because if the citizens could be called upon to sacrifice, the state should take care of their
welfare. Overall it made the relationship between citizens and state more intricate and intimate.
The nature and character of the post-Jacobian phase of the Revolution
1. It was not a royalist reaction nor was it a Giordin reaction. It was a turn towards moderate Jacobianism. A new constitution was drafted which was
neither Giordin nor Jacobian but it sought to end the feat of executive as well as the Paris mob.
2. The migrs began to come back in some numbers and Law of Maximum was discontinued. Law of Maximum meant fixing a ceiling on the prices of
commodities.
3. It wanted a new parliamentary system on a narrow social basis so that its moderate and avoids personal dictatorship.
Weaknesses of the Directory
1. The directors were self seeking politicians with little credibility.
2. Their support base was narrow and was limited to businessmen, lawyers, landlords etc.
3. So they had to resort to constant use of force against their own people to maintain their authority.
The Babeuf Conspiracy
1. Babeuf attracted a group of radical Jacobians and organized a secret society called the Society of the Pantheon.
2. In February 1796, Napoleon was personally sent to close the meeting place and dismantle the society. Babeuf and his
supporters retaliated by forming a secret directory and preparing for a revolt. They wanted to revive Jacobian constitution of 1793
and create a truly equal society in France.
Domestic circumstances leading to Napoleon's success
1. The Directory had become very unpopular due to their policy paralysis. Their unpopularity was reflected in a successive defeat in the elections which
they refused to recognize.
2. Finally in 1799, the situation could no longer be contained and two directors planned a coup with Napoleon's help.
Factors behind French success in the wars
1. Her enemies were never united despite being organized into a coalition. The coalition was merely superficial and they were only interested in furthering
their own gains.
19th century Europe would have been a place of profound change and great expansion even if French Revolution had never taken place or Napoleon would
never have been born
1. The declared war aims gave way slowly to imperialist tendency with policy of establishing natural French frontiers being followed. Thus the revolutionary
war became no different from Louis XIV's imperialistic wars.
2. In
the
conquered
areas,
French
laws
and
institutions
were
imposed
with
no
regard
of
local
aspirations. The locals merely found themselves serving a different set of masters. Areas like Italy and Holland were turned into French colonies. The
introduction of machines was encouraged only in France and discouraged everywhere else.
3. The people of these areas had already become acquainted with the principles of the revolution. There began a cultural and ideological movement in
these areas to forge themselves into independent nations. However, the importance of French Revolution and Napoleonic wars should not be
overemphasized.
4. American Revolution had already taken place which was based on revolutionary ideals.
5. The British democracy was already turning towards being more inclusive and liberal.
6. The forces of Industrial Revolution would have been unstoppable.
7. It was not just the political revolution which changed lives, but the scientific and cultural revolutions led by people like Adam Smith, James Watt,
Beethoven etc. which had more profound impact on the age. So what French Revolution did was merely to accelerate the changes.
The Treaty of Tilsit was a high watermark of Napoleonic Empire
1. Even though the powers in the coalition were always divided and were busy in pursuing their narrow self interests (e.g.. Prussia in N Germany and E
Europe, Russia in Poland and Turkey, Austria in Danube Valley), they still put up some sort of semblance of being united.
2. However, by this treaty, Napoleon completely broke even the semblance of unity. He convinced the tsar of Russia that his real enemy was England as
her interests in Turkey and Asia conflicted with that of England's.
3. He convinced the tsar that he would be recognized the ruler of the east if Napoleon was recognized the ruler of the west. So Russia and along with
Prussia agreed to follow the Continental system and Austria even declared war on England. Thus not only was the third coalition smashed, it was
reversed.
Unification in the West had to be accompanied by constant division and conflict in the East ; and his power was never consolidated east of the Elbe and the
Adriatic
1. The first three coalitions which were formed against France were more a result of British strategy and superficial coincidence of interests of the eastern
European powers than anything else. Prussia, Austria and Russia were the three eastern powers and any real combination of them would indeed have
been formidable as was proved in the Fourth Coalition.
2. So Napoleon while consolidating his direct rule in the line west of and including S Germanic states and
Italy, used diplomacy to keep the east divided. He avoided any international conferences or multilateral pacts and instead insisted on settling issues
bilaterally thus fostering mistrust among the eastern powers.

Only the threat posed by Napoleon could have united the governments of Europe in so solid and formidable an alliance: he made the Grand Empire and he
destroyed it
1. 3 Coalitions had been formed and shattered. One big reason was the internal squabbling among the coalition powers and absence of any fundamental
unifying cause.
2. But the way Napoleon inflicted defeats after defeats on them and snatched the territories, they felt their survival itself was dependent on defeat of
Napoleon.
3. England had stifled Napoleon through her naval supremacy and blockade. The challenge was so great that they forgot all their differences.
To embark on so vast an undertaking in the East while Britain remained unconquered in the west was a mistake that Hitler was to repeat 130 years later
1. Bot the would be conquerors of Europe - Napoleon and Hitler - faced this dilemma. The naval supremacy of England had made her conquest look
impossible. Both were land powers, so fell in the temptation of solidifying their power by capturing the vast east.
2. In both cases, an east-west alliance was precipitated as a result of the aggression and this devastated the aggressor.
The impact of Continental System on economic system in Europe
1. Now brought out in open, the need to focus on and expand the maritime trade, was reinforced by the continental system and the blockade of Europe.
2. Between 1789 to 1815, England's foreign trade trebled and it became more trans-atlantic and far-east in character.
3. France, being cut-off from her overseas connections was forced to focus on its trade with continental Europe and near East.
Other reasons for Napoleon's fall
1. The opponents had all finally united against him. It was this alliance which eventually defeated Napoleon after the nationalist sentiments had played their
part
2. Napoleon's war tactics had been learnt by others and now used against him.
3. The Prussian state relied on heavy mass support and conscription to rebuild against Napoleon.
Forces combining the Aristocracies in Europe in 1815
1.
2.
3.
4.

The Church enjoyed a resurgent popularity all over Europe.

The landed aristocracy and land based production system was largely a common system. The methods of cultivation were still medieval.
There was cousinhood of kings i.e. most of the dynasties were inter-married and linked to each other.
French language and culture was prevalent among the elite classes. In the conquered areas, Napoleon had imposed French institutions, laws,
administration etc.

The Treaty of Chaumont, 1814

1. Its aim was to throw Napoleon and then to preserve and consolidate the post-Napoleon order.
2. It bound its signatories into an alliance for 20 years with responsibilities to maintain the settlements reached after defeating Napoleon.
The Treaties of Paris, 1814 and 1815
1. The first treaty was very lenient on France as after restoration of the legitimate ruler, she was seen as an ally. Her borders were restored to pre-1792
levels and she only had to surrender some colonies. She was not to be occupied or disarmed and didn't even have to pay any war indemnity.
2. But after the popular support Napoleon received in his 100 days of rule, the second treat fixed harsher terms on France. Her borders were fixed to pre1789 level which means she lost Belgium and barely managed to hold on to Alsace-Lorraine. She was made to pay a large war indemnity and forced to
host an allied garrison till 1818.
The Congress of Vienna resembled an odd assemblage of characters and national interests and yet was more remarkable than the Peace of Paris in its work
1. The characters involved in the Congress were Tsar Alexander I of Russia who usually acted personally, Matternich of Austria, Handenberg of Prussia
who acted on behalf of King Frederick William III and Lord Casrlereagh (and in later stages Duke of Wellington) who represented UK and Talleyrand
of France.
2. The Tsar was an utopian character and hoped for a liberal settlement; Matternich was most conservative character and stubbornly hostile to all liberal
hopes;
Casrlereagh
was
pragmatic
and
wanted
to
reach
a
moderate
and
generally
acceptable
solution and Talleyrand merely wanted to protect French interests.
3. England
and
Russia
were
grouped
alike
in
the
sense
their
major
interests
lay outside Europe and they only wanted to intervene in Europe in major issues. Their interest clashed over the Ottoman empire and Asian regions.
4. England wanted to maintain general peace and stability in Europe to secure her market in Europe.
5. Austria and France were large continental powers whose interests usually lay inside the continent and conflicted with each
other specially in Germany and Italy.
6. Prussia was the only power left free to consolidate and this helped her to emerge as the strongest power in Europe.
7. Under such mutually conflicting environment suspicion, secret agents and secret alliances ran high.
8. They signed the Quadruple Alliance the major European powers pledged to maintain by force the arrangements reached in Chaumont, Vienna and
Paris.
They
also
sought
a
regular
congress
of
their
representatives
to
iron
out
issues. This was considered very important by the signatories as it gave a mechanism to resolve future issues without resorting to war.
9. They also signed the Holy Alliance which was advocated by the Tsar and its philosophy was that all European states were parts of one Christian
nation and only God was sovereign in Europe. This alliance was not taken seriously by any power and they signed it only because it did no harm and ple
ased the Tsar. The Holy Alliance was prone to failures in its assumption about the alikeness of European states.
The League of Nations formed also suffered from the same weakness as of the Holy Alliance as it assumed that European nations would be democratic
and peace loving in nature. Like the Holy Alliance, it abandoned the notion of balance of power. But the Vienna Congress through Quadruple Alliance
sought
no
such
replacement

of the balance of power neither did it assume that European interests will not clash. It provided for an effective mechanism to iron out these differences a
nd thus brought peace to Europe which it badly needed.

Britain
British Democratic Politics (1815-50)
1. The attitude of the government in this period was that of conservatism. The parliamentary system ensured that there was no need for a radical revolt but
the conservative outlook ensured that any reforms could only be piecemeal and cold be achieved only after a prolonged struggle. Such was the case in
abolition of Combination Laws in 1824 (legalizing trade unions) and Emancipation Act in 1829 (giving civil equality to people other than protestants).
Chartists
1. This was a movement of workers which demanded political rights for them. It tried to create an impression that the sole reason for all the miseries of
workers was their lack of representation in the parliament and thus pressed for parliamentary reforms. Their methods were mainly based on submitting
mass petitions etc. The government naturally resorted to repression in the beginning.
2. It became popular specially after 1832 due to the popular resentment against the 1832 reforms (which had set the tax qualification of 10 for voters),
the economic fluctuations and crisis and exploitation of workers. In 1838 William Lovett (a cabinet maker) and Francis Place (a tailor) drew up a list of
6 demands which is popularly called the "People's Charter". It called for universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, removal of property
qualifications for MPs, annual elections and secret ballot. They emphasized the doctrine of sovereignty of people as against the government doctrine of
sovereignty of the parliament (because in those days parliament was not a representative of the people).
3. It made a call for convening a National Convention near the Parliament where it would present to the parliament a petition with hundreds of thousands of
signatures. But its leaders were indecisive over what to do next should the petition be rejected. While Lovett and Place were in favor of methods
only, O'Connor called for violence. In July 1839 a petition was presented to the parliament with 1.25 mm signatures but was rejected. Riots, strikes etc.
broke out. But the movement got divided as some followed violent means, other stuck to means only.
4. Subsequent petitions were presented in 1842 and 1848 and were rejected each time. The movement died. The middle class which had supported the
movement earlier (because it opposed the Corn Laws) had withdrawn its support once the Corn Laws were abolished. Only the workers were left and
the fortunes of the movement varied inversely with the economic cycles.
Parliamentary Reforms
1. The pressure of the 1830 revolt in other parts of Europe forced parliament to pass the parliamentary reform act of 1832. The Bill was opposed by the
upper house but they were coerced into agreement by the lower house (on the threat that the king would reconstitute the upper house). The Act
redistributed the strength of constituencies. It gave a share in the political power to the rising middle class by redistributing it from the landed aristocracy.
2. The reformed parliament thus created was much more liberal and it proceeded to pass some more liberal reforms like the abolition of slavery in 1833 in

the colonies as well.

Free Traders
1. The period between 1790 and 1830 saw progressive freer trade within the national borders (as internal tariffs and other NTTBs were eliminated) and
rising protection against international products (specially manufacturers). Thus large free trade areas like zollverein and UK ( + Ireland) were
created. This led to great strengthening of the middle class in europe (particularly west). This new middle class sought policies more favorable to them
and hence more political representation.
2. But by 1830, UK manufacturers were feeling the constraints of a saturated home market and a protected european market. They had already gained
competitive advantage in manufacturing and were afraid of none. So they pressed their government to set an example and follow a policy of free trade.
3. The reforms of 1832 had given greater power to the liberal and pro free trade elements. Their demand to repeal Corn Laws and to allow freer trade
should be seen in this context only. The mill owners wanted cheap bread for their workers so that they could pay them less. They also opposed the
Navigation laws (which restricted shipping between and her colonies to ships only) which were eventually repealed in 1849.
4. Jeremy Benthem had championed the utilitarian philosophy. This philosophy called for a critical examination of any law from the point of view of its
benefit to the society and thus disregarded all traditionalism. This helped in furthering the reform process.
5. Even though free traders saw independence of colonies as a natural outcome, they paradoxically were instrumental in strengthening of the colonial
system. The Long Depression of 1873-1896 led to increased pressure on European governments to abandon free trade and promote home industries.
The protectionist tendencies among various european nations were getting very strong and by 1870 virtually all european nations had imposed strict
tariffs against each other's goods and capital. In this context, colonies were seen as safe markets (the major reason) for both manufactured products as
well as capital and sources of raw materials. They were now seen less in terms of their commercial value but more in terms of guarantee for free market.
Thus in this period we saw a consolidation of rule in India, coastal colonies in Africa getting inward, expansion of hold in the Cape and Australia and
New Zealand emerging as a full colonized continent.
6.