Origins of Modern Politics

Nation States System: Absolute Monarchies; Nation States; Thirty Years War & Consolidation of State System; Ascendancy of France

Absolute Monarchies

General Survey

The dawn of modern period in Europe also witnessed the emergence of the new absolute monarchs who were building cohesive political structures. The roots of this consolidation process go back to the death of Charlemagne in 814, when Europe entered a period of disintegration and political anarchy. In broad terms, the political evolution of Western Europe after Charlemagne may be divided into three stages. Between 9th and 11th centuries, Popes and emperors generally cooperated. Popes helped the emperors against the German secular lords and in return were supported against the Byzantine opponents to papal authority. In 1073, with the accession of Pope Gregory VII, began the second stage–the period of papal supremacy. The investiture dispute between the papacy and the emperors (i.e., the struggle to control the selection of German bishops) was won by Gregory. So, imperial administration and power were undermined. For over two centuries, the papacy was generally recognised as the head of Latin Christendom, particularly because there was a succession of pious French and English kings in the mid-13th century. The period of papal supremacy ended in 1296 on the issue of taxation of clergy. In that year, the Pope issued a bull asserting that the laity had no authority over the clergy and threatening to excommunicate anyone who attempted to tax the clergy. Philip rejected Pope's claims and was able to enforce his policies with complete success. He even forced the transfer of the papal seat from Rome to Avignon, and from then on the papacy collaborated openly with the French monarchy.

By the end of the 15th century, this trend away from the universal Church and towards the new absolute monarchies was apparent in the powerful political structures presided over by several rulers in Europe. One reason for the success of these rulers was the revolution in military technology that came with the advent of artillery. Feudal lords no longer could defy royal authority from behind their castle walls. Only absolute monarchs possessed the financial resources and administrative organisation necessary to purchase the guns, powder, and the shot and to provide required logistical support.

Another source of power for the new monarchs was their informal alliance with the growing merchant class. From this class, the kings obtained essential financial support and also competent and subservient officials to staff the growing state bureaucracies. In return, the consolidation of royal power aided the burghers by ending the incessant feudal wars and doing away with the crazy pattern of local feudal authorities in which each had its own customs, laws, weights, and currencies.

The new monarchs naturally had their own defenders and rationalisers, as do all political establishments. The best known of these was Niccola Machiavelli (1459–1527), a product of the ruthless struggle for survival amongst the competing city-states of Renaissance Italy. Machiavelli viewed politics as a struggle for power in which the end justifies the means. In his book, The Prince, he set forth guidelines for the rulers who aspired to unite the fragmented Italian peninsula and to get it rid of the French and Spanish invaders. With cool and relentless realism, he rejected moral restraints and spelled out the difference between politics and religion or philosophy.

The new monarchs pursuing strategies based on the precepts of The Prince were bound to clash with the two universal institutions of Europe, the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. The conflict was sharpened by the sensational rise of the Spanish dynasty through marriage ties. Ferdinand and Isabella married their daughter Joanna to Philip of Hapsburg. Charles, the offspring of this union, inherited the united Spanish kingdom together with the Spanish possessions in the New World and in Italy (Sardinia, Sicily and Naples). He also held the hereditary Hapsburg lands in Europe in spite of the opposition of French and English monarchs. Thus Charles V, at the age of 19, became the ruler of a larger territory than had been collected under one monarch since the break-up of Charlemagne's empire seven centuries earlier.

For a time it appeared that Western Europe would be united once more in a vast international organisation. Other European dynasties, and especially the Valois of France, were determined to prevent Hapsburg hegemony. The result was the long series of wars, partly religious, and partly dynastic. This prolonged violence was followed by the even more disastrous Thirty Years War. Although this war was precipitated by the question of the succession to the Bohemian throne, it soon became essentially a struggle between the Bourbon and Hapsburg dynasties for control of the continent of Europe.

The territorial provisions of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) did not last, but their overall significance is clear. The princes of Central Europe, backed by France, Sweden and other countries successfully resisted the centralising efforts of the Hapsburgs. The empire now was a collection of small independent states, each with the right to conduct its foreign as well as domestic affairs.

Thus, the decline of the Empire and of the papacy, and the growth of separate nations inevitably led to the formation of strong monarchies in many of the countries of Europe. Kings aimed at making themselves absolute, and they were frequently successful. At the end of the 16th century, France was rapidly approaching a position in which the king could do practically as he liked; Spain was ruled autocratically, so were many Italian principalities; and the English monarchy had reached the zenith of its power. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the rulers of France, Russia, Austria and Prussia succeeded in enhancing considerably the strength and the outward grandeur of their positions, but in England attempts to establish absolute monarchy ended in failure. There the trading and commercial classes were prepared to tolerate royal pretensions, so long as they did not seriously interfere with their own interests, but when the dignity of royalty demanded arbitrary taxation and the control of people's consciences, they preferred rebellion to compliance with a state of affairs which struck at the very root of personal liberty. The middle classes of the continental countries also did the same ultimately, but at a much later date.

What were the New Absolute Monarchies? European history from the beginning of the 16th century onward is a story of people finding their way darkly to some new method of government better suited to the newly arising conditions. The search for a new method of government first took the form of new absolute monarchies. An important sign of the growing authority of kings in the 16th and 17th centuries was the universal decay of the representative institutions which had come into existence in many European countries in the later Middle Ages. By 1789, most of Europe was ruled by monarchs little hindered by the existence of effective and continuing representative bodies, the main exception being Great Britain. Kings began their ascent to this position in the 16th century, when they came to enjoy almost absolute powers. This phenomenon is generally termed as the rise of absolute monarchy.

In many countries, the late 15th century had brought a widespread wish to do away with disorder. People were ready to accept government if it would guarantee order and peace. There were special reasons in almost every case, but nearly everywhere monarchs raised themselves further above the level of the greatest nobles and buttressed their new pretensions to respect authority with cannons and taxation. The obligatory sharing of power with their great subjects, whose status entitled them de facto and sometimes de jure to office, ceased to weigh so heavily upon kings who more and more could choose their own servants.

Why did they Come into Being? From 16th century onward, the history of Europe is a story of political and social institutions becoming more and more plainly misfits, less comfortable and more vexatious, and of the slow, reluctant realisation of the need for a conscious and deliberate reconstruction of the whole scheme of human societies in the face of needs and possibilities new to all the former experiences of life. What are these changes in the conditions of human life that have disorganised the balance of empire, priest, peasant and trader that has held human affairs in the old world in a sort of working rhythm for such a long time? They were manifold and various, for human affairs are multitudinously complex.

The feudal lords during the Middle Ages created political anarchy all over the continent, by their bloody and continuous warfare. The people were exasperated over this sorry state of affairs, and wanted the establishment of a strong centralised government capable of maintaining peace and order and providing security of life and property. Thus, popular support was given to the monarchs in their contest against the feudal lords and the Church, because these kings promised a more capable form of government.

Geographical discoveries promoted commercial activities which in turn paved the way for the rise of the bourgeoisie. These middle classes, especially merchants, traders and industrialists provided full support to the absolute monarchs to establish stable governments which could restore peace and order, and enable them to carry on their trade peacefully. They provided rulers with human and material help to crush the feudal lords.

In the Middle Ages, kings had no standing armies, and each feudal lord maintained his own armed forces, rendering military service to the king whenever the need arose. This military dependence of the kings on the feudal lords made his position weak viś-a-vis the lords. But the economic transformation of Europe at the time enabled the kings to maintain standing armies. The introduction of guns and gunpowder into Europe brought about a great change in the methods of warfare. The kings claimed the monopoly of gunpowder, and began to equip their forces with firearms. With their help, kings destroyed the castles of the feudal lords, and thus gave a death blow to their military strength.

The decline of feudalism, the growing urbanisation and the revival of trade and commerce sowed the seeds of nationalism, while the wars of the late Middle Ages and the religious wars in the wake of the Reformation also aroused the feeling of nationalism among the Europeans. In the face of danger from a common enemy, people of a particular country forget their differences and begin to think of themselves as a nation. These wars against a common enemy enhanced the power and prestige of the monarchs who led the people in these wars, and thus made it possible for them to establish their absolute rule.

The Renaissance scholars and the leaders of the Reformation were generally in favour of absolute governments. The revival of classics enabled the people to realise that they would do better under a strong centralised government. The Reformation also rejected the idea of Universal Church and empire, and thus strengthened absolutism of national kings. Martin Luther, for example, emphasised the doctrine of divine right of kings, and advised people to give passive obedience to their rulers. The national Churches that were established after the Reformation were under the complete control of the state, and consequently the kings became more powerful and absolute.

The writings of some political philosophers and thinkers also played a crucial role in this political process. Machiavelli, for instance, favoured absolute monarchy in The Prince. A Frenchman, called Bodin (1529–1596), also stood for a strong state government in his book The State. The sovereign, he opined, should be the source of all law, and is responsible only to God. Hobbes (1588–1679), an English-man, too supported absolutism. But his concept of absolutism is different from that of Machiavelli in one important respect, i.e., the former is based on the consent of the people or governed while the latter is not.

Some of the contemporary rulers, such as Louis XIV of France, Frederick II of Prussia, Peter the Great and Catherine II of Russia, Joseph II of Austria, and Charles III of Spain were capable and popular which gave a boost to the institution of absolute monarchy. They were benevolent despots and well acquainted with the philosophy of Enlightenment. They implemented various reforms, and improved the economic conditions of the people. Apart from promoting agriculture, trade and industry, they also patronised education, art and literature.

How and where did they Arise? The history of nearly all Europe during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries was, as mentioned earlier, the story of an attempt to strengthen monarchy, to make it absolute, and to extend its power over weaker adjacent regions and of steady resistance, first of the feudal lords and then, with the increase of foreign trade and home industry, of the growing trading and moneyed classes to the exactions and interference of the crown.

Spain was the first to achieve importance under an absolute government. Spanish nationalism benefitted from the long drawn struggle with the Muslims, and from the newly acquired colonial possessions in Americas. The early Hapsburg rulers entered into matrimonial alliances with the most powerful families of Europe. Joanna, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married to the heir of the Austrian throne; and Charles V, the offspring of this union, fell heir to the vast domains of both Spain and Austria. Besides, he was made the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. But Philip II got entangled in detrimental war with England, during which his famous Armada was destroyed (1588) and the rapid decline of Spain began. In spite of the vast colonial resources, the treasury was emptied, because the Spanish monarchs not only involved themselves in almost ceaseless warfare with foreign powers but also faced numerous rebellions at home. Moreover, the rulers antagonised the commercial and industrial class, which not only weakened the monarchy but also hampered economic progress within the country. Thus, the Spanish monarchs diminished the power of the very class that could have been theirs naturally.

In France, the new absolute monarchy was the most successful. The French kings not only reached a position of almost unbridled power and grandeur, but furnished an example which inspired the kings of other European countries. Although the landowning and the merchant classes frequently found their interests threatened by the pretensions of royalty, they were not able to resist them so effectively as the landowners and merchants of England. The French Estates General had nothing approaching the influence of the English parliament. Its meetings were irregular; kings had occasionally summoned it when they needed money, but merely in order that its approbation of new taxes might make their collection easier. They never admitted that they had not the right, if they chose to exercise it, to levy taxes without consulting their subjects at all. When the Estates-General met in 1789, the first year of the great revolution, it was actually assembling for the first time since 1614. Thus opposition to royal demands could not be effectively made in the Estates-General. Those who thought that the power of the king should be curbed had to fall back upon the device of forming leagues against him, which generally lacked unity and constructive purpose.

The most famous of these leagues was the Fronde, which was contemporary with the later stages of the English Civil War, to which it bears some resemblances. They were protests against absolute monarchy, and just as Charles I had to pay the reckoning for the deeds of his father James I, so Cardinal Mazarin, who ruled France (Louis XIV, the king, was a minor) when the Wars of the Fronde were waged, had to pay for carrying on the policy of his great master and predecessor, Cardinal Richelieu—the policy of building up a strong and ruthless absolutism, which would make the king (or his chief minister) the undisputed master of France. But the English Rebellion was successful: the Fronde was not, and one of the chief causes of its failure was the lack of seriousness among many of those who took part in it, and the selfish ambitions of others. The Frondeurs, unlike the parliamentarians of England, did not have religion to animate them and encourage them to overthrow the edifice of irresponsible government. In 1652, they were conclusively beaten, and after that date the king and his courtiers dominated French life. From this time until the Revolution of 1789, the government of France was as autocratic as it could be. Taxes were imposed in the most arbitrary manner, and in such a way that they fell principally upon the poorer classes, who were least able to pay them; wars were made in order to gratify personal ambitions and increase the grandeur of royalty; and the king definitely took up the attitude that he held his authority directly from God, and that he was answerable to no one.

Absolute monarchy reached its climax under Louis XIV, 'The Sun King' (1643–1715). Louis was an exceptionally ambitious man. He wished to extend the boundaries of France to the Rhine and the Pyrenees, and to absorb the Spanish Netherlands. In the former of these objects, he partially succeeded: in the latter he was thwarted by the opposition of England and Holland. It was not only by wars of aggression that Louis XIV spent the hard-earned money of the French people. Splendour was almost a craze with him: his court became proverbial for its lavish display of wealth, and his palace at Versailles, became the envy and admiration of the world. His patronage of art and literary men was part of the same policy, but a more excellent part. Louis XIV was succeeded by his great-grandson, Louis XV, during whose reign, money was spent lavishly on wars and worthless mistresses who ministered to the king's pleasures, and France was plunged deeper and deeper into the morass of bankruptcy.

Outside France, absolute monarchy was most successful in Prussia and Russia. Prussia was ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty, which was not overthrown until 1918. Its rise, from the comparatively small duchy of Brandenburg to a kingdom which eventually covered nearly two thirds of Germany, is one of the most striking features of modern history. The first of its rulers to give indication that formidable power was arising was the Elector Frederick William, known as the Great Elector (1640–1688), who succeeded in creating an absolute monarchy.

His son, Frederick I was the first to take the title of King of Prussia. His grandson King Frederick William I, a rough and boorish king, increased his army from 27,000 to 84,000 men, and by careful management and miserly economy left a well-filled treasury as well for his son and successor, Frederick II, who is generally called Frederick, the Great. Under him the Prussian kingdom made marvellous progress, despite two long and exhausting wars. It was considerably enlarged by the acquisition of Austrian Silesia and part of Poland; its population was trebled; its army, 200,000 strong, was the most efficient in the world; and Frederick could have declared, with perfect truth, that the state was himself. In some respects, he aped Louis XIV. He built a great palace at Potsdam which copied the glories of Versailles. He patronised literary men, and entertained Voltaire, an experiment which was not a success.

Russia, until accession of Peter the Great in 1689, was an Asiatic state with no seaport, no ships, and an army which it would have been almost ludicrous to compare with the well-disciplined troops of Western Europe. Peter spared no effort to make his country into a European power. He visited Germany, Holland, and England so as to investigate the arts and sciences of the West; he brought back with him skilled artisans, architects, ships' captains, and scientific men to aid in the development of Russia; he forced his subjects to abandon their oriental habits, such as their custom of growing long beards: he remodelled the government according to western ideas: he built a navy and made the army more efficient; and he conquered from Sweden lands such as Litvania and Estonia, which lay between Russia and the Baltic Sea. Not content with the old capital, Moscow, which clung somewhat tenaciously to its ancient habit, he built a new capital, St. Petersburg, and like Frederick the Great of Prussia, he built in imitation of Versailles, the Peterhof. Almost the only feature of the old regime which he was content to retain was its despotic nature. The Czar must remain the absolute master of all his subjects, and there are frequent instances of Peter punishing those who dared to resist his authority with barbarity. After Peter's death in 1725, Russia was governed by various incompetent rulers until the accession of Catherine II, a German princess, in 1762. She ascended the throne after arranging the murder of her husband the Czar, and ever since her time, Russia has been a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of Europe and the world.

Another family, the Hapsburgs, from their capital of Vienna had been gradually building up the Austrian Empire, the vast realm over which they ruled until 1918. From 1438 until 1806, although the old form of election was still maintained, all but one of the Emperors were Hapsburgs, and in 1806, when Napoleon brought the Holy Roman Empire to an end, they took the less pretentious but far more practical title of Emperor of Austria. When Maria Theresa succeeded her father in 1740, the Austrian dominions included Austria, Moravia, Hungary, Bohemia, Silesia, Styra, Carinthia, Tyrol, and the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium), and Milan. Silesia was soon conquered by Frederick of Prussia, but the Empress secured some compensation by the acquisition of Galician Poland. The task of ruling these extensive territories was a particularly difficult one, because of the numerous and diverse races who inhabited them. When Maria Theresa died after a reign of 40 years she was succeeded by her son Joseph II, a man of considerable enlightenment, whose great ambition was to consolidate all his dominions into one homogeneous whole, to break down the barriers of nationality, to raise the community to legal equality with their former masters, to constitute a uniform level of democratic simplicity under his own absolute sway. His intentions were, generally speaking, admirable, and if he had to deal with an enlightened or united people, they would have been welcomed. But Joseph, when he set himself the task of forming a well-organised central state, like that formed by Frederick the Great in Prussia, apparently failed to grasp the peculiar difficulties of his position. He had to carry through his policy in a state composed of the most diverse elements in Europe, only held together by the personal tie of sovereignty and the influence of the Church, which he alienated by an attack upon its privileges. National prejudices were too strong for him; he was regarded with suspicion on all hands; insurrections broke out in the Netherlands and other places, and, despite his utmost efforts, Austria remained a ramshackle empire until its final dissolution in 1918.

In England, Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I of the Tudor dynasty, with the help of their ministers Wolsey and Burleigh respectively, laid the foundations for absolutism, but it was destroyed by the folly of the first Stuarts, James I and Charles I. The latter was beheaded for treason to his people in 1649, marking an aberration in the political thought of Europe. For a dozen years, i.e., until 1660, Britain was a republic; and the Crown was an unsteady power, overwhelmed by Parliament, until George III (1760–1820) made a relentless but only a partly successful effort to restore its predominance.

Why did they Decline? The main defect of the absolute monarchy with its hereditary nature lay in the over dependency upon the character and personality of the monarch. Where there was a good ruler there was a good government, but a succession of good rulers could not be assured. A good number of them neglected their duties and enjoyed the splendour and luxury of the court instead of taking care of the details of government. Routine work was delegated to ruthless ministers, who fully exploited the situation to their advantage.

The absolute monarchs, without exception, carried on schemes of aggrandisement against each other. Each one pursued a 'foreign policy' of aggression against his neighbours and of aggressive alliances. We are also told of how this war was caused by the king's mistress, and how the jealousy of one minister for another caused that. Thus, aggrandisement and whimsical policies caused destructive wars, which in turn often resulted in economic ruin.

In spite of the triumph of absolutism, the idea of popular government still had an appeal. Some of the states, in fact, had representative bodies. France had 'Estates General', which, however, soon ceased to exert any influence, but the English Parliament got itself entrenched in the 17th century. Cities in Northern Italy, in France, and in the Swiss Cantons had representative governments. The existence of the idea of popular government and of the representative bodies began to influence the minds of those people who were ruled by absolute monarchs particularly when these monarchs were inefficient and degenerate.

Finally, the principle of absolutism itself did not go uncontested, and in fact, it was assailed severely in some places. In the 16th century itself, the Netherlands rebelled against the rule of the Spanish Crown and a century later, its people (the Dutch) established a republic, with political power vested in parliament. Poland repudiated absolutism, but fell victim to the territorial ambitions of Prussia, Russia and Austria. Thus, absolutism had been challenged and gradually gained disrepute among the democratic minded people.

The Nation-States

Most people in the world today are familiar, at least in a rough and ready way, with the idea of the state. They accept that the world's surface is divided by impersonal organisations working through officials marked out in special ways, and that such organisations provide the final public authority for any given area. Often, they might also think that the state in some way represented a nation. But whether they did so or not, states would be the building blocks from which most of us would construct a political account of the modern world.

Hardly any of this would have been intelligible to an European in 1000 AD. The process, by which the modern state emerged, though far from complete by 1500, is one of the markers which delimit the modern era of history. The realities had come first before principles and ideas. From the 13th century onwards, many rulers, usually kings, were able, for a variety of reasons, to increase their power over those they ruled. This was often because they could keep up large armies and arm them with the most effective weapons. Many rulers were by 1500 well on the way to exercising a monopoly of the use of armed force within their realms. These realms, too, had increasingly well-defined frontiers and thus expressed more than just an improvement in surveying. It marked a change in emphasis within government from a claim to control persons who had a particular relationship to the ruler to one to control people who lived in a certain area. Territorial dependence was, thus, replacing personal dependence.

Over such territorial agglomerations, royal power was by 1500 coming to be exercised directly through officials. Like cannon, they had to be paid, for a kingship which worked through vassals known to the king who did much of his work for him in return for his favours, and who supported him in the field when his needs went beyond what his own estates could supply, gave way to one in which royal government was carried out by its own employees, paid for by the taxation (more and more in cash, not kind), the raising of which was one of their most important tasks. The parchment of charters and rolls began by the 16th century to give way to the first trickles and rivulets of what was to become the flood of modern bureaucratic paper.

Europe was beginning by 1500 to organise itself in a way unlike the Europe of Carolingians and Ottonians. Though personal and local ties remained overwhelmingly the most important ones for most Europeans–and were to be for centuries–society was institutionalised in a different way from the 11th century when even tribal survivals still counted. The relationship of lord and vassal which, with the vague claims of Pope and emperor in the background, so long seemed to exhaust political thought, gave way to an idea of princely power over all the inhabitants of a domain.

Necessarily, the change to such a state of affairs neither took place everywhere in the same way nor at the same pace. By 1800, France and England had been for centuries unified in a way that Germany and Italy were still not. But wherever it happened, the centre of the process was usually the steady aggrandisement of royal families. Kings had great advantages in different fields of administration and additionally could make use of several new forces that were emerging.

One such force was the sense of nationhood. This is another idea which modern man takes for granted, but we must be careful not to antedate the moment at which men began to think of themselves as Englishmen and Frenchmen. No medieval state was national in our sense. Nevertheless, by 1500, the subjects of the kings of England and France could often think of themselves as different from aliens who were not their fellow-subjects, even if they might also regard people who lived in the next village as virtually foreigners.

We must not exaggerate the immediate impact of such developments. For centuries yet, family, local community, religion or trade were still to be the only focus of most men's loyalties. Such national institutions as they could have seen growing among them would have done little to break into this conservatism. The rural parishes and little towns of the Middle Ages, on the other hand, were communities, and in ordinary times they exhausted any man's need to go further in thinking about social responsibilities. We really need another word than 'nationalism' to suggest the realm which might once in a while touch a medieval man, or even the irritation which might suddenly burst out in a riot against the presence of foreigners, whether workmen or merchants. Yet, such hints of national feeling occasionally reveal the slow consolidation of support for new states in Western Europe.

The first of them to cover anything like the areas of their modern successors were England and France. The Normans, a few thousands of whom came over from France to establish themselves after the invasion of 1066 as a new ruling class, were England's last successful invaders. Their leader, William the Conqueror, gave them lands, but retained more for himself and asserted an ultimate lordship over the rest. For a long time, though, the Anglo-Norman Kings thought of themselves as something more than kings of an island state. They were heirs of a complex inheritance of possessions and feudal dependencies which at its furthest stretched far into South-Western France, and like their followers spoke Norman-French. The loss of most of this 'Angevin' inheritance at the beginning of the 12th century was decisive for France as well as for England. A sense of nationhood was nurtured in each of them by their quarrels with one another.

The Capetians had hung on grimly and with increasing success to the French Crown. From the 10th to the 14th century, their kings succeeded one another in unbroken hereditary succession. The Capetians' lands fell in the heartland of modern France, the cereal-growing area around Paris, which was for a long time the only part of the country bearing the old name of France, thus commemorating the fact that it was a fragment of the old kingdom of the French. The domains of the first Capetians were so distinguished from the other west Carolingian territories, such as Burgundy; that by 1300, their successors had expanded 'Francia' to include other areas. By then the French kings had also acquired Normandy and other feudal dependencies from the English kings.

This is a reminder that in the 14th century (and later), there were still great fiefs and feudal principalities of the Capetian kingdom as a monolithic unity. Yet it was a unity of sorts, though much rested on the personal tie. During the 14th century, that unity was greatly enhanced by a long struggle with England remembered by the misleading name of the Hundred Years' War. In fact, the English and French were only sporadically at war from 1337 to 1453, fighting being far from continuous. Yet it was always easy to make it flare up again in a new campaign because the opportunities it offered to English noblemen for booty and ransom money made war seem a plausible investment to many of them. On the other hand, sustained warfare was difficult to keep up; it was too expensive. Formally, what was at stake was the maintenance by the kings of England of territorial and feudal claims on the French side of the Channel.

For England, the long-run looser, the most important immediate results of these quarrels were new additions to the infant mythology of nationhood and the creation of a long-living distrust of the French. Dislike was heartily reciprocated: after all, the campaigning took place in France. The Hundred Years' War was also indirectly important to the French monarchy because it did something to check feudal fragmentation and moved French men about, breaking down the barriers. In France, too, the national mythology benefitted; its greatest acquisition was the story and example of Joan of Arc whose astonishing career accompanied the turning of the long struggle against the English. After 1453, French kings could push forward with the consolidation of their state undisturbed by the obscure claims of England's rulers from which the wars had sprung. They could settle down to establish their sovereignty over their rebellious magnates at their leisure. In each country, war in the long run strengthened the state.

Such a clear outcome to the process of national consolidation was to be seen in only one other Western kingdom, Spain, whose rise had been made easier by the Reconquest, the long struggle against Islam, which from the start gave Spanish nationhood a quite special flavour because of its intimate connection with Christian faith and fervour. Portugal in the peninsula remained outside the New Spain, clinging to an independence often threatened by her powerful neighbour.

Thus, by 1500 much of the political ground-plan of modern Europe was in being. England, France, Spain and Portugal were recognisable in their modern form, though in Italy and Germany, where vernacular language defined nationhood, there was no correspondence between the nation and the state.

Why did they Emerge? The decline of feudalism curtailed the powers of the feudal lords and enabled capable rulers to assert their authority. Kings had great advantages viś-a-vis the feudal lords. If they managed their affairs carefully, they would have had a more solid base for their power than their nobles in their own domains. Their office had a mysterious aura about it which reflected in various royal ceremonies. Their judicial machinery seemed to promise a more independent, less expensive justice than could be got from the local feudal lords. They could, therefore, appeal not only to the resources of the feudal structure at whose head they stood, but also to forces outside that structure such as the sense of nationhood (which was slowly but steadily gaining ground in Europe), the spirit of Renaissance and Reformation, etc.

The spirit of nationalism or the sense of nationhood was slowly revealing itself as of growing importance by the end of the Middle Ages. By 1500, the subjects of the kings of England and France could often think of themselves as different from foreigners who were not their follow-subjects. Even 200 years earlier, this sort of difference between those born within and those born outside the realm was being made. An important sign of this enhanced sense of community of the native born was the appearance of belief in national patronsaints such as St. George for England. Another example was the writings of national histories and the discovery of national heroes such as Arthur for Welsh and Brain Boru for Irish. Moreover, there was the development of vernacular languages into national literary languages. Spanish, Italian, French and English one after another began to break through the barrier set by Latin about literary creativity. The ancestors of these tongues are recognisable in the 12th century romances such as the song of Roland (which transformed a defeat of Charlemagne by Pyrenean mountaineers into a glorious stand of his rear guard against the Arabs), or the poem of Cid (the Spanish national hero). With the 14th century came Dante, Langland and Chaucer, each of them writing in a language modern man could read with ease. Then came the renaissance writers, poets and dramatists who completely raised the vernacular languages to a position of national literary languages.

The decline of feudalism, the urbanisation and the commercial revolution were supplementary factors in the growth of the spirit of nationalism, while war accentuated national centralisation. Patriotism, for instance, goaded people to support the governments of France and England in the long-drawnout struggle of the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453). Henry V of England succeeded in gaining popular approval for his claim to the French throne, and Joan of Arc infused in the French people an impassioned support for the defense of their country. Spanish nationalism was achieved in the struggle with the Moors and was taken to fruition in the conquest of the New World.

The emergence of the urban middle class, along with increased trade and commerce, was another crucial factor in the emergence of the nation-states. The city people, in their own interests, favoured strong and absolute rulers. Commercial rivalries led the merchants to look for support of their respective rulers and this served to foster and promote a feeling of nationality which in turn facilitated the rise of nation-states.

Where and when did they Emerge? France appeared to be a separate kingdom as early as the 9th century, but in the 13th century also, Philip Augustus was trying to assert his power against the feudal lords. Even in the 14th century, there were still feudal principalities in what is now France which is quite jarring. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the unity was greatly strengthened by a protracted struggle with England in the form of the so-called Hundred Years' War. For France, the long-run winner, this war had two advantages. First, it strengthened the French monarchy because it prevented feudal fragmentation in the face of threat from the foreigners and thus helped the French kings to consolidate their authority. Secondly, it helped the infant nationhood. Joan of Arc roused the patriotic sentiments of the French and led the French army in liberating the Northern half of France from England. Thus, by the close of the war, French monarch was a national ruler and France was on the threshold of becoming a modern state.

In England, William the Conqueror, founded a strong monarchy in the 11th century. Though in the following 200 years, the feudal lords enhanced their power, during the 14th century, they began to lose out to the king. For the growth of trade and commerce, of cities and the rise of the middle classes together increased the financial and military powers of the king. Then the Hundred Years' War resulted in new additions to the English national mythology, though England came out as the long-run loser in this war. The 'War of the Roses' (1455–85) fought between two groups of feudal Lords for control over the monarchy finally brought down feudalism in England by weakening the lords and by creating a feeling of despair among the people with feudal anarchy. Henry VII, the first king of the Tudor dynasty, established a strong monarchy with the help of the middle classes. The English monarchy grew in strength under the other Tudor rulers in the 16th century, and the people of England began to think of themselves more clearly as a nation.

Such a clear process was evident in only one other Western kingdom, viz., Spain. She, too, achieved an important measure of unity by the end of the 15th century. It was first facilitated by the reconquest which was a Christian crusade against Islam bringing together men of different origins. In 1340, when the final Arab offensive was reversed, success brought in its wake the threat of political anarchy in the form of rebellions by nobles. But the monarchy, in alliance with the urban middle classes, succeeded in establishing its rule. Prior to this final triumph of monarchy, however, there was the union of the crown of Aragon and Castile by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1479. The final expulsion of the Moors and the eventual creation of one nation soon followed, though the two kingdoms of Aragon and Castile continued their separate existence for some more time while pursuing common policies.

Portugal and Holland were also on their way to becoming nation-states. But it was not the same in the case of Italy and Germany. Neither was to be a 'nation-state' until the second half of the 19th century, though feudalism had ceased in both of them by 15th century. In Italy, a strong middle class had arisen as a result of trade with East, but the interference of the Pope and other powers (Austria, France, etc.,) in her affairs prevented her from becoming a single nation-state.

In Germany, on the other hand, the dukes were powerful and zealously guarded their power. They were more interested in interfering in the affairs of Italy than in making Germany a strong united nation state.

By the middle of the 17th century, the concept of 'nation-state' was very much accepted in Europe, and it was legally recognised by the Treaty of West-phalia in 1648, though there were still some countries, such as Germany and Italy, which were only nations but not nation-states yet.

What was the Outcome? The balance sheet of the emergence of nationstates had quite a few entries on both sides. On the credit side, we can mention following points: The new nation-states not only succeeded in putting an end to the extreme disorder and anarchy of the feudal times, but also destroyed serfdom in countries where it had not already disappeared. They boosted the economic development by improving the ways of working to produce and exchange things that people needed. The replacement of militaristic and arbitrary limits of ancient empires and medieval estates by more rational boundaries was a thing achieved by their emergence. They also brought together people who shared common cultural traits, and thus enabled many groups of people to develop their talents. Moreover, in the wake of their emergence, people found several ways of self-expression and have made special contributions that the people of the whole world can share.

Unfortunately, the debit side is not clean. A strong feeling of nationalism, for instance, grew up in each state with several ill effects. This led to national jealousies, rivalries and conflicts over matters like trade in the beginning, and later on over the issue of acquisition of colonies in Asia, Africa and the America. Thus, the greed of these nation-states for colonies, maximum profits and national glory led to many wars among them. Besides, their rulers, eager to put Machiavellian theories into practice, had consideration for no interest other than their own, and respected no other authority on matters of national interest.

Thirty Years War: Consolidation of State System

The 30 years war, which began in central Europe in 1618 as a religious struggle between Protestant and Catholic rulers, became a fight for political power between the Bourbon rulers of France and the Hapsburgs of Austria and Spain. The war eventually involved all major European nations except England. It was fought almost entirely in Germany. The failure of the Treaty of Augsburg (1555) to settle all of Germany's religious problems was the cause of the war. This treaty, ending the fight during the Reformation, had allowed each ruler of Germany's 300 odd independent states to choose either Catholicism or Lutheranism as it official religion. But the treaty did not allone Calvinism. It also did not prevent the seizure of Catholic Church lands by Protestant German rulers. There was continuous rivalry among the princes, some of whom wanted independence.

Early fighting in Bohemia soon developed into a series of wars. When troops of the Holy Roman Empire put down the Bohemian revolt in 1620, the Protestant rulers in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden were angered. Denmark entered the war in 1625, and invaded Northern Germany, but Catholic armies led by Albrecht Wildenstein of Bohemia drove them out. Sweden went to the aid of the Protestants in 1630. King Gustavns led the Swedish army to several victories but he was killed in battle in 1632. Hapsburg rulers supported the Catholics in all these struggles.

France entered the war in 1635 when King Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu saw a chance to strike a blow against the Hapsburg rulers of Austria and Spain. Although France was largely a Catholic country, it supported the Protestant Sweden to keep the Catholic Hapsburgs from encircling France. France generals led their forces to victory over the Catholic allies of Austria, Germany and Spain.

The treaty of Westphalia signed in 1648, ended the 30 years' war. It made changes in Europe's map and France's leading power. Hapsburg power in Germany and Spain declined. The treaty gave France most of Alsace and recognised France's legal ownership of Metz, Verdun and Toul. Sweden received German along the Baltic and North Seas. The German state of Brandenburg received lands in Northern Germany. The independence of the Dutch Netherlands and Switzerland was recognised. In Germany, Calvinism was granted the same privileges as Lutheranism. All former Catholic Church lands were declared to be the property of those who had held them on January 1, 1624. Unfortunately the 30 Years' War had tragic results in the thousands of deaths and great destruction it caused throughout Germany.

What was the Thirty Years War? Though the war (1618–48) started as a local conflict in Bohemia (a German principality), it soon spread to the whole of Germany and developed into a mighty struggle between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Later, the war even lost its original character of a religious struggle and became a political contest between the House of the Hapsburgs and the House of the Bourbons. At the centre of this war was a Hapsburg attempt to assert the imperial authority in Germany. Once again, cross-currents made nonsense of simple ideological conflict. As Hapsburgs and Valois (the ruling dynasty in France before the Bourbons) had disputed Italy in the 16th century, Hapsburgs and Bourbons had disputed Germany in the next, i.e., 17th century. Dynastic interest brought Catholic France into the field against the Catholic Hapsburgs under the leadership of Richelieu. France which was known as the 'eldest daughter of the Church', allied paradoxically with the Calvinist Dutch and Swedish Lutherans to assure the rights of the German princes.

The Peace of Westphalia which closed the 30 Years War was in several ways a turning point in European history. It brought the era of religious wars in Europe to a close. It also ended Spanish military supremacy on land and the dream of rebuilding the empire of a Charles V. It closed, too, an era of Hapsburg history. Hence forth the dynasty's future was an Austrian one, however, much of its rulers sought to revive their power in Germany. There, a new power had appeared in the Electorate of Brandenburg, with which later Hapsburg power in Germany had been the work of outsiders, viz., France and Sweden. Here was the real sign of the future in Westphalia. A period of French ascendancy was beginning in Europe.

What were the Reasons for the War? Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II of Austria, wanted to consolidate his own position and secured a united Germany under his personal control. He saw a golden opportunity to achieve his aim in the prevailing religious confusion in Germany. But the German princes, who had become stronger during the Reformation, had their own plans. They desired complete independence from the controlling authority of the Emperor. Since the German Protestant states were the principal enemies of the imperial authority, the Emperor sought to destabilise them with the help of the Catholic League (formed by the Catholics to protect their own interests). The growth of the Emperor's power was, however, a threat to the cherished independence of the local princes, and this possibility sent warning signals even to the Roman Catholic states. The apprehensions of the local princes introduced a political element into the struggle and gave the Protestants there a chance of survival.

Ostensibly, the primary factor of the war was extreme hostility between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The irreconcilable character of the two rival sects would not allow any satisfactory settlement and so there was extreme bitterness of feeling between the two.

The Peace of Augsburg (1555) that concluded after the first religious war in Germany, viz. the Schmalkaldic War, had several defects which caused constant discord between the Catholics and the Protestants. For one, it left the settlement of religion in the hands of the German princes without any consideration for the religious convictions of their people. Then, one of its articles, called the 'Ecclesiastical Reservation', provided that a bishop joining the Protestant religion would have to give up his office with all its possessions. This unjust and partial provision proved to be a constant source of conflict between the rival creeds. Finally, the peace totally neglected the Calvinists, another vibrant sect of Protestantism. Calvinism was, therefore, in a secure position due to this denial of the legal recognition for its existence.

Meanwhile, the Counter-Reformation made rapid progress. The Jesuits, its torch-bearers, not only halted the tide of the Protestant progress but also regained greater portion of Germany to the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuit efforts were supported by Emperor Rudolf III, who gave up his predecessor's policy of toleration. The Catholic reaction was also helped by the mutual jealousy between the Lutherans and the Calvinists. The Catholics naturally took up an aggressive attitude and began to thwart the Protestants in every possible way. So, the Protestants, especially the Calvinists, were goaded to form a defensive league, known as the 'Union'. And the Catholics, in turn, came up with their own 'Catholic League'. Thus, when both sides were at their wits end, Bohemian happening provided the necessary spark.

The people of Bohemia were predominantly Protestants. They were not, therefore, well disposed to Emperor Ferdinand II for his anti-Protestant policy. But the dissatisfaction of the people surfaced only when, at this instance, a Protestant Church was destroyed at Prague. Its people rebelled, threw the royal officers out of the castle, and offered the crown to Frederick, the Elector of Palatine. Frederick's acceptance of the crown was a direct challenge to Ferdinand and the 30 Years War had begun.

How and when did it Take Place? The war can be divided into four stages or phases, each one signifying the shifting scenes of war and the participation of other powers in the struggle.
1.The Bohemian Phase (1618–23)
2.The Danish Phase (1624–29)
3.The Swedish Phase (1630–34)
4.The French Phase (1635–48)

Emperor Ferdinand II got the help of Catholic League (headed by Maxmilan of Bavaria) for a clash with the Protestants. Their combined forces not only defeated Protestants but also succeeded in driving Frederick of Palatine (head of Protestant Union) into exile. The Catholics were, thus, successful during the first phase as evident in the suppression of Protestantism in Bohemia. The travails of Frederick (who was a Calvinist), however, alarmed the hitherto indifferent Lutherans. Further, the Protestant rulers of Europe began to keenly watch the happening in Germany and started sympathising with the Protestant cause.

Denmark was the first among the several foreign powers to interfere in the German affairs and participate in the war. The Danish King, Christian IV, was very keen on taking up the cudgels against the Emperor (Ferdinand II) on behalf of the Protestants of Germany. He received huge amounts from the Protestant king of England, Charles I. But he was disgraced by the forces of the Catholic League on two occasions, and was compelled to abstain from further interference in German affairs. After Denmark's exit from the war, the Emperor issued the 'Edict of Restitution' (1629) by which the Protestants were asked to return to the Catholic Church all ecclesiastical property which they had taken over since the Peace of Augsburg. This edict marks the peak of the Roman Catholic success. But since this extreme step affected majority of the Protestants, even the slothful Lutherans were stirred to activity, and they temporarily sank their differences and made common cause with the Calvinists against the Catholics. Thus the edict dashed any hope of a permanent settlement.

Sweden, the next foreign power to take part in the war, had both religious and political motives in doing so. The Swedes were staunch Lutherans, and their king, Gustavus Adolphus, regarded it to be his duty to protect the Protestant cause in Germany. From the political angle, the Swedish king hoped to control the entire Baltic coast and thereby make the Baltic Sea a Swedish lake. Moreover, he viewed the extension of the Emperor's influence along the Northern coast of Germany as a threat not only to his above ambition but also to the safety of his state. France, though a Catholic state, entered into an agreement with the Swedish king against the Emperor for political reasons, i.e., to weaken the power of the Hapsburgs. Besides, all the Protestant princes of Germany finally decided to support the Swedish Origins of Modern Politics king. The forces of Sweden and Protestant princes of Germany together scored a convincing victory over those of the Catholic League at Breitenfield (1631) resulting in their triumph in North Germany. This victory not only nullified the impact of the Counter-Reformation but also saved Protestantism in North Germany. The Swedes once again triumphed over the Catholics at Lutzen (1632), but this time at the cost of their king's life. Gustavus's death was a severe blow to the cause of Protestantism in Germany, and almost negated their victory at Lutzen. For, he was the rallying point for the forces of Protestantism in Germany. Soon, the Catholic forces turned the tables on the Swedes at Nordelingen (1634), and gained control of South Germany. This was a turning point in the course of the war, because it paved the way for the entry of France, which was hitherto rendering only financial assistance to the Swedes against the Emperor. France's assistance ended the religious nature of the war, for it now became a purely political conflict between the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons.

In 1635, France declared war on the Hapsburgs of both Austria and Spain. Initially, the Austrians and the Spanish seemed to have an upper hand, soon the French-Swedish duo turned the tide in their favour. The Swedes scored a number of victories, including the one at Wittstock. While the Swedes steadily moved southwards, the French patiently pushed across the Rhine. The French, led by Richelieu first and later by Mazarin, won a number of important battles against both the Spanish and the Austrians. The new Austrian Emperor, Ferdinand III (who succeeded Ferdinand II) was gradually reduced to a position of helplessness, and finally signed the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

What was its Outcome? The political outcome of the war was much more significant than both the religious and the socio-economic outcome. First of all, the war led to the total disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire. By undermining the imperial authority while recognising the almost sovereign status of the princes, the Treaty of Westphalia strengthened the separatist tendency of the component states, and thereby destroyed whatever lingering notion of unity the Empire had. Not surprisingly, this treaty recognised Switzerland and Holland (Netherlands) as sovereign nation-states. The Empire ceased to exist as a reality and henceforth the Emperor was not more than an Austrian monarch.

More importantly, Germany underwent political rearrangement. By the terms of the treaty, Germany was cut up into more than 300 independent principalities whose princes maintained their own courts, armies and laws. Consequently, Germany became a loose confederation of states devoid of any notion of national identity or political unity. Besides, there were some important territorial changes affected in Germany. While Bavaria kept one portion of the Palatine, another portion of it was given back to the son of Frederick I. Brandenburg also acquired some new territories, including a part of Pomeranian, and it soon emerged as the mighty kingdom of Prussia which eventually banished Austria from Germany and achieved her political unification.

The war also resulted in the territorial expansion of France and Sweden and their ascendancy. By the terms of the treaty, France received three Bishoprics (Matz, Toul and Verdun) and most of Alsace (except the city of Strassburg and certain districts) from the Holy Roman Empire. The Alsatian land, in particular, gave France a foothold on the Rhine and open door to Germany. Sweden, on its part, secured the German lands along the Baltic and North Seas. These territorial gains made her one of the leading European powers of the time and secured her the mastery of the Baltic. Thus, the war resulted in the breakdown of the predominance of the Hapsburgs in Europe and the beginning of French ascendancy under the Bourbons.

In the religious field, the war restored the pre-war status-quo. The Southern and Western Germany remained Catholic, while the Northern part continued to be Protestant as before. Concerning the quarrels between the rival forces over Church property, it was settled that 1624 would be the cut-off year, and whatever land and other property that each side possessed in that year would remain so in future. Above all, Calvinism was finally given legal recognition in Germany.

Germany, in particular, had to bear the brunt of the war. Her population was drastically reduced, about two-third of it perished by either the sword or famine or pestilence. Cities declined, farmsteads and villages vanished and much of the country fell back into wilderness. Thus, the industry and agriculture of Germany were ruined considerably and a long period of moral and intellectual stagnation followed.

What was its Significance? The 30 Years War was a turning point in European history; it marked the end of an era of religious wars and the beginning of the era of political wars and aggrandisement. National rivalries which were hitherto caused and characterised by religious antagonisms would now take the shape of dynastic wars and struggle for colonial empire. This point is evident from the course of this war itself, which began as a religious war but ended as a dynastic struggle.

Besides, the territorial readjustments that were affected after the war laid the foundations of the future political history of Europe. The resultant changes in the relative position of powers contained the germs out of which developed the future complications of European history. The territorial gains of France, for instance, at the cost of Germany, though paved the way for the ascendancy of France, also caused the future rivalry between France and Germany for the control of Rhineland for the next 300 years. The rising power of Brandenburg, too, due to territorial enlargement, paved its way for the rise of modern Prussia. The Hapsburgs of Austria, after incurring heavy losses in Germany, began to seek compensation on the Danube for their losses on the Rhine, which resulted in future rivalry between Austria and Russia for the control of the Danube and for the share of the territory of the Turks in the East. Thus, a number of international problems which decided the future course of European history can be traced to the war.

Finally, the war and the treaty gave legal recognition to the concept of sovereignty and also a boost to the growth of international law. Though some sovereign nation-states had already come into existence in Europe by this time (e.g., France, England, Spain, etc.) it was after this war that the concept of sovereign nation-state was given legal sanction. The pretensions of the Holy Roman Emperor to the temporal leadership of Europe and Pope to universal spiritual supremacy were denied by the events of the war. As a result, equality of status and complete independence became the basis of the nation-state system in Europe. The Pope had now been deprived of his position as an international mediator, and the treaty showed that the public law of Europe was to be framed by diplomats and congresses of ambassadors. Further, the necessity of having an international code for regulating the mode of warfare was now felt more acutely that at any other time. A number of books on international law began to be published, the most important of them being book, Law of War and Peace by Grotius, known as the 'Father of International Law'.

Ascendancy of France

Religious civil wars were fought in France by Protestant and Catholic nobles following the assassination of King Henry III in 1589. Henry of Navarre, leader of the Protestant French Huguenots, was the heir in line to succeed Henry III, but French Catholics and King Philip II of Spain tried to deny Henry the throne. With the help of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Henry won his fight and was crowned in 1594 as King Henry VI of France. He was the first of the Bourbon Dynasty, which ruled France for 200 years.

Henry IV became a Catholic when he took the throne but he did not turn against his former religious supporters. In 1598, Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes which granted political and some religious freedom to the Huguenots and ended the bitter religious wars. The Huguenots were a minority, or represented less than half of the French population but many lived in the large cities. France was Europe's first major nation that legally recognised more than one form of Christianity.

He brought peace and wealth to France. The French made Quebec their first permanent settlement in the New World. As an example of France's religious freedom, Henry IV chose Duke of Sully, a Huguenot, as his chief minister to carry out domestic reforms. Both the king and Sully believed in the policy of Mercantilism. But, Henry IV was assassinated by an insane monk in 1610. With the King's son, Louis XIII, only nine years old, his mother, Marie de' Medici, became the regent. Marie, a Catholic, would not employ Huguenots and dismissed Sully as chief minister. The government of France again fell under dishonest influences.

Louis XIII took control of the government in 1617 when he was 16 years old. Marie was relieved of authority, and most of her advisors and helpers were dismissed. But Louis XIII, who, like his father, chose capable helpers, kept one of Marie's favourites, Cardinal Richelieu. Richelieu, a cardinal in the Catholic Church, was a skilled politician and leader. King Louis XIII, incapable of ruling by himself, recognised this and gave him almost full authority. Cardinal Richelieu's two main goals were to strengthen the rule of the French king and to make France a powerful nation. As King Louis XIII's Chief Minister from 1624 until his death in 1642, Richelieu was the strongest influence in France's government. He believed that changes and programs for the good of France were more important than his religious work and seemed willing to use any method he considered necessary to carry out his programs for France.

The Protestant Huguenots and the nobles of France had their political powers taken away by Richelieu. The minister believed that king Henry IV's Edict of Nantes, giving Huguenots the right to govern fortified cities, was dangerous. In 1627, Richelieu sent French troops against the Huguenot-controlled seaport of La Rochele and other armed towns. England tried to help Huguenots but could not send strong forces. The Huguenots asked for peace, and the fighting ended. Although they lost their right to rule independent towns, Huguenots were allowed freedom of worship and the right to hold public offices and to attend schools.

Military power of the nobles was reduced when Richelieu ordered many of their fortified castles be destroyed. Richelieu's next step was to increase the king's political power by eliminating the nobles' rule over local provinces and appointing officials directly responsible to the king.

Richelieu supported trade and industrial expansion and favoured the growth of France's colonial empire. The expenses of maintaining a strong army put heavy tax loads on the French people. New taxes were abolished or old ones were raised without approval of the law-making council, the Estates-General. The 30 Years War was being fought in Europe. Germany and the Hapsburgs were weakened, but France came out of the war as a powerful European nation.

When Louis XIII died in 1643, his son, Louis XIV, heir to the French throne, was only five years old. Again Catholic, Cardinal Mazarin served Louis XIV as capably and loyally as Cardinal Richelieu had served Louis XIII. When Mazarin died in 1661, Louis XIV, by then 23 years old, personally took over the government. By the time his reign ended in 1715, Louis XIV had ruled for 54 years and had become one of Europe's notable kings, called the 'Sun King' by his court followers. He was also known as the 'Grand Monarch' throughout Europe. He believed that kings were chosen by God to rule (divine right). Speaking of the government, Louis XIV said, 'I am the state'.

To lead France to the glory that he planned, Louis XIV named Jean-Baptiste Colbert his Finance Minister. Colbert believed in mercantilism and built manufacturing at home and French trade abroad. To compete with the English and Dutch East India Companies, the French East India Company was formed in 1664. Colbert financed French trading posts in North America, India, the West Indies, and the Far East.

Louis XIV was determined to make France a centre of culture. He supported art and literature. Many well-known French plays and novels were written during his reign. The palace of Louis XIV became a famous landmark. The palace, built at Versailles, a village about ten miles from Paris, cost over one hundred million dollars and took 32 years to complete. When the king moved the government headquarters to Versailles, both he and his nobles lost any contact they had with the French people.

France's Protestant Huguenots were angered when Louis XIV, a strong Catholic, revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This deprived the Huguenots of the religious freedom which the edict had given them. Although forbidden to leave, an estimated one lakh Huguenots left France to live in America, England and Holland. Many were skilled workmen, and their departure hurt France's industry and economy.

Louis XIV put France heavily in debt through construction of the palace at Versailles, loss of Huguenot services, and four wars that were fought between 1667 and 1713. Louis XIV wanted more territory for France and wanted a boundary on the Rhine river. In the various wars, France was opposed by alliances of the Spanish Netherlands (Belgium), England, Sweden, German states, Austria and Spain. While Louis XIV gained some land, no territory was won along the Rhine River.

What were the Reasons for its Ascendancy? The French ascendancy was based on certain natural advantages. France was the most populous state of Western Europe and this was mainly responsible for its military strength till the 19th century. Besides, France was endowed with economic resources, which provided the necessary financial strength for its rise into prominence.

France also had the fortune to be served by some capable people, like Richelieu, Mazarin, Louis IV and Colbert in the 17th century. Their contribution was equally responsible, if not more, for the ascendancy of France. Richelieu, the Chief Minister of Louis XIII, aimed at making monarchy supreme in France and France supreme in Europe. Mazarin, his political follower and Chief Minister of Louis XIV, faithfully carried out his policy with remarkable success. Consequently, the Hapsburgs, who had dominated Europe in the 16th century, were humiliated in the 30 Years War, and the ascendancy of France in Europe began.

This fine start given to France by its two Chief Ministers was the real foundation for the legendary reign of Louis XIV. At the age of 23, he announced his desire to manage his own affairs. His assumption of supreme power was a turning point in international history as well as that of France. For Louis was the most perfect exponent of the theory of divine right of kingship. The building of Versailles, for instance, had its justification not only in the gratification of a personal taste, but in buttressing the prestige which was as important to his diplomacy as was the strength of his armies. In one way or another, he pursued a foreign policy of expansion, which though in the end cost his country dearly, carried France to a pre-eminence from which she was to freewheel through half of the 18th century, and created a legend to which Frenchmen still look back with nostalgia.

What was Richelieu's Contribution to it? Throughout his chief ministership of 18 years he had two main objectives. On the one hand, he wanted to make French monarchy an absolute one, and on the other, he desired to extend the territories of France as much as possible in order to make her supreme in the whole of Europe. The former guided his domestic policy and the latter his foreign policy. In fact, the two are complementary to each other.

The various measures undertaken at the domestic level were aimed at realising the first objective. His first measure was destroying the political power of the Huguenots (French Calvinists). Though he was not against their faith, he was opposed to their enjoyment of certain special privileges, which were granted to them by the Edict of Nantes and which went against the absolute powers of the monarchy. After some military operations, the Huguenots were made to surrender, and by a treaty many of their privileges were abolished, though their religious liberty remained intact. Then Richelieu initiated measures against the nobles, who not only quarrelled among themselves but also defied the king. Some of the rebellious nobles were permanently silenced by judicial executions, while the rest were cowed down to submission. Next, he started a new system of appointing royal officials in the provinces as the direct representatives of royal power. These new officials, known as 'Intendants', were to look after the administration at the provincial level, which was hitherto done by the nobles themselves. This measure, while delivering a death blow to the political power of the nobles, did a lot to foster the growth of absolute monarchy in France. His last measure to strengthen absolutism in France was the undermining of the representative institutions of France. He refused to summon the Estates-General, the feudal parliament of France, and thus caused it to fall into disuse. He also reduced the powers of the provincial parliaments.

For attaining his other goal, i.e., making France supreme in Europe, he embarked upon an aggressive foreign policy. He was wise enough to realise that his main obstacle in this was the power of the House of Hapsburgs in both its branches, i.e., Austria and Spain. The dominions of these two powers almost encircled France and barred the extension of the French frontiers to their natural boundary, viz., the Rhine. Richelieu first took on Spain. His aim in doing this was to divert the attention of Spain, so that it could not give active help to the Holy Roman Emperor in the 30 Years' War, and also it would not take steps to recover the revolted Netherlands. Fortunately, he found an opening for his policy in the disputes about the Valley of the Valtelline, which belonged to the Swiss Grisons. When the Spaniards occupied it, Richelieu interfered and succeeded in restoring it to the Grisons. But it was 30 Years' War that brought out the best from Richelieu. Though he had little interest in the religious issues that were at stake in this war, he wanted to prolong the war and thereby weaken the Emperor in order to enable France to strike down and humiliate the Hapsburg at the right moment. Accordingly, during the first three stages he did not openly intervene in the war, but used diplomacy to keep the war alive. That is why, he gave financial assistance to the Protestant powers. In the final stage, however, he entered the war openly. He also involved Spain in great difficulties within her own peninsula by inciting Portugal and the province of Catalonia to revolt. Although, Richelieu did not live to see the fruition of his plan, he saw enough to be sure about their final outcome.

What was Mazarin's Contribution? Mazarin proved himself to be a worthy successor of Richelieu, on both foreign and domestic fronts. He came on the scene when the 30 Year's War was drawing to a close and under his leadership France scored a spectacular victory over the Hapsburgs. He secured considerable gains to France through the Treaty of Westphalia. But the victory of France in the 30 Years' War did not establish the undisputed authority of France in Europe. Spain, which still refused to make peace with France, was isolated by Mazarin through clever diplomacy. For instance, he prevented Emperor Leopold of Austria from supporting Spain by threatening to set up a rival candidate for the imperial throne. On the other hand, he himself secured the active cooperation of Cromwell of England by making concessions to the Protestant susceptibilities of the latter and also by promising territorial gains. Thus isolated, the Spanish were decisively defeated by the combined forces of France and England at the Battle of the Dunes, and were compelled to sign the Peace of Pyreneas in 1659. To cement this peace, Mazarin negotiated the marriage of Louis XIV with Maria Theresa, the eldest daughter of Spanish King, Philip IV. The Peace of Pyreneas was a great triumph for France and a severe humiliation for Spain. It secured for France a scientific frontier at the expense of Spain. The marriage alliance, which in fact, formed a part of the treaty, was a great stroke of far-sighted diplomacy on Mazarin's part. For it opened before France the prospect of immense territorial gains.

On the domestic front, his greatest accomplishment was the suppression of the two Frondes (first and second or old and new) which established peace at home and facilitated the triumph of the absolute monarchy in France. By now the nobles were deeply resenting the loss of their powers and privileges during the chief ministership of Richelieu, and also the whole nation was weighed down by heavy taxation caused by the constant involvement of France in the wars. This rising disenchantment of the people led to a general uprising against Mazarin's government. This general uprising is properly known as the 'Fronde' (which is derived from the term 'frondeurs', a name given to street-arabs of Paris because of their game of stone slinging). There were, in fact, two Frondes. The first or old Fronde was a constitutional movement which aimed at establishing a more efficient system of administration. In this the Parliament of France, inspired by the British parliament, acted as the constitutional champion of the nation against ministerial irresponsibility and the unrestricted power of the crown. After initial hesitation, Mazarin sought to suppress the movement by force as well as bribery which dragged France into a civil war between the royal forces and the parliament supported by the people of Paris. After a while, peace was announced and a general amnesty was proclaimed, which ended the first or old Fronde.

France seemed to have settled down to peace, but soon trouble started again. This time, it took the form of selfish struggle for power between Mazarin and the queen-mother, on the one hand, and the discontented nobles, on the other hand, which is known as the second or new Fronde. Again, Mazarin succeeded in suppressing his opponents by bribery and brute force. An edict was issued denying the parliament of any control over the affairs of state finance and administration. Thus collapsed the second Fronde, and with it disappeared the last hopes of French nobility to reassert their power and recover their lost privileges.

What were the Developments under Louis XIV? Louis XIV began his reign under favourable circumstances. Under the able guidance of ministers like Richelieu and Mazarin, the French Government had become highly centralised and all obstacles to royal power had been removed. The two treaties of Westphalia and Pyreneas had secured France a scientific border and considerably added to her prestige. Louis XIV himself commanded the services of a group of able men, such as Colbert (Finance Minister) and Louvois (War Minister). With such advantages, Louis could have contributed to the permanent advancement of France. But he failed due to over-ambition. Entertaining grandiose plans of expansion, he entered upon a career of aggression and conquest, which after a few brilliant results, ended in his humiliation.

On the domestic front, he introduced a profound change into the government of France. It marked the end of ministerial ascendancy and the completion of centralised despotism. Louis, unlike his predecessors, not only reigned but also ruled. He suppressed every institution or section which might aspire to set limits to royal authority. The Estates General, for instance, was never summoned, the power of the nobles was crushed and the administration of the provinces was left in the hands of the 'Intendants'. Although all signs of popular control were removed, the government still gained in administrative efficiency. For the king displayed untiring industry in the routine of administrative work and did not allow any important matter to escape his attention. Possessing a shrewd eye for character and ability, he entrusted the task of reforming the finances to Colbert and that of reorganising the army to Louvois, both of whom achieved phenomenal success in their respective departments.

Jean Colbert introduced various economic reforms, reorganised the national economy and improved the financial condition of the country. To begin with, he removed the dishonest tax collectors and ensured greater amount of tax-collection. Secondly, he lowered the direct taxes on land in order to promote agriculture. Thirdly, he encouraged the establishment of new industries and invited foreign skilled workers to come and settle down in France. Fourthly, high importduties were levied to encourage exports and discourage imports. Fifthly, he encouraged internal trade by removing various provincial duties. Sixthly, he constructed roads and canals to improve means of communication and transport. Finally, in order to promote foreign trade, he established colonies in Asia, Africa and America and helped French trading companies in all possible ways.

Thus, by all these reforms, he built up the long neglected French economy and increased the income of the government. So, it was Colbert's expert handling of the economy of France that not only made possible Louis's programme for the cultural development of France but also helped her to withstand the strains of a series of costly wars. But in one important respect, Colbert's reforms defeated their own objectives. They secured to the king a well-filled treasury and led him to imagine that his resources were inexhaustible. This inflamed the King's natural lust for war and territorial aggrandisement. Consequently, Louis embarked upon a course of reckless warfare and profligate extravagance which were the two important features of his reign. That is why, it has been rightly remarked that without Colbert, the Louis XIV whom we all know would have been impossible.

The stable economy and vast resources created by Colbert, combined with his (Louis) own desire to complete the natural boundaries of France, led him to follow the policy of imperialism. Consequently, he fought four costly wars to expand the territories of France and enhance the military glory. The first of them is known as the 'War of Devolution', and it had its origin in the attempt of Louis to annex the Spanish Netherlands, i.e., Belgium. He claimed the whole of Belgium, because he was married to the daughter of King Philip IV of Spain. Since the Spanish king refused to oblige him, Louis waged a war against Spain in 1667. England, Holland and Sweden were united against Louis, and they all helped Spain against France. Ultimately, the Treaty of Ain-La-Chapelle was concluded, and France was allowed to retain the Southern part of Belgium, which was occupied by France during the course of the war.

The second war was against the Dutch Netherlands. Louis XIV attacked Holland in 1672 AD because the latter had helped Spain against France and also offered shelter to the Huguenots of France. Besides, there was commercial and colonial rivalry between the two countries. While Sweden sided with France in this war, Spain, Austria and many German principalities rendered help to Holland. Finally peace was concluded in 1679, according to which France was given France Comte from Spain, Alsace from Austria, and Luxemburg, Strasburg and some Rhine cities also from the Austrian Empire.

The third war was the war of 'League of Augsburg' (1688–97). Louis XIV attacked Palatinate, the rich district of the Rhine in Germany, resulting in a war between France and the Leasue (consisting of Holland, Spain, Austria, Sweden, England and many German principalities). The war was ended by the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) by which France gave up all the territories it gained since 1680 except Strassburg. It was a serious blow to his power. It, for the first time, set a limit to his aggression. Henceforth, the personal duel between Louis XIV and William of Orange (who had now become the king of England) was transformed into national rivalry between England and France. Thus, it was the first war by which Louis XIV had gained nothing, which was a clear evidence of the increasing exhaustion of France.

The fourth and the last one was the war of Spanish Succession (1701–13). Charles II (King of Spain), who was heirless, appointed Philip (the grandson of Louis XIV) as his successor. At this, Austria waged a war against France and the former was aided by England, Holland and the leading German principalities. The war was brought to an end by the Treaty of Utrecht, by which Philip was recognised as the king of Spain, but Louis XIV was not allowed to amalgamate the two kingdoms. Though the territorial losses of France were insignificant, she emerged from the war terribly exhausted, with debts enormously increased and with her prestige in Europe diminished, if not totally destroyed. Thus, the war was disastrous to France in every respect.

American Revolution

The American Revolution, or the War of American Independence, as it is sometimes called, was a revolt against the autocracy of England, which at this time was ruled by an obstinate king, George III. The Revolution was a direct consequence of England's intervention in the Seven Years' War, and of ideas which prevailed throughout Western Europe at that time as to the proper way of governing the colonies. It was thought that colonies were part of the parent country, and they should be administered not primarily for the benefit of the colonists, but for the benefit of the country from which the colonists had originally come. In accordance with this principle, England had on two occasions in the 17th century passed laws known as Navigation Acts which enacted that colonial produce was to be exported only in British ships; some commodities were to be sent to no country but Britain; and some were to be shipped to Great Britain first and thence to other parts of the world, reshipping naturally forcing up prices. There were also laws passed restricting or prohibiting the manufacture of certain articles in colonies, such as cloth the idea being that if their manufactures were allowed, English industries of vital importance to the prosperity of the country would be seriously affected.

A leading characteristic of the 13 British colonies was their political independence. Their elective assemblies were continually at loggerheads with the governors and other officials sent out from London. Besides, Britain decisively defeated France in the Seven Years' War and, by the Treaty of Paris of 1763, acquired France's colonies north of the Arctic and West of the Mississippi. Both the British and the Americans felt considerable pride in the magnitude of their joint victory. But, at the same time that it settled old ones, the victory created new problems. One was the growing spirit of defiance in the 13 colonies, now that the danger of French attack had been removed. Another was the decision of the British government, following its acquisition of vast new colonial territories, to tighten its imperial organisation. This tightening would have been feasible at an earlier date, but now, after the elimination of the French danger, the colonists were convinced that they were able to take care of themselves and had every right to do so. Thus the American Revolution arose primarily out of the conflicting claims of British imperial authority and American colonial self-government.

Not all, or even most, of the American colonists favoured violent revolution. In fact, they were split into two antagonistic camps. The conservatives wanted to return to the loose relations between the mother country and the colonies that prevailed before 1763. The radicals, on the other hand, wanted a change in their relations with the British Empire that would give the colonies complete control of their own affairs. They also wanted a shift of political power inside the colonies in favour of the common people. On this point, the conservatives were violently opposed. They had no desire for democracy. Rather, they wished to retain upper class leadership after the fashion of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. In the end the radicals had their way, because of the blunders of inept officials in Britain.

The steps leading to the Revolution are well known. First there was the Proclamation of 1763 prohibiting settlement west of a line drawn along the crests of the Appalachians. This was intended as a temporary measure to preserve peace until an orderly land policy could be worked out but the prospective settlers and speculators assumed that they were to be excluded forever for the benefit of the new British fur traders. Then there was a series of financial measures the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and the Townsend Duties to shift a part of Britain's heavy tax load to the American colonists. These levies seemed reasonable to the British, especially since they had spent a great deal of money to defeat the French in the recent war, and since they estimated that they would have to spend even more in order to protect the American frontiers in future. But the colonists were all affected by these imposts and unanimously opposed them. They called a continental congress which organised a boycott of British goods to last until the financial measures were repealed. Another series of ill-considered measures by the British government started a fresh storm that was to lead to a revolution.

The sequence of the dramatic events is familiar, the East India Company's tea monopoly, the Boston Tea party, and the Coercive, or Intolerable Acts intended as punishment for the vandalism in Boston harbour. At the same time, in 1774, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act, providing a governmental system for the conquered French Canadians and drawing the boundaries of Quebec to include all the territories north of the Ohio river. Much can be said in defence of the Quebec Act, but the American colonists denounced it as another Intolerable Act that blocked their westward expansion for the benefit of the Catholic French Canadians. The first Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in September 1774 and organised another boycott against British goods. Fighting began the next year when British troops set out from Boston to seize unauthorised stores of weapons at Concord. It was during this operation that someone fired at Lexington Green.

The outcome was that the British troops found themselves besieged in Boston. When the Second Continental Congress met the following month, in May 1775, it had a full-fledged war on its hands and proceeded to raise an American army.

The Congress was still reluctant to make the final break with the mother country. Sentiment for independence grew with the spread of fighting and the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence in July 1796. Once military operations got fully under way, the decisive factor proved to be France's aid to the revolutionaries. During the first two years of the war, France, although not officially involved, poured large amounts of a munitions into the colonies. The following year France signed an alliance with the insurgents and declared war on Britain. Holland and Spain joined France, while most of the other European powers formed an 'Armed Neutrality' to protect their commerce from Britain's naval power. The help of the French navy and a French expeditionary force of 6000 men contributed substantially to the victories of George Washington's forces and to the final British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. The peace treaty signed at Paris in 1783 recognised the independence of the American republic.

From the viewpoint of world history, the American Revolution is significant not because it created an independent state but because it created a new and different type of state. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal'. Now the American people, both during and after the Revolution, passed laws to make this declaration true in real life as well as on paper. They seized and distributed large estates owned by the Tories. They extended the franchise until all men (but not women) had the right to vote. Many state governments passed laws forbidding the importation of slaves. Established churches were abolished, and freedom of religion became the law of the land. All 13 states adopted constitutions which included bills of rights that guaranteed the natural rights of citizens.

These changes were not as far-reaching and fundamental as those that were brought about later by the French and Russian Revolutions. These later revolutions, and particularly the Russian, involved far more extensive social and economic reorganisation. Nevertheless, the American Revolution had a profound impact in its time. The establishment of an independent republic in the New World was widely interpreted in Europe as meaning that the ideas of the Enlightenment – that it was possible for people to establish a state and a workable system of government based on the rights of the individual. Thus, America became a symbol of freedom of opportunity, envied as a new land, free from the burdens and chains of the past.

What was it? By the early 1770s, the Northern part of North America was under the British Crown, France already driven out of North America. There were 13 British colonies in all, consisting of five Southern colonies of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia; the four Northern colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Miami; and the four middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. These colonies had diverse origins and nature. Besides the British, there were French, Swedish and Dutch settlements. Maryland had British Catholics, while New England (four Northern colonies) had British ultra-Protestants. The New Englanders cultivated land on their own and denounced slavery, whereas the British in Virginia and other Southern colonies were planters employing a larger number of imported Negro slaves. Commonness was naturally lacking in such states. Going from one state to The 13 British Colonies another was as difficult as crossing the Trans-Atlantic Ocean. The union that diverse origin and natural conditions denied was forced upon them (the British-Americans) by the selfishness and stupidity of the British government in London. They were taxed without any say in the spending of the taxes; their trade was sacrificed to British interests. Moreover, the obstinate personality of George III (1760–1820) prepared the inevitable struggle between the home and the colonies in America. This showdown between the British colonies in America and the motherland has come to be known as the American Revolution or the American War of Independence which happened between 1775 and 1783, resulting in the defeat of the British and the foundation of the United States of America. It is a landmark in the world history and had a significant and far-reaching impact on the subsequent history of humanity.

Why did it Happen? The most important cause was the economic exploitation of the colonies by the British. To the English, the colonies were there for service of the mother country. Several restrictions were put on the colonies trade (both imports and exports) as well as industries. The Navigation Acts of 1651, 1660 and 1680, for example, gave monopoly to the English ships to carry goods to and from the colonies. These laws not only denied the American shipper his immediate source of income but also proved quite harmful for the industrial and commercial development of the colonies. Besides, the English controlled the production as well as exports and imports of the colonies. The colonies were not permitted to produce paper, hats, steel and woollen goods, so that they might not compete with the British in these goods. The colonies could import woollen and hardware goods only from England and not from any other country. They were also required to export items like cotton, coffee, sugar, tobacco, etc., to England alone. Goods exported from the colonies were, thus, sent to England first, and from there they were shipped to other European countries.

All these mercantilist rules and regulations were not strictly enforced by the British till 1760. However, when King George III ascended the throne in 1760, he tried to implement them strictly. For their proper enforcement, British troops were dispatched to America, and British agents were empowered to check smuggling and search private residences on suspicion. Further, the settlers were ordered not to move beyond the traditional border on the western side lest it should provoke the Red Indians. This order annoyed the fur traders and small farmers in the colonies. Businessmen were also antagonised as they hoped to buy Western lands cheaply.

The above problems were accentuated by the defective colonial administration. The colonies were administered by governors, captains and colonels who were the nominees of the British government. The colonies, of course, had their elected assemblies, but the governors were not responsible to them. This system resulted in conflict between the two branches of government, i.e., the executive and the legislative branches. This kind of defective system of government could not naturally take care of the interests of the local people properly and hence their resentment against it.

Moreover, the colonists were vehemently opposed to the British claim to the right to legislate and tax them, particularly when they did not have any representation in the British Parliament. But King George III compelled the British Cabinet to secure parliamentary sanction for imposing new taxes on the colonists. Consequently, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act in 1764 by which duty was imposed on the colonists. The colonists, in turn, tried to smuggle molasses, but their activities, were curbed. In 1766, the British Parliament passed another legislation, viz., the Stamp Act, by which the colonists were required to register various legal documents, wills and licenses by affixing revenue stamps. But the colonists, protesting against this Act, burnt heaps of stamps and the effigies of stamp collectors on a large scale. The Stamp Act Congress, attended by delegates of nine colonies, met at New York and passed a resolution that the British Parliament had no right to tax the colonies without their consent. The slogan of this agitation was 'No taxation without representation'. The British government, however, made a hasty retreat and repealed the Stamp Act, though it continued to insist on its right to tax the colonies.

This agitation had dual significance. First, the agitation was mainly directed not as such against the revenue to be raised through the purchase of stamps (for the amount was not significant) as the right of the British Parliament to tax the colonies. Secondly, it for the first time demonstrated the unity of all the nine colonies.

Townsend (Chancellor of Exchequer in Pitt's Ministry) within two years levied duties on colonial imports of tea, paper, glass, sugar, paints, etc. The resultant public protest in the colonies was accompanied by a boycott of British goods by the merchants of Boston, Philadelphia and New York. Some colonists even advocated homemade manufacturers of all kinds. In the meanwhile, riots were taking place at various places. At Boston, for instance, there was firing on the protesters in which three people were killed. This incident was described as the 'Boston Massacre' by Samuel Adams, leader of the agitation at Boston. However, the British government, during the Prime Ministership of Lord North, repealed all import duties except on tea.

The religious and temperamental differences between American colonists and people of England were other contributory factors. While most of the colonists were Puritans, people of England were followers of the Anglican Church. Besides, the colonists were liberal and broad minded, but the English were conservative and rigid. The long distance between the two countries and lack of proper means of communication weakened the ties between England and her colonies in America. Under these conditions, there was hardly any scope for compromise between the two and a showdown became inevitable.

Meanwhile, the colonists were gradually attaining self-sufficiency in their requirements. Initially they were dependent on England for the articles of daily use, but over a period of time, they took various steps to improve agriculture and industry. By manufacturing all the essential items in the colonies, they soon became self-sufficient and self-reliant. They were no longer dependent on England and were not eager to maintain any contact with the mother country. As such they tried to seek more autonomy and freedom.

The removal of the threat from the French played an equally important role. Though the English imposed various political and economic restrictions upon the colonies, the latter remained loyal to the mother country as long as there was the threat of French invasion of the colonies and Britain offered protection against such invasion. However, the conquest of Canada by the English after Seven Year's War (1956–1963) removed any such threat to the colonies from the French. Instead, the colonies thought it futile to stick to the mother country and hence started their struggle for independence. As Montcalm, the French general who lost Quebec to the English, predicted: 'England will soon repent of having removed the only check (by conquering Canada from the French) that could keep her colonies in awe'.

The American War of Independence was sparked off by an incident, called the 'Boston Tea Party', which occurred on 16th December 1773. Lord North abolished all the import duties imposed by Townsend, except the one on tea. The tax on tea was retained for a dual purpose. First, the British government was keen on keeping its right to tax the colonies. Secondly, Lord North wanted to help East India Company to dispose of its large stock of tea by selling them to the colonists. As usual there was popular opposition to this move and leaders in the colonies tried to prevent unloading of tea in the colonial ports. In Boston, Samuel Adams and his followers disguised themselves as the Red Indians and sneaked into East India Company's ship, and threw all the 340 chests of tea into the water. The British government regarded it as an open defiance of its authority. By a series of acts, it withdrew the charter granted to Massachusetts colony, put Boston harbour under quarantine and banned political meetings there.

These acts precipitated the matter further. The colony of Virginia took the lead and issued a call for a continental congress. Accordingly, the representatives of all the colonies, except Georgia, met at Philadelphia on 5 th September 1774, and drew up a Declaration of Rights asserting that the British Parliament had no right to tax the colonies without their consent. Denouncing the laws passed by the British government and demanding their repeal, it sent a petition, known as the 'Olive Branch Petition'. The British government, however, refused to repeal these acts. At this, the colonies declared a war against England in 1775.

How was the War Conducted? Fighting began formally in 1775 when the British government tried to arrest two of the American leaders at Lexington near Boston. The first shots were fired in Lexington by the British and the first fighting took place at Concord. For more than a year the colonies were hesitant to cut off their links completely with the motherland. It was only in the middle of 1776 that the Congress of the rebel colonies (the second Continental Congress to meet in Philadelphia) issued the 'Declaration of Independence'. George Washington, who like many of the leading colonists of the time had military training in the wars against the French, was made the Commander-in-Chief. In 1777, a British general, General Burgoyne, while trying to reach New York from Canada, was defeated at Freeman's Farm and was compelled to surrender at Sartoga. In the same year, the French and the Spanish declared war upon Great Britain, greatly hindering her sea communications. A second British army under General Cornwallis was held up in the Yorktown peninsula in Virginia and made to surrender in 1781. In 1783, peace was made in Paris, and the 13 colonies from Maine to Georgia became a nation of independent sovereign states.

What were its Results? The American Revolution was a landmark not only in the history of the USA and Great Britain, but also in the history of the entire humanity. The long struggle of the colonists against the royal tyranny ended. Ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were put into practice. The Americans chose a Republic in place of monarchy and built a democratic state. Its success became a source of inspiration to the colonists in Latin America who began to fight for their independence from their colonial rulers. It also gave inspiration to the French people to rebel against the tyrannical monarchy. In England, the mercantilist theories and policies underwent some important changes.

The Revolution, first of all, led to the birth of a new independent state, namely, the United States of America. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1783), England recognised the independence of the 13 colonies. The new state gradually became one of the two most powerful countries of the world (the other being the Soviet Union). The Revolution engendered the spirit of nationalism and patriotism in America as well as abroad. It demonstrated the rights of the suppressed people to revolt against their autocratic rulers and regain their freedom.

In 1805, the Spanish colonies in South and Central America were to follow suit and break their connection with Europe. But being more dispersed over the continent and separated by natural barriers as well as Portuguese Empire of Brazil, they did not achieve a union among themselves. They became a constellation of republican states. Brazil became independent in 1822, though it retained its monarchical form of government until 1889 when it became a republic like the other American States.

Ireland had been under the domination of England and the Irish people were waiting for an opportunity to overthrow the oppressive rule of the English. Inspired by the American success and taking advantage of the situation, they launched a struggle for the legislative independence of their own country and ultimately succeeded in getting it. Many other European countries (e.g., Belgium and Greece) and in the 20th century many Asian and African countries followed the example of the USA and freed themselves from the bondage of colonial rule and slavery.

After the war, the Americans adopted the democratic form of government based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, instead of the monarchical form of government. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 laid great stress on the basis principles of democracy. For it not only recognised that sovereignty resides in the people, but also stresses the fact that people organise the government to safeguard their rights.

The success of the Americans in establishing democracy greatly inspired the French people. Though French had helped the colonists against the British mainly for political purposes, French people indirectly benefited from this participation in the war. French soldiers who had taken part in the war began to feel that if they could help others to win freedom, there was no reason why they could not free themselves from the oppressive rule of their own degenerate and corrupt monarchs.

The success of the Americans had its impact on England also. The personal rule of George III was done away, and the party system and the cabinet form of government were revived. Hence, the English were once again able to regain their constitutional liberties. Thus, the American Revolution greatly strengthened the idea of the right of revolution, the right of people to overthrow an oppressive government and install a just one in its place.

The American Revolution is also significant for the fact that it resulted in the creation of the first specimen of a written constitution as in the foundation of the first federation in the world. In 1788, a constitutional convention was held at Philadelphia and the constitution of the USA was drawn up and ratified by it. It proved to be a great success. For not only America follows the same constitution to this day, but many other countries of the world took inspiration from American example and came to have written constitutions.

Besides, the 13 colonies united together to form a federation. It was the first federal republic in the world, and the adaptation of a federal government was a novel political experiment. The 13 units recognised a central authority (federal government) for common interests, but retained considerable local autonomy. Due to its success, many modern democratic countries, such a Canada, Australia, India, etc., had followed the American example, of course, with the necessary changes.

The revolution affected England in more than one way. To begin with, it meant a great commercial loss to the British. The 13 colonies served as a market for the finished products of England, and provided different kinds of raw materials for their factories. The loss of the colonies, therefore, proved quite harmful for the commercial and industrial development of England. Secondly, the defeat of the British at the hands of the colonists and the loss of many colonial possessions to the French (West Indies, Senegal, etc.) and the Spanish (Minorca and Florida), apart form that of the 13 colonies gave a severe blow not only to the prestige of England, but also to her actual power and strength.

Finally, the revolution necessitated certain changes in the colonial policies and practices of the British. For it clearly exposed the glaring defects of the old colonial policies and practices and thus paved the way for the new colonial policy based on liberalism. The English were now forced to grant more responsible government to their colonies in other countries so that she might not lose them. Thus British colonialism passed from on state to another, i.e., from the mercantile of monopoly stage to free trade stage.

What is the Significance of the Revolution? The American Revolution was unlike any other in the history of revolutions. It occurred in the empire distinguished above all others in the 18th century by the large measure of political, religious, and economic freedom it allowed its colonies overseas. Thus, Americans, unlike other revolutionary people, had already experienced some form of freedom. An important reason for the Revolution was the desire for even more than they already had. Like all revolutions, the American one started with small, relatively unimportant demands that grew, during and after the conflict, far beyond the vision of the original participants. Had the American colonies rebelled had they not been taxed without representation? Or would they have found another issue of discontent? Some historians view the American revolutionaries as clearly intending to make a break with [their] European past. These scholars believe that American Revolution was staged against Europe against monarchy, imperialistic wars, feudalism, colonialism, mercantilism, established Churches, and oppression of the many by the few. In this sense, the United States declared itself independent in 1776 not only of Great Britain but also of Europe. Had it not been for taxation, more grievances are apt to have arisen. The American Revolution was inevitable.

In many respects, the American Revolution was the first of its kind. USA is one of the very few states in the world that underwent only one revolution. It is also among the small minority of the states, whose revolution, ideologies, and the regime established under it, lasted. There may be many theories of what constitutes a revolution but the simplest one is the definition of revolution. However, a sudden change in the government structure signifies a revolution. The government that ensued in the late 1700s was very different from its Royal English predecessor. The people of America and the people of Great Britain view authority, and thus, government, in distinct terms. This is due to the varied experiences and points of view of the American and English people towards their government. In contrast to the great revolutions that have marked the 20th century, the American Revolution succeeded in accomplishing what it set out to do—to give men more liberty than they had previously possessed.

While the question of how revolutionary the American Revolution was remains an inherently unresolved issue, there is no doubt that the American experience was a real revolution. It was a struggle to progress from dependent colonies to independent states, from monarchy to republic, from membership in an extended empire in which several members were connected only through the centre to participation in a single federal nation. And it succeeded.

How were the State Constitutions Drawn Up? The success of the Revolution gave Americans the opportunity to give legal form to their ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and to remedy some of their grievances through state constitutions. As early as May 10, 1776, Congress had passed a resolution advising the colonies to form new governments. Some of them had already done so, and within a year after the Declaration of Independence, all but three had drawn up constitutions.

The new constitutions showed the impact of democratic ideas. None made any drastic break with the past, since all were built on the solid foundation of colonial experience and English practice. Each was animated by the spirit of republicanism; an ideal that had long been praised by Enlightenment philosophers.

Naturally, the first objective of the framers of the state constitutions was to secure those 'unalienable rights' whose violation had caused former colonies to repudiate their connection with Britain. Thus, each constitution began with a declaration or bill of rights. Virginia, which served as a model for all others, included a declaration of principles, such as popular sovereignty, rotation in office, freedom of elections and an enumeration of fundamental liberties: moderate bail and humane punishment, speedy trial by jury, freedom of the press and of conscience, and the right of the majority to reform or alter the government.

Other states enlarged the list of liberties to guarantee freedom of speech, of assembly and of petition, and frequently included such provisions as the right to bear arms, to a writ of habeas corpus, to inviolability of domicile and to equal protection under the law. Moreover, all the constitutions paid allegiance to the threebranch structure of government—executive, legislative and judiciary—each checked and balanced by the others.

The state constitutions had some glaring limitations, particularly by more recent standards. Constitutions established to guarantee people their natural rights did not secure for everyone the most fundamental natural right equality. The colonies south of Pennsylvania excluded their slave populations from their inalienable rights as human beings. Women had no political rights. No states went so far as to permit universal male suffrage, and even in those states that permitted all taxpayers to vote (Delaware, North Carolina and Georgia, in addition to Pennsylvania), office-holders were required to own a certain amount of property.

What were the Articles of Confederation? The struggle with England did much to change colonial attitudes. Local assemblies had rejected the Albany Plan of Union in 1754, refusing to surrender even the smallest part of their autonomy to any other body, even one they themselves had elected. But in the course of the Revolution, mutual aid had proved effective, and the fear of relinquishing individual authority had lessened to a large degree.

John Dickinson produced the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' in 1776. The Continental Congress adopted them in November 1777, and they went into effect in 1781, having been ratified by all the states. The governmental framework established by the Articles had many weaknesses. The national government lacked the authority to set up tariffs when necessary, to regulate commerce and to levy taxes. It lacked sole control of international relations: a number of states had begun their own negotiations with foreign countries.

Economic difficulties after the war prompted calls for change. The end of war had a severe effect on merchants who supplied the armies of both sides and who had lost the advantages deriving from participation in the British mercantile system. The states gave preference to American goods in their tariff policies, but these tariffs were inconsistent, leading to the demand for a stronger central government to implement a uniform policy.

What was the Role of the Constitutional Convention? George Washington wrote of the period between the Treaty of Paris and the writing of the Constitution that the states were united only by a 'rope of sand.' Disputes between Maryland and Virginia over navigation on the Potomac River led to a conference of representatives of five states at Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. One of the delegates, Alexander Hamilton, convinced his colleagues that commerce was too much bound up with other political and economic questions, and that the situation was too serious to be dealt by an unrepresentative a body.

He advocated calling upon all the states to appoint representatives for a meeting to be held the following spring in Philadelphia. The Continental Congress was at first indignant over this bold step, but its protests were cut short by the news that Virginia had elected George Washington as a delegate. During the next fall and winter, elections were held in all states but Rhode Island.

It was a gathering of notables that assembled at the Federal Convention in the Philadelphia State House in May 1787. The state legislatures sent leaders with experience in colonial and state governments, in Congress, on the bench and in the army. George Washington, regarded as the country's outstanding citizen because of his integrity and his military leadership during the Revolution, was chosen as the presiding officer.

Prominent among the more active members were two Pennsylvanians: Governor Morris, who clearly saw the need for national government, and Governor James Wilson, who laboured indefatigably for the national idea. Also elected by Pennsylvania was Benjamin Franklin, nearing the end of an extraordinary career of public service and scientific achievement. From Virginia came James Madison, a practical young statesman, a thorough student of politics and history and, according to a colleague, 'from a spirit of industry and application… the best-informed man on any point in debate.' Madison today is recognised as the 'Father of the Constitution.'

Massachusetts sent Rufus King and Elbridge Gerry, young men of ability and experience. Roger Sherman, shoemaker turned judge, was one of the representatives from Connecticut. From New York came Alexander Hamilton, who had proposed the meeting. Absent from the Convention were Thomas Jefferson, who was serving in France as minister, and John Adams, serving in the same capacity in Great Britain. Youth predominated among the 55 delegates – the average age was 42.

The Convention had been authorised merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates, 'with a manly confidence in their country,' simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the building of a wholly new form of government.

They recognised that the paramount need was to reconcile two different powers – the power of local control, which was already being exercised by the 13 semi- independent states, and the power of a central government. They adopted the principle that the functions and powers of national government, being new, general and inclusive, had to be carefully defined and stated, while all other functions and powers were to be understood as belonging to the states. Realizing that the central government had to have real power, the delegates also generally accepted the fact that the government should be authorised among other things to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war and to make peace.

How did the Debates and Compromises Take Place? The 18th-century statesmen who met in Philadelphia were adherents of Montesquieu's concept of the balance of power in politics. This principle was supported by colonial experience and strengthened by the writings of John Locke, with which most of the delegates were familiar. These influences led to the conviction that three equal and coordinate branches of government should be established. Legislative, executive and judicial powers were to be so harmoniously balanced that no one could ever gain control. The delegates agreed that the legislative branch, like the colonial legislatures and the British Parliament, should consist of two houses.

On these points, there was unanimity within the assembly. But sharp differences arose as to the method of achieving them. Representatives of the small states New Jersey, for instance objected to changes that would reduce their influence in the national government by basing representation upon population rather than upon statehood, as was the case under the Articles of Confederation.

On the other hand, representatives of large states, like Virginia, argued for proportionate representation. This debate threatened to go on endlessly until Roger Sherman came forward with arguments for representation in proportion to the population of the states in one house of Congress, the House of Representatives, and equal representation in the other, the Senate.

The alignment of large against small states then dissolved. Almost every succeeding question raised new problems, to be resolved only by new compromises. Northerners wanted slaves counted when determining each state's tax share, but not in determining the number of seats a state would have in the House of Representatives. According to a compromise reached with little dissent, the House of Representatives would be apportioned according to the number of free inhabitants plus three-fifths of the slaves.

Certain members, such as Sherman and Elbridge Gerry, feared that the mass of people lacked sufficient wisdom to govern themselves and thus wished no branch of the federal government to be elected directly by the people. Others thought the national government should be given as broad a popular base as possible. Some delegates wished to exclude the growing West from the opportunity of statehood; others championed the equality principle established in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

There was no serious difference on such national economic questions as paper money, laws concerning contract obligations or the role of women, who were excluded from politics. But there was a need for balancing sectional economic interests; for settling arguments as to the powers, term and selection of the chief executive; and for solving problems involving the tenure of judges and the kind of courts to be established.

The Convention finally achieved a draft incorporating in a brief document the organisation of the most complex government yet devised a government supreme within a clearly defined and limited sphere. In conferring powers, the Convention gave the federal government full power to levy taxes, borrow money, establish uniform duties and excise taxes, coin money, fix weights and measures, grant patents and copyrights, set up post offices, and build post roads. The national government also had the power to raise and maintain an army and navy, and to regulate interstate commerce. It was given the management of Indian affairs (affair of aboniginals), foreign policy and war. It could pass laws for naturalising foreigners and controlling public lands, and it could admit new states on a basis of absolute equality with the old. The power to pass all necessary and proper laws for executing these clearly defined powers rendered the federal government able to meet the needs of later generations and of a greatly expanded body politic.

The principle of separation of powers had already been given a fair trial in most state constitutions and had proved sound. Accordingly, the Convention set up a governmental system with separate legislative, executive and judiciary branches each checked by the others. Thus congressional enactments were not to become law until approved by the president. The president was to submit the most important of his appointments and all his treaties to the Senate for confirmation. The president, in turn, could be impeached and removed by Congress. The judiciary was to hear all cases arising under federal laws and the Constitution; in effect, the courts were empowered to interpret both fundamental and statute law. Members of the judiciary, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, could also be impeached by Congress.

To protect the Constitution from hasty alteration, Article V stipulated that amendments to the Constitution be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by two-thirds of the states, meeting in convention. The proposals were to be ratified by one of two methods: either by the legislatures of threefourths of the states, or by convention in three-fourths of the states, with the Congress proposing the method to be used.

Finally, the Convention faced the most important problem of all: how should the powers given to the new government be enforced? Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government had possessed – on paper – significant powers, which, in practice, had come to naught, for the states paid no attention to them. What was to save the new government from the same fate?

At the outset, most delegates furnished a single answer – the use of force. But it was quickly seen that the application of force upon the states would destroy the Union. The decision was that the government should not act upon the states but upon the people within the states, and should legislate for and upon all the individual residents of the country. As the keystone of the Constitution, the Convention adopted two brief but highly significant statements:

Congress shall have power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the…powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…. (Article I, Section 7)

This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (Article VI)

Thus the laws of the United States became enforceable in its own national courts, through its own judges and marshals, as well as in the state courts through the state judges and state law officers.

Debate continues to this day about the motives of those who wrote the Constitution. In 1913, Charles Beard, in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, argued that the Founding Fathers stood to gain economic advantages from the stability imposed by a powerful and authoritative national government because they held large amounts of depreciated government securities. However, James Madison, principal drafter of the Constitution, held no bonds, while some opponents of the Constitution held large amounts of bonds and securities. Economic interests influenced the course of the debate, so did state, sectional and ideo-logical interests. Equally important was the idealism of the framers. Products of the Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers designed a government that, they believed, would promote individual liberty and public virtue. The ideals embodied in the U.S. Constitution are an essential element of the American national identity.

How were Ratification Done and Bill of Rights Passed? On September 17, 1787, after 16 weeks of deliberation, the finished Constitution was signed by 39 of the 42 delegates present. Franklin, pointing to the half-sun painted in brilliant gold on the back of Washington's chair, said:

I have often in the course of the session…looked at that [chair] behind the president, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising, and not a setting sun.

The Convention was over. Yet a crucial part of the struggle for a more perfect union was yet to be faced. The consent of popularly elected state conventions was still required before the document could become effective.

The Convention had decided that the Constitution would take effect upon ratification by conventions in nine of the 13 states. By June 1788, the required nine states ratified the Constitution, but the large states of Virginia and New York had not. Most people felt that without the support of these two states, the Constitution would never be honoured. To many, the document seemed full of dangers: would not the strong central government that it established tyrannise them, oppress them with heavy taxes and drag them into wars?

Differing views on these questions brought into existence two parties, the federalists, who favoured a strong central government, and the anti-federalists, who preferred a loose association of separate states. Impassioned arguments on both sides were voiced by the press, the legislatures and the state conventions.

In Virginia, the anti-federalists attacked the proposed new government by challenging the opening phrase of the Constitution: 'We the People of the United States.' Without using the individual state names in the Constitution, the delegates argued, the states would not retain their separate rights or powers. Virginia anti-federalists were led by Patrick Henry, who became the chief spokesman for back-country farmers who feared the powers of the new central government. Wavering delegates were persuaded by a proposal that the Virginia convention recommend a bill of rights, and anti-federalists joined with the Federalists to ratify the Constitution on June 25.

In New York, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison pushed for the ratification of the Constitution in a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. The essays, published in New York newspapers, provided a now-classic argument for a central federal government, with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches that checked and balanced one another. With The Federalist Papers influencing the New York delegates, the Constitution was ratified on July 26.

Antipathy toward a strong central government was only one concern among those opposed to the Constitution; of equal concern to many was the fear that the Constitution did not protect individual rights and freedoms sufficiently. Virginian George Mason, author of Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, was one of three delegates to the Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the final document because it did not enumerate individual rights. Together with Patrick Henry, he campaigned vigorously against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia. Indeed, five states, including Massachusetts, ratified the Constitution on the condition that such amendments be added immediately.

When the first Congress convened in New York City in September 1789, the calls for amendments protecting individual rights were virtually unanimous. Congress quickly adopted 12 such amendments. By December 1791, enough states had ratified 10 amendments to make them part of the Constitution. Collectively, they are known as the Bill of Rights. Among their provisions: freedom of speech, press, religion, and the right to assemble peacefully, protest and demand changes (First Amendment); protection against unreasonable searches, seizures of property and arrest (Fourth Amendment); due process of law in all criminal cases (Fifth Amendment); right to a fair and speedy trial (Sixth Amendment); protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment); and provision that the people retain additional rights were not listed in the Constitution (Ninth Amendment).

Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, only 16 more amendments have been added to the Constitution. Although a number of the subsequent amendments revised the federal government's structure and operations, most followed the precedent established by the Bill of Rights and expanded individual rights and freedom.

What is Hamilton vs. Jefferson Controversy? The conflict that took shape in the 1790s between the federalists and the anti-federalists exercised a profound impact on American history. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, represented the urban mercantile interests of the seaports; the Antifederalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, spoke for the rural and Southern interests. The debate between the two concerned the power of the central government versus that of the states, with the Federalists favouring the former and the anti-federalists advocating states' rights.

Hamilton sought strong central government acting in the interests of commerce and industry. He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order and organisation. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the 'adequate support of public credit,' he laid down and supported principles not only of the public economy, but of effective government.

Jefferson advocated a decentralised agrarian republic. He recognised the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organisation, whereas Jefferson once said 'I am not a friend to a very energetic government.' Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom.

The United States needed both influences. It was the country's good fortune that it had both men and could, in time, fuse and reconcile their philosophies. One clash between them, which occurred shortly after Jefferson took office as secretary of state, led to a new and profoundly important interpretation of the Constitution. When Hamilton introduced his bill to establish a national bank, Jefferson objected.

Speaking for those who believed in states' rights, Jefferson argued that the Constitution expressly enumerates all the powers belonging to the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states. Nowhere was it empowered to set up a bank.

Hamilton contended that because of the mass of necessary detail, a vast body of powers had to be implied by general clauses, and one of these authorised Congress to 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for carrying out other powers specifically granted. The Constitution authorised the national government to levy and collect taxes, pay debts and borrow money. A national bank would materially help in performing these functions efficiently. Congress, therefore, was entitled, under its implied powers, to create such a bank. Washington and the Congress accepted Hamilton's view—an important precedent for an expansive interpretation of the federal government's authority.

French Revolution & Napoleonic Era

The French Revolution (1789–1795)

The late 18th century saw an event of far greater impact on world history than even the English and American revolutions. This was the French Revolution which looms larger than the earlier two revolutions, for, it brought about greater economic and social change, and influenced a larger portion of the world than the previous upheavals. It marked not only the triumph of the bourgeoisie but also the full awakening of the masses. Middle-class liberalism came to the fore, but so did nationalism with its appeals to people from all sections of society. The most remarkable result of the French Revolution was the role played by 'the people'. The masses, long suppressed by the elite minority, now strode into the limelight, staking their claim to life, liberty and equality.

France, the home of Enlightenment, was not ruled by an enlightened despot until the advent of Napoleon. Consequently, France was a country of gross inequality and inefficiency. This lumbering, inefficient government machinery could not run for very long and soon creaked to a standstill, leaving the ambitious and dissatisfied bourgeoisie to make a successful bid for power.

Under the old regime in France, all French people belonged legally to an 'estate' or order of society, and this membership determined their legal rights and privileges. The first estate comprised the clergy, the second estate consisted of the nobility, and the third estate included everyone else—merchants, artisans and peasants. While the first two estates made up only two per cent of the population, they owned nearly 35 per cent of the land and enjoyed most of benefits of government patronage. They were also exempt from almost all taxes, which, they thought, were beneath their status.

The third estate, especially the peasants, had to bear the whole burden of taxation. The French peasants accounted for 80 per cent of the population but owned only about 30 per cent of the land. To worsen the injustice, peasants were required to pay a tithe to the Church, an assortment of feudal dues to the nobles, land tax, income tax, poll tax and various other imposts to the state. This was a particularly heavy load for the peasants to bear since the prices of general goods rose by 65 per cent between 1720 and 1789, while the prices of farm goods (the source of peasant income) lagged far behind.

There was unhappiness among the artisans too because their wages had risen only 22 percent during those same decades. The bourgeoisie, however, were not so badly off in the matter of taxes because they could protect themselves better than the peasants and the artisans. Furthermore, most businessmen profited from the rising prices and the fivefold increase in French trade between 1713 and 1789. Despite this, the middle class was thoroughly dissatisfied with the old aristocratic regime. They resented being snubbed by the nobility, treated as second class subjects by the crown, and excluded from the higher posts in the bureaucracy, Church and army. In short, the bourgeoisie wanted political power and social prestige to match their growing economic importance.

This was the situation in France when the revolution began. The French Revolution, like others before and after, started moderately and became radical progressively. It began, not in 1789 as a bourgeois revolution, but in 1787 as an aristocratic revolution. It then moved left through the bourgeoisie and mass phases until a reaction occurred that brought Napoleon to power.

The aristocrats began the revolution because they wanted to regain political power they lost to the crown during the 16th and 17th centuries. The king's intendants had replaced the nobility in governance, and the king's bureaucracy controlled all levels of government throughout the century. It is understandable then that, when Louis XVI found himself in financial trouble after the heavy expense incurred in supporting the American Revolution, the nobles tried to seize the opportunity to regain power.

The confrontation began in 1787 when Louis tried to levy uniform tax on all land property regardless of the social status of the holder. The nobility and the clergy branded the new tax illegal and said that only the nation as a whole sitting in the Estates-General could institute such a sweeping change. The king had to give way when the financial crunch became too severe, and he finally summoned a meeting of the Estates-General in the spring of 1789. The privileged classes assumed they would be able to control this body and thereby regain a dominant position in the government. In this regard the nobility were wrong. The meeting of the Estate-General led not to the triumph of the nobility but to the unleashing of a revolutionary wave that was to sweep away established institutions and ruling classes in France and much of Europe.

The first victory scored by the commoners was in pressuring the king to transform the Estates-General into a national assembly. This was a vital change because the Third Estate would be in a constant minority. But as soon as the representatives of all three estates combined to form a national assembly, the commoners with their allies in the other two camps were able to secure a majority.

The king began to vacillate on the crucial issue and allowed the three estates to merge only when the commoners openly defied him. However, he continued to head the counsel of royal advisors and dismissed a minister favourable to reform. The rumour also began to spread that the king was preparing to dissolve the assembly by force. It seemed as if nothing could stop the king for he had the bayonets while the commoners in the National Assembly had only words and resolutions. But at this crucial juncture, the commoners in the Assembly were saved by an uprising of the common people of Paris. The masses intervened decisively, initiating the third or mass phase of the Revolution.

The fall of the Bastille on July 1789 marks the entry of masses on the histori cal stage. Their intervention had saved the bourgeoisie, and the middle class was forced henceforth to rely on the street mobs to supply a crucial dose of revolution at crucial moments. There were to be many such moments in the years to come as the middle class struggled for power against the king, the privileged elite and eventually against the old order in all Europe.

The Revolution was not confined to Paris alone. The mass revolution occurred in the countryside as well. The peasants took up arms incited by the standing grievances and by the stirring news of the storming of Bastille. Fences were torn down, lands seized and manor houses burnt in many parts of the countryside. Faced with this revolutionary situation, the nobles and clergy in the National Assembly made a virtue of necessity and voted with the commoners to abolish feudalism. Among the important measures decreed by the Assembly was the confiscation of Church lands, the reorganisation of the judicial and administrative systems and the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.

However, things did not run smoothly. Problems continued with the king unwilling to accept the Declaration and with Austria and Prussia opting for war against France. Under these circumstances, the mob swung into action against the king; and under pressure from the mob, the assembly suspended the king and called for election of a national convention.

The convention elected by universal manhood franchise met in September 1792 and was extremely successful in meeting its most pressing problem—the defence of the country against Austrian-Prussian invaders. This combination of revolutionary call and popular support proved irresistible. France emerged victorious in the war with the Austrians and Prussians. In 1793 Holland, Britain and Spain joined the coalition against France. The revolutionaries responded with their famous 'levee on masse' and rose to their country's defence. Inspired by the revolutionary slogan 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', the French armies swept everything before them. By 1795, the enemy coalition was destroyed.

The National Convention was meanwhile shifting more and more to the left. This was party due to its election by universal franchise and party due to the revolutionary fervour engendered by the war effort. By June 1793, the Girondists on the radical group were displaced by the Jacobins who were even more extreme in their belief in the republic. The dominant organ of the government now was the committee of public safety. With passionate patriotism and great revolutionary zeal, the committee appointed and dismissed generals, spurred the masses to heroic action, conducted foreign policy, legislated and crushed all opposition by means of a ruthless reign of terror. Thousands were charged with treason or insufficient patriotism and were subjected to the guillotine or the 'national razor' as it was called.

Unfortunately the terror soon got out of hand and the revolution began 'devouring its own children'. One after another, the revolutionary leaders followed Louis and Marie Antoinette to the guillotine—sacrifices in the unceasing struggle for power. Equally disturbing for the bourgeoisie was the growing social rad icalism of the revolution. The sans-culottes (literally, those who lacked the knee breeches of genteel society) began demanding a more equitable distribution of land, government regulation of prices and wages and a social security system. These were measures beyond the plans of the bourgeoisie and so like their English counterparts, they worked to halt the leftward course of the revolution. In England, the Levellers were defeated and the rule of Cromwell was established. The outcome in France was the bringing of the sans-culottes under control first by a Directory of five in 1795 and then by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1799.

Why did the Revolution Take Place? The discontentment of the unprivileged classes or the Third Estate with their prevailing social-economic conditions was a crucial factor for its outbreak. The members of the Third Estate forming 98 per cent of the total French population had only obligations but no rights at all. Within the Third Estate itself, the peasants were the most numerical.

Although the degree of agrarian distress was not uniform all through the country, the general picture was far from bright. The trouble came chiefly from three factors, viz. obsolete methods of farming, the shortage of land and over-population. The latest techniques of the agricultural revolution were not in vogue in France before 1789. Vast areas remained uncultivated or kept fallow every second or third year in accordance with medieval practice. The growing population could not find full employment or a decent livelihood. The average holding was so small that even a propertied peasant faced starvation in poor crop years. The position of the landless people was much worse.

Inflation combined with heavy taxation also oppressed the peasants. The up ward trend of prices in France brought prosperity to many towns throughout the 18th century. To the backward rural economy, it meant the new hardship of inflation. Since the price of farm products rose less swiftly than that of the goods which farmers had to buy, the real income of the peasant shrank. Moreover, they had to pay a number of taxes not only to the State, but also to the Church and nobility. In fact, to the State they owed, apart from the customary land tax, a wide variety of other duties, of which the most widely detested was the 'gabelle' (the obligatory purchase of salt from government agents usually at an exorbitant price). All these exactions deprived peasants of four-fifths of the income. In addition, the peasants had an obligation to the government, called the 'corvee', i.e., they had to take part in the construction of highways without any remuneration—a kind of forced labour. So, by 1789, unemployment and poverty had created a revolutionary temper among the peasants.

Urban workers, another important constituent of the Third Estate, had no reason to like the old regime. Though no class-conscious body of factory workers existed in pre-revolutionary France, almost every sizeable town had its wage earners, employed chiefly in small businesses or workshops. These urban workers were the worst affected by the rising prices. They were not, however, to be the vanguard of the revolution: geographically scattered and lacking in class cohesiveness, they were ready to follow the lead of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie comprised Frenchmen of disparate resources and interests such as rich merchants and bankers in the cities, store-keepers and lawyers in vil lages and towns, doctors and other professional men, and thousands of craftsmen running their own little businesses. Inexorable hostility to the privileged estates and warm receptiveness to the propaganda of the philosophes were responsible for the emergence of this sprawling middle class as a united political force. Though they were not as unprivileged and unfortunate as the peasants and workers were, they resented the abuses of the old regime even more. Enterprising businessmen complained of guild regulations and other obsolete restrictions on free commercial activity. They found it galling to be snubbed by the nobility, treated as second-class subjects by the monarchy and excluded from lucrative posts in government, Church and army.

On the other hand, the privileged class, consisting of the clergy and the nobility and forming just above 2% of the total population in 1789, were enjoying many social and economic privileges without performing their duties and obligations. They neglected the duties on the manors and in monasteries and grew indifferent to the fate of the nation. They collected taxes and dues from the people but paid no taxes to the government. The nobility, in particular, enjoyed the rights of hunting, fishing, etc., in the community lands. They monopolised the high offices in government, Church and army. Even among each of these two privileged classes, there developed two grades, higher and lower. The higher nobility were rich and lived at the court. The lower nobility were no better than the middle class. The lower clergy had to bear the entire burden of the official duties and responsibilities while the higher clergy were enjoying the pleasures of court life. The lower grades, naturally, resented the undeserved privileges of the higher ones and when revolution broke out they did not have any hesitation in joining its ranks.

Political factors cannot be overlooked. The centralised despotism of the 17th century was slowly weakening due to the succession of weak kings. For want of a bold and efficient mechanic, the machinery of centralised royal absolutism was gradually falling apart. The administration had fallen into the hands of greedy and corrupt nobles who successfully resisted all attempts of Louis XV and Louis XVI at reforms. The ambitious foreign policy of the Bourbons contributed much to the unpopularity of the monarchy in France. Since Richelieu's time, France was involved in a series of foreign wars which impoverished the nation. The War of Polish Succession ruined the prestige of France, while the intervention of France on behalf of the rebels in the American Revolution did more harm than good to the French monarchy. It opened the gates of France to revolutionary ideas from abroad.

Above all, the growing discontent in the country was fanned by the philosophes. They gave people a blueprint of a new society based upon a new philosophy of life. Voltaire, for instance, wanted men to break off from traditions and practice religious tolerance. Rousseau popularised the ideas of people's sovereignty, civil freedom, social equality and rights of men. His 'Social Contract' became the Bible of the French Revolution. Montesquieu, on his part, advocated the establishment of a democratic government on the principle of separation of powers. The whole intellectual movement crystallised into three watchwords, viz., Liberty, Equality and Fraternity which electrified the whole society. Thus, though the French Revolution was the outcome of realities, it cannot be denied that without the help of enlightenment it could not have arisen.

The immediate cause of the Revolution was financial. Growing deficit, blown up by the expense of French aid to the American Revolution, drove the monarchy steadily towards bankruptcy. Louis XVI tried one expedient after another without much success and finally summoned the Estates-General, the central French rep resentative assembly that had last met 175 years earlier. Once assembled, the rep resentatives of the nation initiated reforms that were to destroy the old regime in France.

To sum up, the peasants did not want so much as change in the form of gov ernment. They most emphatically wanted more land, if need be at the expense of the clergy and the nobility. They wanted an end to manorial dues, and finally, they wanted relief from an oppressive system of taxation. The urban workers, on their part, wanted to improve their economic condition. The bourgeoisie, fully aware of their own growing economic importance, wanted social and political rights to match. Because they were wealthier, better educated, and more articulate than the peasants and urban workers, they took the leading role in formulating the grievances of the entire Third Estate. These grievances were compiled in statements called 'cahiers' and submitted to the Estates-General in 1789. These cahiers, therefore, reflect the aims of the French Revolution to a great extent. They pronounced the freedom of the press as the stoutest rampart against abuses and the surest means of maintaining freedom of the nation; demanded reforms in criminal laws; recommended contact between the sovereign and his people to safeguard personal freedom of all citizens; proposed that all Frenchman have the right and the hope of securing any state office, and all military and ecclesiastical dignities; demanded the replacement of existing taxes by levies on all property without distinction as to owners; and finally asserted the sanctity of private property. It is very clear that cahiers were aimed to give effect to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Legislation and to Rousseau's Social Contract. In other words, the aim of the bourgeoisie was to put an end to the old political, economic and social order and to usher in a new order based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

How did it Take Place? The course of the Revolution can be seen in two periods, from 1789 to 1791 when France was ruled by the National Assembly, and from 1792 to 1795 when France was ruled by the National Convention. To begin with, the National Assembly introduced drastic reforms which sought to guarantee individual liberty, social equality and democratic nationalism. One such reform was the total abolition of feudalism. Henceforth, taxes were to be paid by all in proportion to their revenues, and all public expenses were to be borne equally by all. In addition, the clergy gave up its tithes, and the nobility surrendered its medieval rights. The Assembly made it a clean sweep by abolishing serfdom, forbidding the sale of justice or of judicial office, and throwing open the ecclesiastical, civil and military posts and dignities to all. It, thus, abolished feudalism with all its oppressive institutions. The National Assembly then made the Declaration of the Rights of Man which mirrored the political and economic attitudes of the bourgeoisie. It incorporated the key phrases of the philosophers—natural rights, general will, and separation of powers. Thus, the National Assembly reaffirmed the ideals of Enlightenment. Yet, as the subsequent history of the revolution soon demonstrated, the Assembly found no magic formula by which to implement these ideals.

The economic legislation of the National Assembly provided a case in point. The new and just land tax imposed by the Assembly simply could not be collected. Tax collectors had vanished in the general liquidation of the old regime, and the peasants were naive enough to think that they owed nothing to a government turned revolutionary. Once again, the French state borrowed until its credit was exhausted, and then, in desperation, the Assembly ordered the confiscation of Church lands explaining that ecclesiastical lands fell outside the bounds of 'inviolable' property as defined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man because they belong to an institution and not to private individuals. The government, thus, ac quired an asset worth at least two billion lire. On the basis of this collateral, it issued 'assignats'(paper notes used to pay the government's debts). The assignats had adequate security behind them and temporarily eased the financial crisis. Un fortunately, the Revolution did not know when to stop. As the state sold parcels of confiscated land, i.e., as it reduced the collateral securing its paper money, it should have destroyed assignats to the same amount. The temptation not to reduce the number of assignats proved too great to resist. Consequently, inflation set in. The assignats, progressively losing their solid backing, depreciated until in 1795, they were worth less than 5% of their face value.

This economic experiment resulted in the redistribution of some of the best farmland in France. Many peasants, mainly rich, enlarged their holdings by buying former ecclesiastical property; the poor and landless peasants gained nothing, since they did not have the money to buy. Following the doctrine of laissez-faire, the National Assembly made no move to help the marginal farmer. But it abolished the guilds and the irksome internal tariffs and tolls in order to benefit the bourgeoisie. Deeming the few primitive organisations of labour unnatural restraints on economic freedom, it abolished them too. In June, 1791, following an outbreak of strikes, it passed a law banning both strikes and labour unions.

Another major measure of the Assembly was passing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790). Since the suspension of the tithes and the seizure of the ecclesiastical property deprived the Church of its revenues, the Assembly agreed to finance ecclesiastical salaries. The new arrangement virtually nationalised the Gallican Church and made it subject to constant government regulation. It transformed bishops and priests into civil officials, paid by the state and elected by the population of the diocese or parish. A new bishop was required to take an oath of loyalty to the state. These provisions stripped the Pope of his effective authority over the Gallican clergy and ran counter to the tradition of the Roman Church as an independent ecclesiastical monarchy. Naturally, the Pope denounced the civil constitution. The National Assembly, after vain attempts at compromise, demanded that every member of the French clergy take a special oath supporting the civil constitution, but only a few complied. Good Catholics, from Louis XVI down to humble peasants, rallied to the non-juring clergy, those who refused the special oath. The civil constitution of the clergy was, thus, the first great blunder of the Revolution.

Next important step of the Assembly was its effort to put limited monarchy on a permanent footing, culminating in the Constitution of 1791. It devised a neat and orderly system of local government to replace the bewildering complex of provincial units. It divided the territory of France into 83 departments of approximately equal size. The departments were sub-divided into arrondisements or districts, and the districts into communes or municipalities. At each stage, elected councils and officials enjoyed considerable rights of self-government. Separation of powers was the guiding principle of reconstruction of the central government. The new constitution, while establishing an independent hierarchy of courts staffed by elected judges, vested legislative authority in a single elected chamber. In foreign policy, revolutionary France was to be more virtuous and less aggressive than autocratic France.

The new constitution was no doubt a great step in instituting popular government, but it stopped well short of full democracy. It divided French men into two classes of citizens, active and passive. It limited the right of voting to active citizens, who paid annually in taxes an amount equal to at least three days wages for labour in the locality. The passive citizens enjoyed full protection of the law but did not receive franchise. Moreover, the new legislature was chosen by a process of indirect election, in which the electors, chosen by ordinary active citizens, were required to be men of substantial wealth. Thus, the French middle class assumed, to their own advantage, that a certain amount of worldly goods was necessary for political wisdom.

The limited monarchy established by this constitution was, however, doomed to fail. It was too radical to suit the king and most of the aristocracy, and not radical enough for the good number of bourgeois who were veering toward republicanism. Majority in the assembly supporting the constitution suffered the fate commonly experienced by the politically moderate in a revolution. The middle-of-the roaders were squeezed out by the extremists known as the Jacobins. The latter were no true friends of the Constitution of 1791. They accepted it only as a stop-gap arrangement.

On the morning of 10th August 1792, the forces of the new Paris Commune stormed the royal palace. Though Louis XVI and the royal family found temporary safety with the newly elected legislative Assembly, August 10 events sounded the death-knell of monarchy. With most of the deputies of the Right (Constitutional Monarchists) and the Centre (Neutralists) absent, the Assembly, under the influence of the Left (Republicans), voted to suspend the king from office, to imprison the royal family, and to order the election of a constitutional convention.

The Revolution was carried further by the National Convention (1792–95). One of the most important acts of the Convention was the abolition of monarchy and the establishment of the first French Republic. Louis XVI was found guilty of treason and sentenced to the guillotine without delay. The Convention duly voted a democratic constitution (1793), granting universal manhood suffrage, and giving supermen power to a single legislative chamber. Due to the outbreak of the war with other European nations, the Convention postponed the operation of this Constitution of 1793 indefinitely, which always remained a dead letter.

When the Convention by the Edict of Fraternity, announced the readiness of the French to help people who wanted to overthrow the old regime in their countries, all the monarchies of Europe, taking it as an open challenge, declared war on France. The Prussian and Austrian rulers had already joined against France. The execution of Louis XVI and the growing violence in France excited public opinion in England against the Revolution. Therefore, the open aggressive attitude of the French drove Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Austria, Prussia and Sardinia into a coalition.

The Convention was faced at home with a more serious situation. Many of the provinces or departments rose against the Republic. Hence the Convention had to take serious steps against the internal and external enemies. A Committee of Public Safety, a kind of War Cabinet, and a Revolutionary Tribunal were set up, and real power passed into their hands. All those who were suspected of royalist tendencies were sent to the guillotine. Thus commenced the Reign of Terror, which became more terrible due to the factional fights among the Radicals.

In the midst of foreign war and internal dissension, the Convention made a sig nificant contribution not only to France but also to the whole of Europe. To begin with, the war-time hysteria inspired to a remarkable degree the feeling of Nation alism. In August 1793, the Convention decreed that during the war all Frenchmen, old and young, married and unmarried, are requisitioned for the services of the armies. The Committee of Public Safety promptly put these principles into oper ation. The army drafted all bachelors and widowers from 18 to 25. Hundreds of open air forges were installed in Paris to manufacture weapons. With this massive mobilisation, forces of the Republic succeeded in driving foreign troops off the French soil by the end of 1793.

The Convention's economic measures are equally significant. Total mobilisation required an approximate, if not absolute, equality of economic sacrifices. To tackle the twin problems of inflation and food shortage, the Convention issued maximum legislation, placing ceilings on prices and wages. Wages were fixed at a point 50% over the 1790 wage rate and prices at 33% above the 1790 price level. The government rationed scarce commodities, forbade the use of white flour, and directed all patriots to eat 'equality bread', a loaf utilising almost the whole of the wheat. Finally early in 1794, the Convention passed the 'Laws of Ventose' named after a month in the revolutionary calendar. These laws permitted the seizure of the remaining properties of the émigrés and other opponents of the Republic in order to distribute them among the landless Frenchmen.

The Convention during the Reign of Terror presented its most revolutionary aspect in its drastic social and cultural reforms. The Republic of virtue could tolerate nothing that smacked of the old Regime. The traditional forms of address, Monsieur and Madame, gave way to the newly orthodox Citoyen (Citizen) and Citoyenne. Ever since 1789, revolutionaries had discarded gowns and knee breeches as symbols of idleness and privilege. Good republican men were attired in the long baggy trousers of the humble peasant or workman. Women wore simple high waisted dresses, copied from the costumes of the ancient Romans. Rome became the model for behaviour to the virtuous of the Republic, of course, not the sordid Empire. Cabinet-makers, deserting the graceful style of Louis XVI, produced sturdy neo-classical furniture decorated with Roman symbols; playwrights, authors and editors who failed to ornament freedom properly, experienced censorship or even the guillotine. The many lively newspapers of the early revolution were reduced to a few dull semi-official organs.

The sweeping reform of the Calendar was a high in this meddling. September 22, 1792, the first day of the Republic, was designated as the initial day of year 1. Roman numerals were used for the year, and the traditional mythological names of the months were abandoned. Each month had 30 days, divided into 3 weeks of 10 days. Every 10th day was set aside for rest and for celebration of one of the vir tues so cherished by the Republicans. The new Calendar, for all its sanctimonious touches, was a worthy product of the Enlightenment. Yet, it naturally antagonised workmen, who disliked labouring 9 days out of 10, instead of 6 out of 7. It never really took root and Napoleon scrapped it a decade later.

The Convention had much better luck with another reform close to the spirit of the Age of Reason—the metric system. A special committee devised new weights and measures based on the uniform use of the decimal system rather than on confused and illogical custom. In August 1793, a decree made metre the standard unit of length, and supplementary legislation in 1795 established litre as the measure of volume and gram as the unit of weight.

However, the force of tradition proved too strong for the Convention. Nowhere was this more evident than in the attempts to legislate a new religion. Many churches of the old religion were forcibly closed and turned into barracks or administrative offices and their medieval glass and sculpture were destroyed. The Convention decreed in May 1794 that the French people recognise the existence of the Supreme Being and immortality of the soul. But the deistic concept of the Supreme Being was too artificial and remote to appeal to the religious emotions of French men.

The last great act of the Convention was the passage of the Constitution of 1795. The leaders of the Convention wanted both to remain Republic and to ensure the dominance of the propertied classes. The Constitution of 1795, therefore, denied right to vote to the poorest quarter of the nation and required that candidates for public office possess a considerable amount of property. It established a two-house legislature: a lower council of 500, and an upper council of elders, both to be elected piecemeal after the American practice of renewing one-third of the Senate every two years. Since age and marriage were thought to provide further guarantees of political stability, members of the lower council were required to be at least 30 years old and elders to be 40 and either married or widowed. The council of 500 nominated, and the elders chose, five directors who headed the executive. Otherwise the Directory was almost independent of the legislative councils.

This Constitution of 1795 marked the third great effort of the Revolution to provide France with an enduring government. It followed in part the American precedent of 1787, in part the French precedent of 1791 and above all precepts of Montesquieu. It embodied the separation of powers and deferred to the aristocracy of wealth though not to that of birth.

What were its Achivements? To begin with, feudalism was abolished in France. With this, feudal institutions all over Europe began to be rocked and it did not take them much time to disappear altogether. The annulment of feudal privileges was followed by the establishment of equality and liberty not only in France but also in the whole of Europe. Social equality came to be recognised and individual freedom was held most precious.

Political power changed hands from nobility to bourgeoisie. Due to the French example, political power shifted from aristocracy to industrial middle class in England also with the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832. The example of the middle class was followed by peasants and workers who began to fight for franchise not only in France but all over Europe.

The Revolution shook the hold of the Church over people. For the first time in the history of Europe, social life was made independent of priestly authority. Reason, but not faith, and philosophy but not theology, became the guides in all social and political activities. These developments opened a new and bright chapter in the history of religious toleration.

More importantly, individuals now came to be treated as an end in himself and life as the greatest of values. Consequently, there was all round interest and desire to promote the material and moral well-being of people. Many humanitarian movements were started with this object. The Methodist movement in England, the movements for the abolition of slavery, for the prohibition of child labour and reform of prisons all over the world did much in that direction.

Finally, the Revolution gave a great boost to Constitutionalism which had already begun in Great Britain and the USA. The French Revolution discredited the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings and established sovereignty. The so-called benevolent despotism also failed to satisfy the demands of the enlightened people of the 19th century. People realised that the interest of the king and those of the nation were not necessarily the same. Therefore, the idea that the entire nation should take part in the government, which should be the expression of national will, was firmly established. This tremendous intellectual stir manifested itself in a series of constitutional experiments and wrested constitutions which guaranteed the rights and liberties of the individual.

What were its Failures? What the French Revolution achieved was enormous, but what it did not achieve was no less so. For a long time, historians have shown how this Revolution, bourgeois in its principles and in its social impulses, did not improve the peasants lot. Though this vast, but confused mass of outcastes were excluded from real benefits of the Revolution, they did make themselves heard at least, brandishing their pitchforks. There were others, however, who did not have even that opportunity. Today they might be called the 'minorities'. Three of them were clearly identifiable during the revolutionary epoch—Jews, Blacks and women.

At the dawn of the Revolution, the Jews, living in France, were not French citizens. There were about 35,000 of them, divided into two very different communities. The Sephardics, who came from Spain after the expulsion of the Jews by the staunch Catholic kings in the 16th century, had settled either in Southwest France, or in the states belonging to the papacy. The other group, which was much larger in number, was the Ashkenazis who settled in Alsace and Lorraine along the German border. Curiously, the Sephardic Jews – and they alone, not the Ashkenazis – were among those who first elected the Estates-General in 1789, which marked the legal beginning of the Revolution.

For three full days in December 1789, the Constituent Assembly discussed the statute concerning the Jews. Here was proof that the problem existed, was well un derstood and was ripe for resolution. But the discussion ended abruptly. in January 1790, citizenship was granted to the Sephardic Jews, but not to the Ashkenazis who were undoubtedly the much larger group. On this point, traditional Catholic and Royalist law joined together with the radical Jacobins of the extreme left; the two camps united in common principle—the foreignness of this community which have not integrated linguistically. Finally in September 1791, the decree of the emancipation of French Jews was adopted. Anti-semitism as a mentality was, of course, far from being eradicated (as one saw during the Nazi occupation), but the judicial principle at least had been accepted.

The question of the Blacks was to have a more terrible fate. In 1788 itself, the So ciety of Friends of Blacks, with La Fayette, Condorcet, Mirabeau among its members, was founded. Thanks to an ardent propaganda campaign, they were able to fill 40 petition books, demanding the abolition of slavery. But was all this translated into action? Despite the abolition of slavery (late and fugitive though it was), the French planters in the colonies, the traders in the ports, the big merchants in the slave trade, would not let it put into practice. They managed to corrupt some of the greatest names of the Revolution. Then in 1791, a violent insurrection led by the black leader, Toussaint Lauverture, broke out in Saint Domingue, which put an end to these ardent abolitionist desires.

Who, in France, has heard of the 'Code Noir' (the Black Code)? Promulgated in 1685 under Louis XIV, this notorious text regulated the fate of slaves in the French colonies. During the Revolution, not a word was said about the Code Noir neither by Montesquieu nor by Rousseau, even though it was available in bookshops. In 1794, slavery was abolished, but not Code Noir. In 1802 when France was back in its territories in the West Indies, the Code Noir was still there. It was not until 1848, and the work of Victor Schoelcher (The French politician who fought for abolition of slavery) for slavery to finally disappear not only in principle but in spirit and practice.

What about the status of women? The guillotine was a great devourer of feminine heads, beginning with that of the queen. Madame Roland, the Gerondin, who mounted the scaffold crying, 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!' is no less famous. Others have been a bit too well forgotten, those great fiery heroines of the Revolution who have been so carefully and deliberately excluded by the male revolutionaries.

Very little was, in fact, done for women's rights during the Revolution, compared to what they wanted. During the 1870 Commune women again took active part, but it was not until the 20th century that the question of women's rights began to be tackled. The strong patriarchal aspect of the French Revolution, its absolute male domination, prevented it from perceiving the injustices it did to the women, all of them reduced to the same level of animality, emotionalism and stupidity as it was said of the Blacks.

The Jews were the first to the liberated (1791); the Blacks knew how to revolt (1848). Women, who defined themselves as a 'black continent' drawing inspiration from the revolts of the Negroes, had to wait till the 20th century to liberate themselves. Even then, their struggle was not yet over.

As a modern historian of the French Revolution said, the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 had its audacities but also its limits. The Revolution was a Revolution of Anticipations; it certainly anticipated the decree of 1794 on the abolition of slavery; it anticipated that the emancipation of women would battle its way with much difficulty, but, it is only logical that an event that caused such an upheaval of the established order would have its blind spots.

Why did it Happen in France First? The reason why France was the first country on the continent of Europe to do away with the survivals of feudalism was not that the French people were oppressed above all others. Much has been written on the misery of the French peasants of the period. Carlyle in his picturesque way has said that one-third of them had nothing but third-rate potatoes to eat for one-third of the year. However, two shrewd observers, Arthur Young (English) and Thomas Jefferson (American), who travelled in France just prior to the revolution, were somewhat differently impressed. Young, for instance, admitted that the government of France was 'the mildest government of any considerable country in Europe, our own excepted'. Jefferson, expecting to find physical discomfort and misery among the peasants, found a degree of prosperity and contentment which amazed him. He certainly gave an impression of people who have reached a state of desperation that they can bear their burdens no longer. Undoubtedly, the French peasants had various inconveniences and restrictions to endure, which might easily develop into flagrant abuses. The last relics of serfdom, for instance, had not yet disappeared from their lives. With all these things, French peasants were much better than the peasants of Prussia, Russia, Austria, Italy or Spain.

The real reason was that the French people were sufficiently enlightened to realise the evils and absurdities of the system of government under which they suffered. The writings of Voltaire and Encyclopaedists had been widely read and their teachings accepted with enthusiasm, so that there was a general disposition to regard kings and lords as oppressors who had no real right to the tyrannical powers which they claimed. Thus in the case of France, as in the case of Russia later, we have a strong and determined minority imposing their will upon a majority who had been oppressed for centuries, and who were therefore in the best mood to accept changes which might improve and which, they believed, could hardly make worse their material conditions. They apprehended nothing but ultimate good for the forcible destruction of systems which exalted dynastic interests at the expense of the general interests of the community.

Napoleonic Era (1795–1815)

Napoleon won fame as a brilliantly successful general in Italy and used his reputation and popularity to overthrow the Directory. He governed France as First Counsel from 1799 to 1804 and as Emperor from 1804 to 1814. Two features of his 15 years rule of France are noteworthy for our purpose—his domestic reforms—which consolidated the gains of the revolution and his military campaigns, which provoked a nationalist reaction in neighbouring countries and eventually brought about his downfall.

So far as domestic policies are concerned, Napoleon may be compared to the enlightened despots. He was interested in technical efficiency rather than abstract ideas. He ruled the country autocratically but efficiently. He codified the laws, centralised the administration, organised a system of national education, established the Bank of France, and reached an agreement with the Papacy concerning Churchstate relations in France. These solid achievements of Napoleon made him popular. There were diehards who hankered for the restoration of the old regime or who thought that Napoleon had betrayed the revolution. The majority hailed him for ending the disturbance and instituting an honest and energetic government.

Napoleon squandered this goodwill by waging war unceasingly. Since he was a military genius, he was fabulously successful. By 1810, he reached the height of his fortunes. He extended Frances' frontiers across the Rhine to Lubeck and across the Alps to Rome. The rest of Europe consisted of dependent satellites or allies. Britain alone remained independent and implacably hostile.

In all his conquered territories, Napoleon put into practice some of the basic principles of the French Revolution. He abolished feudalism and serfdom, recognised equality of all citizens, and instituted his famous law codes. These innovations disturbed and alienated vested interests everywhere, but there was also widespread support for them in many quarters. The bourgeoisie and many intellectuals responded favourably to them, but it was foreign rule and that, where necessary, it was imposed by force. Napoleon's non- French subjects eventually grew tired of the requisitioning, the taxes, the conscription, and the wars and rumours of wars. French rule usually meant a higher quality of administration, but the time came when people were more impressed by the Frenchness of the administration than by its quality.

In other words, people had become nationalistic, and their nationalism had developed as a movement of resistance against Napoleon's domination. This explains the unrest in Italy, the armed resistance in Spain, and the growing national unity in Germany. Most fatal for Napoleon was the bitter resistance of Russians of all classes when he invaded that country in 1812. Resistance, as much as ice and snow, was responsible for the catastrophic destruction of his Grand Army. From the frozen plains of Russia, the course of Napoleon's career ended precipitously and inevitably on the island of Elba. Thus the ideology of the French Revolution backfired upon its originators. The people Napoleon had offended were people who had first been awakened and enthused by the slogan Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. They had turned against their teacher when the very principles he had espoused were betrayed by him.

The Congress of Vienna, which met from September 1814 to June 1815 to redraw the map of Europe after Napoleon's downfall, was guided by three principles, viz., legitimacy, containment and compensation. By the principle of legitimacy, the monarchs of France, Spain, Holland and Italy were resorted to their thrones. By the principle of containment, the states bordering France were made as strong as possible. Holland was given Belgium; Austria received Lombardy and Venetia, and Prussia received lands along the Rhine as well as part of Saxony. The victorious allies compensated themselves by taking various territories-Norway went to Sweden; Malta, Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope to Britain; Finland, Bessarabia and most of Poland to Russia, and Dalmatia and Galicia to Austria.

What were the Reasons for Napoleon's Rise to Power? The execution of Robespierre in July, 1974 marked the end of the swing of political pendulum in France towards the left. The Directory marked the beginning of a swing back to the right, which culminated in the Napoleonic Empire. The Directory (1795–99) was a bourgeois government, established with the undeclared aim of preventing the return of either monarchy or anarchy. Two conditions made short work of the Directory: the mediocre individuals in charge of government and the threat of invasion of French territory by foreign powers. Once the revolutionary wave subsided, people desired security, workers wanted employment and a living wage, farmers wanted land and end of disorder, businessmen wanted peace, and militarists wanted war. The Directory tried in vain to satisfy all these interests. In the midst of outbreaks, a royalist and conservative uprising occurred in Paris in October 1795, which was put down by government troops commanded by young Napoleon Bonaparte.

Financial troubles offered incalculable difficulties. Shortage of income and mounting indebtedness furnished an instant nightmare. The Directory desired peace, but the annexation of Belgian provinces (1795) made war with England inevitable.

How did he Rise to Power? Although he took no active part in the revolution, through the influence of Barras (one of the Directors), Napoleon became influential in the government. He was extremely popular with the people because of his military victories and, at the age of 26, was given command of an Italian expedition, which he led successfully. He then induced the Directors to equip an expedition to be sent to Egypt, with the aim of crippling English commerce. From a military point of view, the expedition was a failure, but Napoleon managed to return to France, leaving his army behind him. He blamed the Directory for his failure and called for the abolition of the government. The people willingly gave their consent. A new government was formed, with General Bonaparte as the First Consul, and a thinly veiled dictatorship was established.

The government of the Consulate was a fragile system which gave Napoleon an opportunity to do as he pleased under the guise of constitutionality. The Constitution, drawn up with the aid of the legislative commission and the sieyes, was ratified by the French with only 1,500 dissenting votes. Napoleon, as First Consul, presided over the most important body, called the Council of States. Local government officials were appointed by him. This centralised the power to a greater degree than had been the case under the Bourbons. Napoleon soon dismissed the routine matter of reorganising the government and turned to his profession of a soldier.

Austria was humiliated and compelled to surrender at Luneville. Napoleon negotiated a treaty with England (Amiens 1802). For the first time in 109 years, Europe was at peace. He took advantage of peace to carry out the much needed reforms. He consolidated his power at home, bringing under his control the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the government. Law, education, public works and, above all, the army were developed under his guidance. An imperialist at heart, Napoleon planned a great colonial empire. The Louisiana territory west of the Mississippi river in America was acquired in 1800. He gained control of Haiti, and he sent agents to the Far East and India to draw up plans for military conquest. Every one of these projects failed. In 1803, Napoleon sold Louisiana to the USA and began the task of subduing Europe. One of his first steps in this direction was to make himself Emperor of France (1804). Boastfully, he announced, 'I found the crown of France on the ground and I picked it up with my sword'.

He tried to revive the dignity of the old empire. Rules of etiquette, similar to those in force before the revolution, were established: titles, honours and pensions were restored, and members of the Bonaparte family were raised to the rank of royalty. This last act aroused the ire of European royalty, partly because they feared Napoleon and partly because they considered it an insult to hereditary royalty.

Napoleon recognised England as his most formidable opponent. He conquered continental european powers, but England remained invincible. Russians, Prussians and Austrians fell before his well-directed military campaigns. He tried unsuccessfully to cripple England by blockading continental ports. Unfortunately, his control over Europe finally dwindled. He could conquer kings and inefficient armies, but when people began to rebel against him he was helpless. He was defeated in Russia in 1812, and the Allies closed in on France.

England, in alliance with Austria, Russia and Prussia declared war on Napoleon, and they defeated him in the Battle of Leipzig, also known as the Battle of Nations in 1813. Napoleon was forced to abdicate and was sent into exile on the island of Elba, a few miles off the Italian coast in 1814. However, escaping after a few months, he returned to France on 1st March 1815 and for a 'Hundred Days' he subjected Europe to turmoil. At Waterloo, on 18th June 1815, he received a crushing blow and this time under the supervision of the English, he was sent to St. Helena in the Atlantic. Here he spent his final days, dreaming and writing his memoirs and breathed his last on 5th March 1821.

Why did he Fail? The Napoleonic system had too many shortcomings. Typical of dictatorships, it depended too much on one man. The whole system centred on him, but the innumerable tasks of the empire were beyond the control of even a superhuman. Napoleon's system was militaristic, and warfare and conquest cannot be continued indefinitely. While the French people soon lost their enthusiasm, the opposing forces were able to strengthen their resistance gradually. Moreover, Napoleon wore himself out. As early as 1812, the year of his first important military reverses, his health was beginning to fail. Napoleon had taught Europe the art of warfare; repeated reverses led opponents to adopt his tactics. At the close of the 18th Century, the armies of most of the European countries were poorly trained, inadequately equipped, and unintelligently generaled. In 1814, Napoleon faced welltrained armies led by outstanding generals such as the Duke of Wellington, who had been trained in the school of bitter defeat at his very hands.

Napoleon subjugated several countries and his empire was based on force. The people of the conquered countries had no say, whatsoever, in their own administration. He did away with their rulers without much fanfare and placed his own relatives on the thrones of these territories. He deprived them of their freedom, personal as well as national. All these acts hurt their national self-respect and pride, and hence they began to hate foreign rule. Thus, his unjust and tyrannical rule awakened the feeling of nationalism in the conquered territories and inspired them to rise against Napoleon and put an end to his power.

The English navy was much superior to that of the French. Lord Nelson inflicted a crushing defeat on Napoleon and smashed his naval power. Napoleon organised a large army to invade England, but the British navy and the English Channel stood in his way. Besides, England was the most industrialised and the richest country of Europe at that time. As a result, England was able to organise four coalitions, one after another, against France with the help of European countries. She helped them with men, money and materials and ultimately succeeded in defeating Napoleon.

Napoleon was wise enough to realise that England was his main obstacle. However, in the absence of a powerful navy, he could not overcome it. However, he knew that England's trade was the source of her strength, and so in order to ruin her trade, he introduced the 'continental system'. It was his greatest blunder and ultimately it proved to be his undoing. He could not enforce this system for the same old reason, viz., lack of powerful navy. He compelled the subjugated states to accept it; in the process ruining their trade and commerce. It led to inflation and added to the sufferings of the people of Europe. Consequently, the Continental countries began to defy this system, and that hastened his decline. It had been rightly remarked: 'The continental system of Napoleon was the principal tragedy in the drama of his fall'.

Napoleon for instance, wanted to enforce the Continental System in Spain and Portugal. When they refused to oblige him, napoleon declared war against them. He forced the king of Spain to abdicate and installed his brother on the throne of Spain. Such a policy led to a great national upsurge in Spain against Napoleon. Consequently, he was involved in the Peninsular War for a long time and it proved suicidal for him. Napoleon himself once said: 'It was the Spanish ulcer that ruined me'.

Since Russia also rejected the Continental System due to economic reasons, Napoleon invaded her with a large army in 1812. Instead of fighting, the Czar adopted the strategy of retreating and destroying crops, villages and towns so that the enemy might not take advantage of them. Consequently, thousands of French soldiers were killed by hunger, exhaustion, severe winter, rain and snow. Napoleon was thus forced to retreat. The Moscow campaign also proved suicidal and, in fact, was one of the major causes of his downfall.

What was its Impact? Napoleon preserved and popularised several of the important theories and ideals of the French Revolution. He spread the ideas of the revolution wherever his armies conquered. While he saw the dangers of doing this, he also saw the advantages that it gave him over his foes, not realising that in the end it would mean his own downfall. He recognised distinction not of class but of meritorious service regardless of birth or religion. Though he was tyrannical, he always emphasised the fact that he ruled by the express will of the people. Every advancement of his power in France was submitted to the people for their affirmation before the final step was taken. If Napoleon, or someone equally capable, had not assumed leadership in France when he did, the French Revolution might have been stamped out by the autocratic powers with the complete suppression of its ideals in France as in Europe.

Modern nationalism got an impetus during the Napoleonic period. In fact, Napoleon's rise to power was itself partly due to this growing spirit. It also accounted for the impassioned support that the French people gave him after his rise to power and, ironically, its spread among other people was responsible for his defeat. Old governments took a new lease on life and new ones were founded on the firm foundation of nationalism. Napoleon carried the nationalistic spirit into Germany and Italy where no unity had existed before his arrival. England, Spain, Austria and to a lesser degree Russia were united in spirit and motive because Napoleon threatened their very existence.

Napoleonic era witnessed many important changes in the polity. A new regime, for instance, was introduced. In contrast to the ancient regime, the new government was based on the doctrine of popular sovereignty and was supported by a national army. It introduced a national school system and a parliament that represented the citizen body instead of the classes. General acceptance of these principles was not immediate but progress in their direction had been steady.

The legal reforms contained in the 'Code Napoleon' were the most constructive of the Napoleonic era. France had been for a long time in need of a new system of law—one that would be uniform and definite. Napoleon completed the task of codifying the laws. A civil code; a code of civil procedure, a code of criminal procedure, a penal code and a commercial code were completed. He preserved, not only for France but also for much of Europe and part of America, the chief fruits of the revolution, viz., civil liberty, religious tolerance, emancipation of serfs, and trial by jury. A woman's position was made inferior to that of a man and harsh punishments were tolerated. In spite of these defects, Code Napoleon ranks with Justinian Code as one of the greatest legal documents in history. Its significance is well brought out by Napoleon himself when he said: 'My real glory is not having won 40 battles. What will never be effaced, what will endure for ever is my Civil Code'.

Napoleon strove to find a solution to the religious strife in France. The French Revolution suppressed the Church and confiscated its property. But Napoleon saw the value of the Church. 'If there had not been a Roman Catholic Church, I would have had to create one', he remarked. By a concord in 1801, the Pope agreed to consent to the confiscation of Church property in France and to have the clergy paid by the state while Napoleon agreed that bishops should be invested with spiritual power and symbols of their office by the Pope and that the priests should be appointed by the bishops with the approval of the government. Besides, though Catholicism was recognised as the religion of majority of Frenchmen, they were not forced to confirm with it unless they personally desired to do so. Similar favours were accorded to Protestant Churches and to Jewish synagogues. This was a long step towards official religious toleration.

Financial difficulties had been responsible for most of the political changes in France before Napoleon came to power. This condition he had to remedy and, at the same time, raise enough money to finance his expensive wars. To begin with, he was able to win the confidence of the prosperous middle class. Moreover, he encouraged trade and industrial expansion by offering prizes for mechanical inventions. Noticeable industrial progress had been made till 1812. A national bank was created in 1800, taxation was adjusted so that the burden was placed on those best able to pay, and national debt was stabilised. Napoleon was merciless in the punishment of those guilty of corruption and was careful to maintain an efficient and economic fiscal system. The plan worked very well, until the Empire began to collapse. Faced with defeat, he had to resort to indirect taxes. However, many of his reforms were continued by the subsequent governments.

A number of public works were undertaken regardless of the almost incessant warfare. Napoleon took great interest in the beautification of the cities as well as in the construction of great projects to promote economic activity. More than one billion francs were spent on public works between 1804 and 1813. The famous city of Paris, with its wide, tree-lined boulevards, its monuments and fine buildings, bears testimony to his contribution. He laid military roads across France to Belgium and to the Rhine and across the Alps into Switzerland. He built bridges, of which, the Austerlitz and the Jena across the Seine are most famous. Napoleon himself planned the Bourse (stock exchange) and the Church of Madeleine in Paris.

The field of education did not escape his attention. He sought to discipline the minds and consciences of the French. He believed that an educational process was the only certain way of bringing people around to his way of thinking. 'Good methods make good minds, good principles make good citizens' and this he believed could be accomplished only through a rigidly controlled state system of schools. Napoleon was keen to remove Church influence on the schools. 'The recall of the Jesuits, I will not permit', he declared. To him, education was to be used for political ends; not for free thinking, but for glorification of principle. The Imperial University was established in 1808. It was not a university in the general sense, but an entire system of education, including everything from elementary schools to institutions of higher learning. Fidelity to the Emperor was the basis of all instruction. The educational system established by Napoleon, obviously, was not the ideal type. Yet, two important things in educational progress were accomplished: state-sponsored schools were opened to all citizens, and the principles of lay education were perpetuated.

Napoleon's service to Europe and the world were, thus, in no way less important than his services to France. His empire in Europe did not last long, but it had far reaching effects on France as well as on many countries of Europe. He swept away the old regime and old institutions and practices from the conquered territories. He established new political order and organised society on the principle of equality. He carried the revolutionary ideals to other countries of Europe. He put an end to feudalism, serfdom and class distinction in these countries. The Code Napoleon was recognised not only in France but in other countries of Europe as well. Even these days, this code is prevalent in France and with some modifications in Italy, Holland, Belgium and Germany. When the French soldiers went to fight in other European countries, they carried with them the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity and laid the foundation of nationalism there. Finally, the credit of paving the way of unification of Italy and Germany, to some extent, goes to Napoleon. Thus, it may not be improper on our part to agree with Hayes who says, 'Thanks to the events of the Napoleonic Era, the revolution, which originally had been French, was becoming European'.

What is the Controversy about Napoleon? Few individuals in history have inspired such passionate debate as Napoleon. In part, this controversy is a result of his meteoric rise to the heights of power and his string of military conquests. In part, it is a consequence of the charismatic quality of his leadership. He combined personal dynamism and charm, which created faith in masses of followers and enabled him to dominate many with whom he came into contact. The debate is also related to difficulties separating the myth of Napoleon from the reality of Napoleon. Finally, all sides of the debate can find some support in the varied, contradictory legacy of Napoleon's intentions and deeds. Therefore, it is not surprising that historians have bitterly disagreed over how to characterise Napoleon.

Many historians argue that Napoleon was fundamentally a dictator. They point to the methods he used to acquire power—the fame associated with military prowess, the coup d'etat, and the plebiscite that seemed to affirm democratically his power without offering a real choice—as methods typical of modern dictators. They also point to his actions after acquiring power—crowning himself emperor, eliminating freedom of speech and press, removing the substance from representative institutions, initiating a systematic crackdown on political opponents, and creating a secret police — as characteristic of military dictatorships. Other historians, see him as a preserver of the revolution. They stress his familiarity with Enlightenment ideas and his early support of the French Revolution. They point out that Napoleon did affirm the end of feudalism, the overthrow of old aristocracy, establishment of equality before the law for men, and the rights of property. They also argue that his most important service may have been in spreading the ideas and institutions of the revolution beyond France's borders — in particular, the rejection of aristocratic privilege and the spread of the Napoleonic Code. In short, Napoleon affirmed the fundamental reforms of the early French Revolution, institutionalised them, and then helped spread them elsewhere in Europe.

Still other historians argue that Napoleon is best viewed as the last in a line of 18th century enlightened despots. They point out that like other enlightened despots, such as Frederick the Great of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria, Napoleon was most interested in maximising political and military power of the state. Like them, he saw that to do so required centralising and rationalising the government, improving finances, codifying laws, and supporting the armed forces.

He shared their tendency to make religious concerns secondary to political unity and to gain support through the creation of educational institutions. Thus from an 18th century perspective, Napoleon is recognisable as an enlightened despot.

Many historians argue that individual leaders themselves, even as extraordinary as Napoleon, do not decisively affect history's mainstream. More important are the forces, circumstances, and people that surround them. Other historians maintain that individuals, above all, rare charismatic leaders such as Napoleon, can have significant historical consequences.

Which of these interpretations best fits the historical record depends greatly on the perspective of the viewer and on what aspects of Napoleon's personality and rule are emphasised. At the same time, how much can be attributed to the actions of any historical figure must be kept in mind in deciding exactly the role of Napoleon.

What is the Importance of Congress of Vienna? The overthrow of Napoleon in 1815 brought an end, in Europe at least, to the heroic and tumultuous epoch that had begun in 1789 with the meeting of the Estates General. The intervening 26 years had been filled with great expectation, experimentation, turmoil, and war. Now there was disillusionment and weariness. The European royalty and aristocracy, at long last triumphant over revolutionary France, were determined to put an end not only to the Mirabeaus, Robespierres, and Napoleons but also to the ideas of the Enlightenment.

The returning holders of power – monarchs, aristocrats, established Christian Churches, and the elite of the governmental and military bureaucracies – generally subscribed to a conservatism that was dominant between 1815 and 1830 and that would remain a powerful force throughout the 19th century. Conservatives tended to believe that a hierarchical Christian society authoritatively guided by traditional monarchs, aristocrats, and clergy was time tested and best.

Edmund Burke (1729–1797), Great Britain's most influential conservative thinker, and conservatives, in general, rejected the abstract rationalism of the Enlightenment and reforms of the French Revolution. Any rapid change was suspect, and the attempt by the middle class to grasp political power was a presumptuous act by individuals who simply did not know how to rule. For conservatives, the experience of the French Revolution was a lesson in what to avoid.

In order to achieve their conservative goals, to redraw territorial boundaries and to establish lasting stability in Europe, the leaders of the victorious powers gathered at the Austrian capital of Vienna in the autumn of 1814. To this conference, representatives flocked of every state in Europe, hundreds of dispossessed princes, agents of every conceivable interest, and adventurers.

The Congress of Vienna was dominated by four major victors over Napoleon. Great Britain was represented by her able foreign minister, Lord Castlereagh. Prussia's mediocre king, Frederick William III, headed his own delegation, as did Russia's tsar, the idealistic young Alexander I. Austria's emperor, Francis I, played host to the assembled great. However, the real leader of the Austrian delegation – and, indeed, the dominant figure of the whole congress – was the Austrian chancellor, Prince Klemens von Metternich. As guiding principles on which to base their decisions, the conferees decided on 'legitimacy' and 'stability.' By legitimacy, they meant that in the redistribution of various territories, attention would be paid not to the desires or interests of the people concerned but to the claims of the victorious – former and future sovereigns. By stability they meant establishing and maintaining a balance of power within Europe, with particular focus on restraining France. Many of the decisions formalised at Vienna had already been made by the four major powers shortly before and after Napoleon's overthrow in April 1814.

Thanks of the clever and able Talleyrand, France, the cause of all the turmoil, got off lightly. Prussia would have severely punished and weakened France, but her three major colleagues were fearful of up-setting the balance of power. Already saddled with the restored Bourbons, France was merely reduced to almost the same boundaries it had before the wars of the revolutionary era. The Congress of Vienna had originally imposed no indemnity on France. However, due to Napoleon's return from Elba in the midst of the congress and his hundred-day fling that ended at Waterloo, the four great powers compelled France to cede the Saar Basin to Prussia, to pay an indemnity of 700 million francs, and to return the art treasures stolen by Napoleon from various galleries of Europe. Allied forces were to occupy France until the indemnity was paid. To contain France within its frontiers and to discourage future French aggression, Prussia was given a sizable block of territory along the Rhine, the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium) was annexed to the Dutch Netherlands, and Piedmont was enlarged by the annexation of the city-state of Genoa.

The main powers, taking advantage of political changes that had occurred over the previous 26 years and trading among themselves, received new territories. Great Britain gained several strategic islands and colonies, increasing her sea power and overseas dominance. Prussia added some areas in central Europe that made it more homogeneously German and Western. However, the Rhineland territory was not contiguous to the Prussian homeland—a situation that invited further aggression. Russia's acquisition of Polish territory made the great majority of the Polish-speaking people subjects of Russia and brought Russia farther into the heart of central Europe. Austria, in exchange for the Belgian Netherlands, took the two rich Italian provinces of Lombardy and Venetia. Its pre-eminence in Italy, together with the presidency over the German confederation, made Austria the dominant power in Central Europe. The Holy Roman Empire, which Napoleon had destroyed, was not restored, but in its place the weak German confederation under the permanent presidency of Austria was erected. Napoleon's consolidation of the more than 300 German states into 39 was allowed to stand, bringing the German people much more political unity.

The Congress of Vienna has been both admired and criticised by observers ever since 1815. Critics point out that people and territories of Europe were moved about by the great powers at Vienna like pawns on a chessboard, in complete disregard for the wishes of the people or for the spirit of nationalism that was now an increasingly virile force. Instead of trying to deal constructively with the budding forces of liberalism and nationalism, the great powers tried to ignore or repress them. Admirers point out that the Vienna settlement was not vindictive toward France and did establish a reasonable balance of power, both of which contributed to a century of freedom from European-wide war. While one may not agree with the conservative goals of the conferees, a settlement was achieved at Vienna and at least temporarily maintained in succeeding years.

American Civil War (1861–65)

In the ultimate sense, the roots of American Civil War lie in the rivalry between the agricultural slave-owning South and industrial, non-slave North. The immediate cause was the attempt by Lincoln to maintain an isolated Federal garrison at Fort Sumter in South Carolina despite the decision of South Carolina and other six Southern states to secede from the American Union rather than accept a President nominated by an anti-slavery party. Troops representing the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and Lincoln called for volunteers to suppress the insurrection. Four more border states in the South seceded. Military operations began in June 1861. The union had all the advantages; an organised government, twice the man power of the South, command of the seas and industry; but not until the twin defeats of Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863 did the confederates begin to falter. Throughout 1861 and 1862, Jackson and Lee of the Confederacy proved themselves superior commanders, but the emergence of Grant and Sherman as Union Generals and the cumulative effect of naval blockade wore down the Confederates. With the Southern Armies divided and weakened by mass desertions, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

There were some 6.2 lakh deaths on both sides. Since Lincoln had emancipated the slaves on January 1, 1863, defeat of the Confederacy meant a social revolution for the South. After Lincoln's assassination (April 14, 1865), the defeated states were politically exploited by a group of 'radical Republicans' who treated South as conquered territory. By their unscrupulous exercise of one-party rule, enforced by military authority, they perpetuated the bitterness between North and South. This period of Black Reconstruction continued until the withdrawal of the last Federal troops from Louisiana and South Carolina in April 1877.

What was the Averican Civil War? It was the struggle between the 23 Northern states (the Union) and 11 Southern states that broke away from the Union and were organised into the Confederate States of America. In the South, the Civil War was often referred to as the War between the States. But it was called the War of the Rebellion and the War of Secession in the North.

The firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was the climax of a sectional divide that had been broadening for decades. Robert Lee's surrender to general Ulysses S. Grant in April 1865 brought the war to an end. It left behind a trail of hostility which extended even after the period of Reconstruction and the re-entry of the rebellious states into the Union.

Both in terms of lives and money, the war proved to be a costly affair. After the war, the South lay in waste. It also provided an example for the victory of a strong federal government over the champions of states' rights, enabled the abolition of slavery, and gave an impetus to American industrial development.

Why did it Take Place? The main characteristic of the 19th century America was the sectional discord which was prevalent ever since the birth of the republic and which finally led to the civil war. The discord revolved around the economic antagonism between the Northern and Southern states till 1845, and thereafter slavery transcended all other issues and precipitated the war.

Ever since the birth of the Republic, the North and the South evolved different economic interests which resulted in the political conflicts. The root of the rift was that the South was primarily agricultural and the North was becoming increasingly industrial. It was a struggle between plantation economy and rising individual capitalist economy first making itself manifest on the issue of tariff.

The South was in favour of only a nominal tariff for revenue purpose and was opposed to federal expenditure on internal improvements, to a centralised banking and to the growth of big industrial corporations. The North, being a centre of capitalist industry and finance, preferred a protective tariff, federal aid in the development of transactions and a banking system controlled by the North Eastern Creditor's interest, and looked forward to the organisation of the whole national economy by big corporations which they controlled.

Southern agriculture, based on cotton and slavery, needed fresh lands for rapid expansion. The Northern manufacturers, on the other hand, desired a more concentrated property and, hence, were against smaller and restricted sales at higher prices.

The system that was resented most by the South was a costly system through which it purchased her manufacturing commodities. There was hardly any direct trade between the South and Europe. A large percentage of Southern cotton was shipped to New York and from there to Europe. The European finished goods and other imports were first brought to the Northern ports and later distributed in the South through the coastal trade. This Cotton triangle caused resentment among the Southerners since it made South to incur higher transaction costs and resulted in extra income to the middlemen of the North.

In addition to the economic causes, social and moral issues were responsible for the civil war. Among them the institution of slavery, having economic undertones, was undoubtedly the most crucial one. While majority of the Southerners held that slavery was a positive practise that needed the full protection of the federal government, a good number of Northerners argued that it was an evil and a national disgrace.

The polarisation of attitude towards slavery did not become serious till the rise of the abolitionist movements. Societies for its abolition had been growing in number since 1815. Northerners began to attack slavery in militant terms insisting that it was contrary to both Christian and American ideals. New England, especially Boston, was one of the nucleuses of this movement. Some of them refused to participate in ordinary political activity under the constitution on the ground that by associating with the Southern states the North would become sinful. The fugitive slaves received full support from the Northern states and it became a major complaint of Southerners who demanded the intervention of the federal government. According to them, the Abolitionist movement was an unnecessary interference with South's peculiar institution. Slave owners became furious at being branded as criminals and failed to grasp that only a small number of Northerners supported the Abolitionists. Even more important cause for Southern fury was their fear that abolitionist propaganda might reach the slaves and result in their uprising.

Since 1848, the main issue of discord between the North and the South was whether slavery should be allowed to permeate to new territories. From the 1830s, with Westward expansion, exodus of agriculture towards the West and creation of the market for agrarian produce in industrialising North, there had been a close link in relations between the North, the South and the West. Due to growing communications and better transport links with the North, the Western Southerners openly voiced their dislike for the expanding slave system against their successful family labour system and supported the North in newly occupied territories in the West.

With the new territories (viz. New Mexico, Utah, California and Oregon) joining the Union in 1848, North and South clashed on the issue that whether the new territories should be salvestates or freestanding. A compromise in 1850 by Henry Clay was formulated, which admitted California as a free-state and also provided for a severe slave act. In rest of the areas, it was suggested that territorial government be set up without any restrictions on slavery. The compromise did not solve the problem. It simply postponed the imminent crisis.

The peace that followed the compromise of 1850 disappeared in 1854, when Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Abolishing the earlier acts and leaving the question of slavery in those territories to be decided by the inhabitants, this Act aroused passions. A guerrilla war followed in Kansas with grave offences perpetuated by both pro-slave 'border ruffians' and anti-slave Northern supported fanatics. Thus, by the 1850s, the issues which drifted North and South from each other had become emotionalised.

By 1860, the lower South (consisting of the seven states of South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas) was determined to break away from the Union, if a Black Republican (meaning a Republican candidate supporting abolitionist movement) was elected President. The return of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Presidential elections was the last straw for the lower South to split the Union.

South Carolina issued an 'ordinance of secession' and prepared for war. The other six states of the lower South quickly followed her, and a convention met at Montgomery in Alabama, elected Jefferson Davis as the President of the 'Confederate States of America' and adopted a constitution openly supporting the institution of 'Negro slavery'.

The lower South was shortly joined by the upper South (consisting of the four states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas), thus taking the total figure of the rebellious states to 11.

How did it Take Place? It was fought by improvised armies whose numbers increased steadily from a few thousands to hundreds of thousands, until at last the Federal forces crossed one million mark. The battle ground was a great mass of land between New Mexico and the Eastern Sea. Washington and Richmond were the main targets.

The Confederates, outnumbered and much less endowed in resources, fought under a general of supreme ability, General Lee. But the general ship of the Union was far inferior. Generals were frequently replaced until finally under Generals Sherman and Grant victory came over the exhausted and ruined South.

Expansion of the USA in the 19th Century

In October 1864, a federal army led by Sherman penetrated the Confederate left and charged from Tennessee through Georgia to the coast, right across the Confederate country, and then passing through the Carolinas, came from behind the Confederate armies. Meanwhile, Grant engaged Lee at Richmond until Sherman surrounded him. On 9th April 1865, Lee and his men laid down arms, and within a month all the remaining secessionist armies had capitulated and the confederacy came to on end.

What was its Outcome? Having similar background and nurtured in similar political, social and economic institutions, the North and the South reacted in like manner to the crisis of the civil war. With almost identical governments, the Union and the Confederacy each had to consider as to how far it could respect civil liberties for dissenters and rights for states.

Both sides suffered heavy causalities. Federal armies suffered about 6.35 lakh causalities, out of which the break up was 3.6 lakh dead and 2.65 lakh wounded. Confederate forces suffered 4.83 lakh causalities—2.58 lakh dead and 2.25 lakh wounded, and many particularly in the South, suffered material loss also.

Scarcity of manpower led the North as well as the South to utilise Negroes and, consequently, moved towards the gradual rooting out of slavery.

In spite of the marked economic difference between the North and the South, both sides issued paper money to meet obligations; both initially bought supplies in Europe and converted existing industrial facilities and developed new ones to meet emergency demands.

Although identical problems prompted identical solutions, South was less adept at executing these solutions than the North. South's attachment to a traditional society, states' rights, slavery and agrarianism hindered its capacity to change its political, social and economic structure sufficiently to meet the exigency.

The civil war clearly relegated the rights of states behind the rights of the nation, did away with slavery, smashed the South's economic and political power, organised Northern industry, and left a trail of animosity and intolerance.

Sacrifice and victory in a righteous cause saved the North from past and future failures, and left it alive to Southern failure to integrate, but unmindful to the ghettos of Chicago or New York.

Defeat gave South an explanation for failure, an excuse for inaction, and an unity it had never experienced before. It was outpowered but not convinced, defeated but still defiant, and determined to salvage as much of its caste society as possible. Its lost cause gave South, a greater resolve to maintain its ideas, institutions, and way of life.

What was its Significance? Some people consider it as the last of the old-fashioned wars, while others have regarded it the first in the modern wars of history. In reality, it was a traditional war, and it had great technological impact on the advancement of modern weapons and techniques. There were many novelties. The war had several firsts to its credit. It was the first one in history in which ironclad warships clashed and the telegraph and railroad played important roles; to use rifled ordinance and shell guns on large scale and to introduce machine gun: to have widespread newspaper coverage, voting by servicemen in national elections and photographic recording; to organise medical care of troops systematically to use land and water mines and to employ a submarine that could sink widely employed aerial reconnaissance (by means of balloons).

The civil war has been written about as has been no other war in history. The vast amount of literature on the war (50,000 books and articles) proves the accuracy of Walt Whitman's prediction that 'a great literature will arise out of the era of those four years'. The incidents of the war left a rich heritage for posterity, and that legacy was summed up by martyred Lincoln as showing that the reunited sections of the United States comprised 'the least best hope of earth.'

What was Lincoln's Role in it and Abolition of Slavery? Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the best specimen of the new people that had emerged after the American War of Independence. During his years, he was constantly on the move at the time of the westward flow of the population. His school was uninspiring and irregular, but his mother taught him to read early, and he became a voracious reader. In 1834, at the young age of 25, he became a member of the House of Representatives for the State of Illinois. In Illinois especially, the question of slavery was strongly discussed, because the great leader of the party for the extension of slavery in the national Congress was Senator Douglas. For several, years Lincoln and Douglas were engaged in serious debates. Their struggle reached its climax in the presidential campaign of 1860, and on 4th March 1861, Lincoln was inaugurated President with the lower Southern states already in active secession from the Union.

Lincoln proved himself to be a better war leader than Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederation). His leadership qualities outweighed those of his opponent. He was practical, flexible, humble, magnanimous, able to take criticism, willing to admit mistakes, humorous, relaxed and tactful. He filled up his cabinet with outstanding, strong-minded political leaders, many of whom were even candidates for presidency and for control of the Republican Party. Lincoln's personality made it possible for him not only to get along with them but also to utilise their invaluable services. Though he rarely consulted his cabinet members on major policy decisions, he gave them significant autonomy within their departments.

Even amidst confusion, Lincoln was clear-headed. He stood for the Union and for the prevalence of tranquillity in America. He was against slavery, but slavery was not the dominant issue for him. His primary concern was that USA should not be torn into two opposing and warring segments. This is evident from his public letter in 1862 in which he says, 'If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that'. When, in the beginning of the war, Congress and Federal generals were all set to carry out the emancipation of the slaves, Lincoln stalled the hasty action. He was for emancipation by the states themselves with full compensation. It was only in January 1865, that the conditions seemed suitable for the Congress to propose abolition of slavery forever by a constitutional amendment, and by the time this amendment was ratified by the states, the war was already over.

As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln took active interest in military affairs, and his judgment was often better than those of his generals. In pursuit of victory, Lincoln appointed and dismissed many generals and once even ordered an offensive to begin. Nevertheless, Lincoln recognised his own limitations and appointed successively Winfield Scott, George McClellan, Henry Hallect, and Ulysses S. Grant to positions of overall command. When he finally found the right commander, he wrote to Grant: 'The particulars of your plans, I neither know nor seek to know.'

He held the USA together through long tiring months of setbacks and futile efforts, through dark phases of division and failing courage, and there is no instance when he ever wavered from his purpose. He finally saw the Union victorious. He entered Richmond (Capital of the Confederacy) the day after its surrender. He returned to Washington on 11th April, 1865 and made his last public address. His theme was reconciliation and reconstruction of loyal government in the vanquished states. On the evening of 14th April, when he was seeing a play in a Washington theatre, he was assassinated by an actor, named Booth, who had some grievance against him. Lincoln's goal was accomplished; the Union was intact.

English Revolution And Democratic Politics Parliamentary Reformers, Free Traders & Chartists

Democracy began to develop in England during the reign of Henry II (1154–89), great grandson of William, the Conqueror. But rights of the people were first recognised in the Magna Carta (Great Charter) which King John was forced to sign in 1215. John, son of Henry II, has succeeded his brother, Richard, the Lion-Hearted, to the throne. John's nobles accused him of violating their feudal rights and in 1215, forced him to sign the Magna Carta. It guaranteed nobles that new taxes would not be imposed without the approval of a Great Council, the forerunner of Parliament.

The Magna Carta, written to protect nobles' rights, was extended, in time, to include all Englishmen. The Great Council was expanded under King Edward I in 1295 to include middle-class citizens. At first, the nobles and middle-class members of the Great Council met together but later divided into two houses of today's Parliament – the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

The Tudor Dynasty, begun by Henry VII, ruled England for 118 years, from 1485 to 1603, following Henry's victory in the War of Roses. Henry VII's son, Henry VIII kept England's Parliament firmly under his control but allowed it to meet and discuss his policies.

The next Tudor Edward VI (Henry VIII's only son) added to the power of the Crown. Henry's daughter, Queen Mary I, followed and ruled for five years. Her persecution of Protestants caused her to be called Bloody Mary. Elizabeth I, Mary's half-sister, became queen in 1558. Her 45-year rule laid the foundation for the British Empire. All these Tudor rulers acquired the position of absolute monarchs, and the Parliament was at best playing a second fiddle to the Crown.

James I established the Stuart family line of English kings. James was a strong believer in the divine right of kings. His rule (1603–1625) was torn by many disagreements with Parliament in which English middleclass citizens had gained importance during the 16th century. By long custom, Parliament had little used right to refuse to raise new monies for the king. When Parliament refused money asked by James I, he dismissed them. The issue of control over the money would decide who would be England's real ruler–King or Parliament.

Charles I succeeded his father, James I, as English King in 1625. Long standing disagreements continued between the king and Parliament, which opposed his desire for absolute rule, as it had opposed his father. When he needed money in 1628 to pay the expenses of sending naval forces to help the Huguenots in France, Parliament forced him to sign a Petition of Right. The petition bound the king not to set taxes without Parliament's consent. Disagreements with Parliament continued, and, in 1629, the king dismissed the Parliament. For the next 11 years, Charles had enough tax money to rule without calling Parliament into session. He made too many enemies as England's ruler before he was overthrown in a civil war. In need of money to maintain his policies, he was again forced to call Parliament back into session in 1640. It was called the Long Parliament, because it stayed in session for 20 years. Before it granted money, he was forced to agree to several reforms, such as calling Parliament to session every three years. Arguments continued, and many Londoners took up arms in defense of Parliament. Charles raised an army of followers called Cavaliers, who were mostly nobles and large landholders. On the other hand Puritans, small landholders, and middle class citizens rallied behind Parliament. They were called 'Roundheads', because they cut their hair short to show their dislike of the Cavaliers, who wore their hair long. The fighting, which began in 1642, came to be known as Puritan Revolution. The Roundheads were led by Oliver Cromwell. As the King's army grew weaker, Cromwell's grew stronger. When the king finally surrendered in 1646, the civil war ended. They could not reach a satisfactory peace settlement because members of Parliament did not want to deal too severely with their ruler. After two years of disagreement, Cromwell took control of Parliament with the help of his army and appointed a special court to try Charles I on charges of treason. The court found him guilty, and he was beheaded in 1649.

England's monarchy was abolished by Parliament after Charles I's execution. England was declared a Commonwealth and free state, without any king or House of Lords. Oliver Cromwell took control as a military dictator until a new form of government could be established. The House of Commons was made up of middleclass citizens who could not agree on a new type of government. The army and royalists had their own ideas of setting up a government. In 1653, Cromwell dismissed two Parliaments when they could not agree on a new form of government. A constitution, drawn up by the army, gave Cromwell control as Protector of England, although much power was to be given to Parliament. It became England's first and only written constitution. His administration was strong, successful, but not always popular. Although offered the Crown, Cromwell refused to be the king. Cromwell enforced strict Puritan rules against all amusements. The Puritan rule of England ended soon after Cromwell's death in 1658.

Many Englishmen wanted a return to the days of kings. Parliament invited the son of Charles I to return from exile in France. He returned to England and was crowned King Charles II in 1660. His 25 year reign was called the 'Restoration' because it brought back royalty and pre-Puritan amusements to England. He too had troubles over politics and religion. Political parties formed during Charles II's reign. The Whig party, mostly middle-class, supported Parliament. The Tory party, representing the upper class, supported the king. When Charles II died in 1685 without leaving a son, his brother James was opposed by the Whigs because he was a Catholic. But the Tories had him crowned as James II.

James II aroused opposition after assuming the English throne. He angered Parliament with his efforts to revive the king's divine right. Both Tories and Whigs were further alarmed by his support of Catholicism. Hence, plans were made to overthrow James II. Tories and Whigs joined in secretly offering the British throne to James' older daughter, Mary, who was married to William III of Orange (the ruler of Holland).

William and Mary accepted the offer and landed in England in November 1688 with a large army. When James' army did not support him, he fled to France. William and Mary became rulers of England. The overthrow of the king and installation of a successor was called England's Glorious Revolution or Bloodless Revolution.

Parliament adopted measures to uphold its right to select kings who would obey English laws. In 1689, a Bill of Rights was passed that prohibited the king from cancelling laws, levying taxes, or maintaining an army without Parliament's consent. In addition, the king could not interfere with election for seats in Parliament. The people were guaranteed the right to petition the government and the right to protection against unjust fines and excessive bails and punishments. The main effect of the Glorious Revolution was to make England a democratic nation, with a royal ruler.

Democracy progressed in England despite the pressures of wars. George I's reign (1714–1727) saw great increases in Parliament's powers. When Queen Anne died, leaving no children, the crown of England went to the next heir, George, although he was a German prince. He was the first of the Hanover Dynasty which still rules England as the House of Windsor. Because George could speak little English and was unfamiliar with English ways and customs, he relied on his cabinet, or prime ministers, to rule England. These ministers, chosen by the majority party in Parliament, placed the actual rule of the nation in Parliament's hands. Parliament's power was further increased by the Septennial Act in 1716, permitting Parliament to stay in session for seven years.

Though there were many advances, the government of England was still controlled by the upper classes. Ninety percent of the people without property could not vote. The House of Lords, whose members were all of noble birth and were not elected, was still as powerful as the House of Commons. Yet, Parliament's control had grown until it could no longer be overruled by the king. Britain had become a limited monarchy with basic civil liberties for the people.

Parliamentary institutions in England developed primarily through evolution. In 1800, because of property and religious restrictions, only one out of six Englishmen could vote. No woman could vote. Gradually, reforms were instituted. In 1824–25, the Combination Acts were changed to permit the organisation of labor unions. In 1832, the first of the three Reform Bills was passed given voting rights to the middleclass. The House of Lords defeated the first bill once and threatened to do so again. When the king, however, said that he would appoint new liberal members, the House of Lords passed the bill. The Second Reform Bill (1867) allowed most city workers to vote. The Third Reform Bill (1884) gave the vote to farm workers. Finally, women received the right to vote in 1928.

English Revolution

What was Parliament's Origin? The origin of the British Parliamentary institution can be traced to the Magna Carta (1215 AD) which was signed by King John, and later confirmed and enlarged by Edward I. This charter established the principle that the king was equally bound by the laws as the subjects. The king conceded that in certain matters he would take a decision only with the consent of the Great Council, which was a nominated body consisting of royal officials, dignitaries of the Church and other nobles designated by the king. Apart from the Great Council, there was the Little Council, also known as the Curia Regis. The difference between the two was that the former was a greater body which met only thrice a year and discussed general questions of finance and justice, while the latter consisted of a few prominent members drawn from the former and advised the king regularly on specific administrative issues. In course of time, the Great Council grew into the Parliament, while the Little Council gave birth to the Privy Council which in turn gave rise to the Cabinet.

The Magna Carta was, no doubt, an agreement between the king and the feudal lords, for it dealt with the rights of the barons against the king. Every Englishman considered this charter as the basis of democracy giving way to representative institutions. It is a landmark of Parliamentary government, because some of its provisions, such as Clauses 12 and 14 have been interpreted to mean that taxation without the consent of the Parliament was unauthorised and illegal. Similarly, the king promised that 'No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled… unless by the lawful judgment of his peer or by the law of the land'. In course of time, it has come to be regarded as a guarantee against arbitrary detention. Similarly clause 40 promised: 'To none will we sell or to none will we deny or delay right and justice'. That is why, this charter has rightly been regarded as the Charter of Liberties.

The Charter set off a process which was to end only when the power of the crown was put into the hands of the community at large. Naturally, it has had a profound and lasting influence on the imagination of the succeeding generations. Throughout the 13th century, the Struggle for the Charter was the battleground. Until the Edwardian Parliament was fully established, the charter remained in the foreground of men's thoughts. In the 14th and 15th centuries, however, it fell into the background. Parliament held the place in men's minds which the charter had once occupied. In Tudor times, the charter was even more out of fashion, because it emphasised the distinction between the interests of the prince and people which, throughout the 16th century, prince and people were equally anxious to deny.

Under James I, when prince and people again began to take up opposing grounds, Magna Carta returned with more than its old splendour. Under the banner of Runnymeda (it was the place at which the feudal lords extracted Magna Carta from King John), the battle of Parliament and the Common Law was fought and won against the Stuarts. In the 18th century, Magna Carta was worshipped by Parliamentarians like Blackstone, Burke and all England. It had become the symbol for the spirit of democracy. The historical importance of Magna Carta, therefore, lay not only in what the men of 1215 intended by its clauses, but in effect which it had on the imagination of their descendants.

How and when did Parliament Grow? The word Parliament, meaning 'parley' or discussion, was first used in Henry II's reign to describe purely feudal assemblies of tenants-in-chief sitting with other members of the King's Council. The term as yet conveyed no idea of election or representation, nor did it necessarily mean a legislative or tax-voting assembly. It was simply the king's council met to 'talk', to debate high foreign and domestic politics, to discuss petitions, grievances, ways and means, and to conduct state trials. Having 'talked', it acted, for it was the symbol of all the powers in state. The method of selecting its members had not yet been defined. During the reign of Henry III himself, it became an occasional but not an invariable practice to summon to this great assembly two or more knights selected in each shire court to represent the county. Then, and for long afterwards, the summons to Parliament was often regarded as a burden. Communities often neglected to send their representatives, and even elected knights of the shire sometimes absconded. Thus, the elective franchise was not yet a privilege or a 'right of man'.

British Parliament was not invented suddenly to perpetuate a revolution in which one power rose and another fell, it grew up gradually as a convenient means of smoothing out differences among various sections of British society. The English people have always been distinguished for their Committee sense, their desire to sit round and talk till an agreement or compromise is reached. This national peculiarity was the true origin of the British Parliament.

During the reigns of the first three Edwards, Parliament gradually acquired something like its present form. Edward viewed the frequent national assemblies as the best art for the machinery of government. His motives in frequently summoning the Parliament were both financial and administrative. He was aware of the value of support of the middle classes in shire and town in collecting taxes. The administrative motive was to make the royal power more efficient by keeping it in constant touch with the governed. He wanted to ascertain the grievances of his subjects, so as to be able to govern in accordance with real local needs, and to keep a check on the misdeeds of local officials. Hence, a large part of the business of these early Parliaments consisted in receiving piles of petitions for redress.

Significantly the English Parliament, unlike its counterparts in Europe, divided itself, not into three Estates of clergy, nobles and bourgeois, but into two Houses of Lords and Commons. In the continental system of 'Estates', all the 'gentlemen' were represented in the estate of the 'noblesse'. The 'noblesse' was divided into two in the English Parliament. The 'barones majors' sat in the House of Lords, while the 'barones minors' sat along with knights and gentry in the House of Commons. No estate of clergy was formed as part of the English Parliament, though the bishops and certain of the greater abbots continued to sit in the House of Lords in their secular capacity as holders of baronies.

The House of Commons as a separate chamber originated in the unofficial meetings of the knights and burgesses, discussing anxiously behind closed doors what collective reply they should give to the higher powers. Because of their extreme caution, we know nothing of the internal developments of the early House of Commons. We do not know how and when the 'speaker' became its chairman. For the speaker was originally the person appointed to 'speak' for the Commons in full Parliament, the other knights and burgesses being silent in presence of their betters. Until Stuart times, the speaker was a servant of the crown much more than a servant of the House.

From the faltering steps in the reign of Edward I, the House of Commons made great strides in the next 150 years. The consent of its members became mandatory for all statues and taxation; their own petitions frequently received the assent of the king in Parliament and even the highest acts of state, like the deposition and election of kings took place with the Commons as parties to the deed. Their constitutional position provided invaluable precedents for the assumption of real power by the Lower House after the Tudor monarchs clipped the wings of Church and baronage. The reason for the rapid increase in the powers of the Commons is not far to seek. They were a third party holding the balance, and courted by the principals in the warfare of state. The constant struggle between the king and the barons, the constant struggle between the great families around the throne, put the Commons almost into the place of umpire. They could take full advantage of the position because their interests were not wholly bound with either barons or king.

Between 1327 and 1461, i.e., the accession of Edward III and the deposition of Henry VI respectively, the English Parliament acquired its present form as well as the outline of its modern procedure. The House of Commons equipped itself with the financial and legislative powers and even asserted an occasional control over the executive by impeachment of ministers before the Lords. Thus, precedents were set for the future use of Stuart Parliament.

Before the Commons could hope to deprive the king of his authority, an interval was necessary of increased royal power under the Tudors, to strengthen the framework of the state and reduce the nobles and clergy to the level of other subjects. Under the Tudors, when the Crown-in-Parliament affected a series of changes in ecclesiastical affairs, it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the state had acquired unlimited sovereign authority. The powers of the new state of the 16th century could have been exercised only by the king. The Parliament during the Tudor period had neither the strength nor the ambition for such a part. Indeed, it was the main function of the Tudor Kings and their Privy Council to teach the Parliament men at Westminster the work of real government which had been so sadly neglected in the previous century. Parliament was ready to be the scholar and servant of royalty like an apprentice serving his time and fitting himself to become partner and heir.

In the Stuart era, English people developed a complete system of Parliamentary government, contrary to the prevailing tendencies on the continent, which was moving fast towards royal absolutism. While the Estates-General of France was ceasing to exercise even its medieval functions and the political life of Germany was regressing in the mosaic of petty principalities, the House of Commons made itself the governing organ of a modern nation. This was achieved by developing an elaborate system of committee procedure, and by striking down the royal power in a series of struggles of which the chief motive was religious but the chief result political.

Besides the Magna Carta, there were many other charters and reform acts which gave the final shape to this 'representative institution' of England. During the Stuart period, Petition of Right (1628) was an important step in strengthening the Parliament. Charles I (1625–1649) had violently clashed with the Parliament when it refused to grant him money. He, in fact, dissolved it and governed through a decree for a while. Ultimately he was compelled to agree to the Petition of Right in 1628 as a condition for raising money. This charter provided that
1.no person could be compelled to pay taxes that were not authorised by the Parliament.
2.no person could be detained without disclosing to him the reason for detention and
3.soldiers could not be billeted upon private houses without the owners' consent.

The Petition of Right, like Magna Carta, was the beginning, not the end of a struggle for the principles it enunciated. The battle between the two sides (king and Parliament) had to be fought for England could no longer be governed by both at once. The first blood was drawn by Charles I, who, by dispensing with Parliament, removed every constitutional check upon his actions. But the last word was to lie with the 'Long Parliament' (1640–1660) which succeeded in defeating the king in the Great Civil War (1642–1646). After the execution of Charles I in 1649, England became a republic. The loyalty of the English people to the Crown was so strong that monarchy was restored (1660) within 18 months after the death of Oliver Cromwell, the Protector (1658). Charles II (1660–85), the son of Charles I, was asked to come back from his exile and accept the throne.

The most significant development, however, took place during the reign of James II (1685–88). It was marked by a revolution, known popularly as the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689), and the enactment of another great charter, viz., the Bill of Rights, also known as the Revolution Settlement (1689). James II, a staunch Catholic, after succeeding to the throne, started giving important positions to the Catholics, which was against the British system. Finally, he was forced to abdicate, and both the political parties – Whigs and Tories – decided to invite the former king's daughter, Mary and son-in-law, William of Orange, to come and accept the English crown. Mary and William, who succeeded to the throne, consented to the Bill of Rights, which, following the example of Magna Carta and Petition of Right, provided that
1.no tax could be levied without the consent of the Parliament.
2.the royal prerogatives of suspending laws and awarding punishments were declared illegal.
3.no standing army could be maintained in peace time without the consent of the Parliament.
4.the Parliament should be freely elected, should meet frequently and should have freedom of expression and
5.no Catholic or a person married to Catholic could become the monarch of the country.

Thus, the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights firmly established the supremacy of the Parliament and created a constitutional or limited monarchy in England.

The British Parliament, after having established its supremacy, passed several laws aimed at reforming its own composition and character. Several acts were enacted in order to extend the franchise in gradual stages. Tenant farmers in the counties (rural units) and the town middle classes were given the right to vote by the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832. Next, artisans and urban workers living in their own houses were given the franchise by the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1867. The third one in the series, the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1884, extended the Parliamentary Reform Acts, extended the franchise to the agricultural labourers also, thus making franchise uniform for both boroughs (towns) and counties. However, it was only in the beginning of the 20th century that franchise was given to women of all classes. The fourth Parliamentary Reform Act of 1918 gave what was practically manhood suffrage and a large installment of the new principle of woman's suffrage, but not the universal adult suffrage. This last thing was left to the Equal Franchise Act of 1928.

This Act of 1928 was the most revolutionary in nature. It abolished property qualifications and distinction between men and women in respect of voting age. Like men, all women of 21 years of age were now given voting right.

Similarly equal electoral districts were created by the same set of Acts. The Reform Act of 1832 abolished the rotten and pocket boroughs (Parliamentary units which continued to send representatives to the Parliament even after most of their population migrated to industrial areas with the advent of Industrialisation) and transferred their members to the industrial towns and counties. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 completed this task of creating equal electoral districts.

Likewise, some other minor acts were passed with the aim of completing the reform of the Parliament. The Ballot Act of 1872, for instance, abolished the system of open voting and introduced that of secret ballot. Without this Act, the expansion of the franchise to agricultural workers would not have been possible. In the following year, the Corrupt Practices Act provided for restriction on bribing the voters. In 1911, another important statute was enacted which established the supremacy of the Commons and curtailed the powers of the House of Lords.

All the laws mentioned above were aimed at greater democratisation of the British Parliament. They firmly established the roots of Parliamentary system of government in Britain. In fact, the British Parliament became the supreme political institution of the country.

How did Other institutions Grow? The British Cabinet took birth in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Like most British institutions, it was a creation of circumstances and not plan. It grew out of the Privy Council when that body became too unwieldy for effective transaction of business. Charles II (1660–1685) and Queen Anne (1702–1714) established the practice of consulting the leading ministers before the meeting of the larger Privy Council in order to discuss and settle matters more effectively. Though the practise was not accepted in the beginning, its obvious utility led to the rapid decline of the Privy Council and the growth of the Cabinet's power. Through the 18th century, the Cabinet took the form and acquired most of the characteristics that mark it today.

The greatest boost to its growth was given by an accident that brought the Hanoverians to the throne. The first two Georges were not much interested in British affairs and spoke little English. After 1717, the king stopped meeting his ministers, and during Robert Walpole's lengthy ministry (1721–42) the Cabinet developed into an institutionalised decision making body centred around a chief or prime minister, though Walpole himself always denied being a prime minister. His long tenure established the principles (further strengthened under the Pits) that the Cabinet should be politically homogeneous and that it had to find adequate support in the House of Commons. His opponents' failure to impeach him as a criminal when he was forced out of office in 1742 also demonstrated that political opposition could be accepted as loyal and legitimate rather than proscribed as treasonous—a principle essential to modern democracy.

A party system was also growing simultaneously. The mere alignment of personal factions of the early 18th century, loosely grouped under the labels of Whig and Tory (liberal and conservative respectively), became two fairly clear-cut and stable political parties by the early 19th century. The two developments, in fact, went hand in hand; party provided a means by which Cabinet could organise it support, and the Cabinet provided a centre around which the party could grow.

Democratic Politics (1815–50)

What was the Condition of England? England had become the workshop of the world, yet, to many of its inhabitants, the days of prosperity and optimism were over, and the future was uncertain. Commerce was flourishing, industrial productivity was booming, exports were soaring, the nation led the world in manufacturing, the Empire had expanded across the globe. Yet there were many cracks in the wall and skeletons in the closet.

The great movement in population from the countryside to towns and urban squalor and poverty it created has been well-documented by such writers as Charles Dickens. Not even the Royal family could escape the dreaded cholera, rampant in London due to its tainted water supplies. Victoria's uncle, William IV's two daughters died in infancy and disease was rampant in the squalid slums of the rapidly growing cities and manufacturing towns.

The constant refusal of landlords to improve their properties, install proper sanitary facilities and relieve the burden of high rents was matched by the indifference of the factory and mine owners to the terrible working conditions of those they employed. Those who did care about their workers, such as Robert Owen, were few and far between. The government was forced to step in; only law could change the intolerable conditions.

Reforms had tentatively begun under the Tory Party, which dominated in Parliament from 1812 to 1827 and under the dynamic Robert Peel as Home Office Minister. Peel reformed the criminal code, abolished the death penalty for over 100 offences, improved prison conditions and created the London Police force, the so-called 'Bobbies.'

It was only a beginning. Reforms were greatly needed in every sector of British society. Not everyone had benefited from the improvements in agriculture and industry. Increasing enclosures of land had thrown hundreds of thousands of small landowners onto the mercy of the Parish or drawn them into the fast-growing cities to replenish the stock of poor and unemployed. Lord Byron, a hereditary peer in the House of Lords was not the only one to speak out against the evils of industrialisation. The poor had no representation in Parliament, for the system had long ago failed to represent anyone except a small privileged class. It was time for major changes.

In 1832, the Duke also had to acquiesce in the passing of the great Reform Bill of 1832 that, while doing nothing for the poorer classes, at long last recognised the right of the new manufacturing magnates and the middle-classes to govern England. It was a right long overdue, for the manufacturers and merchants had long been the chief factors in the economic life (and success) of England. Their agitation was their demand to be admitted into the elite of the ruling set. As the first formal change in electoral law, however, since an Act of 1430, it heralded further inevitable changes in the relationship between the old aristocratic oligarchy and the new men from the boroughs and manufacturing towns.

These reforms were not the work of the masses but of wealthy middle-class and aristocratic liberals along with a few intellectual radicals. The only reform movement initiated by the labouring class in this period was the Chartist movement. The hard-pressed urban workers, bitterly aware that they had been bypassed by the Reform Bill of 1832 and that they were not sharing in the unprecedented national prosperity, were dissatisfied with the reforms of the bourgeois liberals. In 1838, workingclass leaders drew up People's Charter, which demanded (1) universal male suffrage, (2) secret ballot, (3) removal of property qualifications for members of Parliament, (4) pay for members of Parliament, (5) annual elections, and (6) equal electoral districts. The charter was twice presented to Parliament and twice summarily rejected. In 1848, Chartists planned a huge petition and demonstration in London. The frightened government prepared to use force. However, only a few mild disorders followed the third rejection, and the movement came to an end. Nevertheless, the Chartist movement had its influence. The most immediate result of the movement was to make both political parties aware of the growing influence of the working classes and of advisability of winning their favour. In the following decades, all the demands in the charter were enacted into law.

What is the role of Parliamentary Reformers? Although Great Britain had been for years a home of representative government, its government in 1815 was far from democratic. The suffrage was so severely restricted by property qualifications that only about 5 percent of the adult males could vote. Furthermore, the industrial cities of the North, which had emerged since the last distribution of seats in Parliament, were not represented at all. Both houses of Parliament were therefore monopolised by the landed aristocracy. It must be remembered, however, that the cleavage between the middle class and the aristocracy was not so sharp in Great Britain as on the Continent. The law of primogeniture in Great Britain granted the eldest son the entire landed estate and permitted him alone to assume the title. The younger sons sought careers in the Church, military, or business. This process brought about much intermingling between the upper and the middle classes. The long-sustained prosperity of' British commerce had produced a merchant class wealthy enough to purchase respectability, lands, and sometimes titles. The aristocracy frequently invested in commercial enterprises and later in industry. These facts help to explain why the great political and social struggles in 19th-century Britain, though sometimes bitter, lacked the violence of those on the Continent.

A period of economic depression and unrest in Great Britain followed the ending of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. For 22 years, with only one brief interruption, Britain had been engaged in a desperate struggle with France, a struggle that was economic as well as military. Meanwhile, British industrial expansion had gone on apace. The war's end found British warehouses piled high with unsold goods. Thousands of returning veterans found no jobs. Strikes and riots, which had begun during Napoleon's blockade, increased. The conservative Tory party, which had seen the country through the war, was strongly entrenched in power. Both the Tories and the slightly more liberal Whigs were still badly frightened by the spectre of French revolutionary Jacobinism. The government, therefore, took strong measures against the restless workers. The writs of habeas corpus were suspended. The climax came in 1819 when troops fired on a crowd that had assembled outside Manchester to listen to reform speeches. Several were killed and hundreds injured in this Peterloo Massacre.

Within a few years, however, as the post-war crisis of depression and unrest eased, the Tory government yielded slightly to the pressure for reform. By 1822, Foreign Secretary Canning had already deserted Metternich's reactionary concert of Europe and aided independence movements in Latin America and Greece. During the 1820s, the navigation laws were somewhat relaxed and the tariff slightly lowered. The Combination Laws were partially repealed, permitting labourers to organise unions, though not to strike. The civil disabilities against non-conforming Protestants and Roman Catholics were removed, permitting them to participate in political life on an equal basis with Anglicans. These measures, however, welcome as they were, did not get at the fundamental issue: a broadening of popular participation in the government. The pressure for suffrage reform would continue to mount, particularly from the industrial bourgeoisie, which was rapidly gaining wealth.

During the 1820s, Great Britain had already taken some moderate steps on the road to liberal reform, but these steps did not go to the heart of the matter – broadening the franchise. Pressures mounted on the conservative Tories to effect electoral reform, but they were unwilling or unable to do it. Finally in 1830, the aristocratic but more liberal Whigs, long out of power, drove the Tory government from office.

The new Prime Minister, Earl Grey, immediately introduced and forced through Parliament the Reform Bill of 1832. This bill redistributed the seats of the House of Commons, taking away many from the rotten boroughs (once-important towns that had dwindled in population or had even disappeared) and giving them to the industrial cities of the North. The suffrage was extended to all those who owned or rented property with an annual value of ten pounds. It is estimated that the number of eligible voters was thereby increased from approximately 450,000 to 800,000 out of a total population of some 16 million. Although on the surface, the Reform Bill of 1832 appears innocuous, it represents a great turning point in British history. The long era of dominance of the conservative landed aristocracy was ending and that of more liberal property owners, including the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, had begun. The supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords, which had opposed the Reform Bill, was established. A new period of political and social reform had opened.

Both political parties recognised the new era. The Whig party, supported by the industrial bourgeoisie but containing a right wing of liberal aristocrats and left wing of intellectual radicals, changed its name to the Liberal party. For the next half-century, the Liberals were often in power, under the leadership of such personalities as Lord Grey, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, and eventually William E. Gladstone. The Tory party was still predominantly the party of the landed aristocracy, but it contained some bourgeois elements, and its more liberal wing, led first by Sir Robert Peel and later by Benjamin Disraeli, was now in ascendancy. The somewhat discredited Tory designation was changed to Conservative.

Both parties, conscious of the rising importance of public opinion, supported a series of reforms. In 1833, slavery was abolished in the British Empire with compensation for slave owners. The Municipal Corporations Act applied the principles of the Reform Bill of 1832 to local government. The old penal code was reformed, reducing the number of capital offences to three and generally softening the punishment of criminals. The penny post increased the circulation of mail and literature. Parliament granted small but gradually increasing subsidies to the schools, most of which were run by the Anglican Church. Between 1833 and 1847, Parliament passed a series of laws that prohibited the employment in textile mills of children under nine and limited the hours of older children and of women to 10 hours a day. The employment of women and children in underground mines was prohibited. In 1846, the Corn Laws (the import tariff on grain), long opposed by liberals and the object of a major reform movement, were repealed, reducing the price of bread.

Who were Free Traders? The growing middle classes, who were prospering from the Industrial Revolution, found intellectual support and justification for their interests in the doctrine of economic liberalism in general, and laissez faire or free trade philosophy in particular. This doctrine has been best stated by the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith in his classic, Wealth of Nations (1776). The essence of Smith's theory is that economics, like the physical world, has its own natural laws. The most basic of the economic laws is that of supply and demand. When left to operate alone, these laws will keep the economy in balance and, in the long run, work to the benefit of all. If the sanctity of property and contracts is respected, competition and free enterprise will provide incentive and keep prices down. Government regulations and collective bargaining only impede the workings of the natural laws of economics and destroy incentive. Government should therefore follow a policy of laissez faire, limiting its activities in the economic field to enforcement of order and of contracts, public education and health, national defence, and in rare instances the encouragement of necessary industries that private enterprise does not find profitable. Here was a theory readymade for the industrial capitalists, who already held all the trump cards.

A strong boost was given to laissez faire thinking by a young Anglican clergyman, Thomas Malthus, who in 1789 published his Essay on Population. Malthus argued that since population increases by a geometric ratio whereas food supply increases only by an arithmetic ratio, it is a basic natural law that population will outstrip the food supply. This alleged law has two important implications. One is that nothing can be done to improve the lot of the masses. If their condition is temporarily improved they will immediately produce children in such numbers that the food supply will be outstripped and starvation will threaten all. Only poverty and privation hold them in check. The second implication is that the rich are not to blame for the misery of the poor; the poor are themselves responsible because of their incontinence. These ideas were so soothing to so many of the book-buying upper classes that Malthus quickly attained fame and wealth.

David Ricardo supplied further support for policies of economic liberalism. Having made a fortune in stock market speculation while still a young man, Ricardo purchased a seat in Parliament and spent the rest of his life thinking and writing on economics. In The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), he propounded the law of rent and the iron law of wages. Rent is determined by the difference in productivity of land. Take off all restrictions and subsidies, and the poorest land goes out of cultivation, reducing the rent on the more productive lands proportionately. He argued for this idea so forcefully that it played an important part in the repeal of England's Corn Laws, which had maintained the price of grain at an artificially high level. Lower grain prices meant lower bread prices, which enabled industrial capitalists to pay lower subsistence wages to their workers. More important in economic thinking was Ricardo's iron law of wages, according to which the natural wage is the subsistence level and the market wage tends to conform to it. Raise the market wage and the workers will multiply so rapidly that soon the law of supply and demand will bring the market wage down below the subsistence level. The workers will die off from malnutrition and disease and slow down their reproduction rate. Eventually, they will become so scarce as to be able to bid the market wage up above the natural wage. Always, though, the pull is toward the subsistence level. This theory again was music to the ears of the industrial capitalists.

These economic liberals, being some of the earliest thinkers to analyse the economics of industrial capitalism, are often called the classical economists. Their ideas were popularised in Great Britain and spread to the Continent. There they were modified and expounded by men such as Jean Baptiste Say and Frederic Bastiat.

A related stream of economic liberalism was initiated by the British Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham as early as 1789, in his Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham was an 18th-century materialistic rationalist who lived until 1832, bridging the 18th and 19th centuries with his life and thought. The Utilitarians believed that the useful is the good and that the chief purpose of government and society is to achieve 'the greatest good to the greatest number.' Since every individual is the best judge of his or her own best interests, the surest way to achieve general happiness is to allow individuals to follow their enlightened self-interest. Individualism, then, is the best safeguard of the general welfare. At the same time, Bentham himself and several of his followers saw the necessity for the state to act for the common welfare. Utilitarians became active during the middle decades of the 19th century in promoting legislation and creating governmental bureaucracies to handle some of the economic abuses and social problems connected with the Industrial Revolution.

Over the 19th century, economic liberalism evolved as industrial capitalists proved unwilling to adhere to laissez faire when it did not suit their interests, as the economic and social inequities of industrialism became too abhorrent to humanitarian sensibilities, and as perceptive criticisms of economic liberalism became persuasive. The most influential thinker to lead in this evolution of economic liberalism was John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Mill, a child prodigy, was brought up to be a good Benthamite. However, he was too sensitive and humanitarian to remain in the hard materialist camp of the Utilitarians. Moreover, living a generation after Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and Bentham, he was able to see some of the social effects of the Industrial Revolution. Although Mill in no way rejected private property and free enterprise, he believed that in the industrial age restrictions must be instituted by the state for the protection of the poor. Although production is bound by the laws of supply and demand, the distribution of goods is not. Public utilities such as railroads and gas and waterworks are natural monopolies and should be owned by the state. The state should provide free compulsory education for all and regulate child labour. He favoured income and inheritance taxes as economic equalisers. Mill's chief work on economics, Principles of Political Economy, was published in 1848. Mill was also the first influential philosopher in modem times to advocate equal rights for women. His Subjection of Women, which appeared in 1869, came to be considered the classic statement on the subject of women's rights. In his later years, he considered himself a moderate socialist. More than other 19th-century liberals, many of his views fit those of 20th-century liberalism.

What is the Role of Chartists? The British working class was without representation in Parliament: they turned to Chartism to redress their grievances. Early attempts at forming workers' unions had failed miserably, their leaders denounced as gin-swilling degenerates and their members expelled from their work places. The workers then turned to violence, forming groups such as the Scotch Cattle that destroyed property and threatened workers. The great depression of 1829, with its massive unemployment and wage cuts led to the great Merthyr Rising in South Wales, now heavily industrialised and influenced by many of its Irish immigrants. Order was brought into the area by the military, and punishment was severe. Dic Penderyn was hanged for wounding a soldier; becoming a martyr for the Welsh workers.

The Chartists now began to recruit in earnest. The movement was named after the radical London reformer William Levett, who drafted a bill known as The People's Charter in May 1838. The Chartists hoped to bring about a democratic parliament and an enfranchised working class. They staged demonstrations in many towns and when the government refused to consider the six points of the Charter presented in June 1839 took to arms. The biggest demonstration took place in South Wales, at Newport, where thousands of marchers, coming into the town in columns from the coal-mining valleys, were shattered by well-directed volleys from a body of troops (chiefly recruited in Ireland) stationed in the Westgate Hotel.

The repeal of the infamous Corn Laws in 1846 and the consequent availability of cheap bread meant that people were less inclined to revolution. The Chartist Movement, faced with the might of the British military and a recalcitrant government, was fading by the late 1850s. In 1857, an Act declared that property qualifications were no longer necessary for a seat in Parliament, and the first great democratising point of the Charter had been conceded by the government.

Not to be overlooked was the introduction of canned foods, created for the Royal Navy, but sold commercially by the London firm of Donkin-Hall in 1814 that eventually helped alleviate shortages caused by bad harvests (the industry took advantage of the vacuum pan recently invented by Edward Howard). In 1867, the Great Reform Bill finally ended the Chartist Movement, for in that year, nearly one million voters were added to the register, nearly doubling the electorate. Forty-five new seats were created, and the vote given to many working men as well as tenants of small farms. From henceforth, governments had to heed the voice of the middle and lower classes; its resources had to be used to benefit all of society, and not just the privileged few, and the State came to play a leading part in the lives of Britain's citizens.