You are on page 1of 10






Modern Europe From Mid-18th to Mid-10th Centuries
Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in
the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Auhtors for the help
and Guidance of the student to get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions of the Assignments. We do
not claim 100% Accuracy of these sample Answers as these are based on the knowledge and cabability of Private
Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers may be seen as the Guide/Help Book for the reference to prepare the answers of
the Question given in the assignment. As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so
the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every care
has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/Solutions. Please consult your own Teacher/Tutor before
you prepare a Particular Answer & for uptodate and exact information, data and solution. Student should must
read and refer the official study material provided by the university.



Q. 1. Explain the reasons for England becoming the first industrial nation.

Ans. The Importance of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries: The
Industrial Revolution of the 18th and early 19th centuries has been the main point of debate in the economic
history of industrial capitalism in England. Historians and economists have explained that it was here, and
at this time, more than elsewhere in Europe, that industrial capital became a major factor in economic, social
and political life. This led to “revolutionary” changes making for an “Industrial Revolution”. It is said that
the European regions were to follow, but their path would always be influenced by the existence of “the first
industrializer”. In the footsteps of earlier researchers such as Paul Mantoux (1928), G. Unwin (1927), W.
Ashley (1914) John Clapham (1926-38) and others, many influential “revisionist” scholars of the recent
past have tried to change this version of the story. According to Mantoux, “Inspite of the apparent rapidity of
its development, the industrial revolution sprang from far-distant causes”. Further, Heaton (1932) questioned the validity of the term “revolution” in this context. According to him, “a revolution which continued
for 150 years and had been in preparation for at least another 150 years may well seem to need a new label.”
Revisionists hold that, at the time of the “revolution”, the influence of industrial capital in England was
limited to a few industries and a few regions. Moreover, they argue that the rising authority of industrial
capital in England cannot be regarded as a “revolution”. Similarly, others have also pointed out that “enclaves” existed in Europe where industrial capital was becoming as important as it was in regions of England. Immanuel Wallerstein has also talked about the connections between capitalism and a “world system”, with Europe as its centre, which developed from the15th century onwards.
According to the revisionist historians, it is incorrect to exaggerate the importance of the activities of
industrial capital in England of a speczfic period or its significance for the development of industrial capitalism
in Europe. We can take it as a useful corrective to established histories of industrial capitalism in England
and Europe. As against this, in recent debate, British historians Maxine Berg and Pat Hudson have correctly
“rehabilitated” the notion that economic developments in the 18th century in England were “revolutionary”
and constituted an Industrial Revolution. Such “rehabilitation” does not affect aspects of industrial capitalism



in Europe. Among these aspects are include notions that the productivity of industrial capital improved
faster in 18th century and early 19th century England than they did anywhere else in Europe. At the same
time, it was noted that leading English manufacturers developed these changes without any “model” before
them, guided often by their own failures and the failures of many around them. However, the “rehabilitation”
restores exceptional stress to the importance for Europe of what took place at that time.
A Background to the Rise of Industrial Capitalism in 18th and Early 19th Centuries England: The
agricultural revolution was one of the many factors that contributed to the development of industrial capitalism
in England. In turn, the agriculture revolution was caused by the commercial agriculture of the 17th and
early 18th centuries. It may be noted that cultivation in England was oriented towards the market but there
was variation in the crop production regionally. We find a special stress in wheat production in Kent, Dorset,
East Anglia, Essex, parts of the Midlands and Monmouth, Hereford and Pembroke shire while barley was
the specialized crop of Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire and parts of Yorkshire. In Durham,
Lancashire, Northumberland, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, oats cultivation was
important. Along with dietary preferences, such divisions coincided with specialization which was more
often linked to other factors such as the clay soils of the Midlands were ideal for wheat production.
Commercial Production – Nature: Regarding commercial production, one important aspect was that
it was mainly on the farms of the large tenants of greater and lesser landowners. Although, these proprietors
were not concerned with the productivity of their land as much as the rent it yielded, but they instituted
major improvements in order to assure themselves of high rents. These landowners worked with different
kinds of tenants, including those who had tenancies for life. Some of the tenants were cotters defined as
tenants who could be evicted at will. Similarly, there were a number of freeholders who paid a small quitrent
to a proprietor to be “free” of his demands. Moreover, copy holders, whose rights depended on copies of
manorial rolls they possessed, also existed on such estates. About half the land of the country, in a belt from
Hampshire and stretching to Yorkshire, was still held in strips of open fields. Here, a three-field rotation
operated and crops were grown on two fields and the third field was left fallow for better fertility. This was
because investments took place in mining among the great estate owners of the north and the Midlands. As
the same time, the arrangements for letting out urban real estate were also noticeable. Moreover, the
development of changes in the technology of production took place. Adequate means was required to ensure
that such changes were widely implemented.


Since the end of the 17th century, many technological innovations necessary for improved productivity
were being used. For instance, the introduction into a crop rotation of root crops and legumes, which
reinvigorated the soil. This practice allowed farmers to forgo the necessity of leaving it uncultivated to
avoid soil exhaustion. In some states, mixing marls, that is, soil which was a mixture of carbonate of lime
and clay, in sandy soil as a fertilizer, also became the established practice. We can link these improvements
with Viscount Townshend, Thomas Coke and Lord Lovell, who showed, thereby, how to increase fodder
and food supply, as well as land under regular cultivation. They developed centers of display and their
achievements were joined by those of midland proprietors who developed breed sheep and cattle. Until the
middle of the 18th century, such techniques received wide application as great tenants, who were commercially
minded, increased land under their cultivation. Small holdings were systematically enclosed through Acts of
Parliament. Some of this was the result of changes in the status of the tenant. The improvements in agricultural
land holdings also helped to release a sizable section of rural population for industrial labour. During the
mid-eighteenth century, increases in population and large-scale manufacture, as well as the growth in the



size of towns, established that higher profits were to be obtained through commercial farming in England.
According to T. S. Ashton, although, reliable figures are difficult to establish, “It is beyond doubt that annual
production rose considerably in the second half of the century.” Such trend continued into the first decades
of the 19th century, when, in the 1830s, it was reinforced by further scientific inputs into farming. Later, the
activities of the Royal Agricultural Society, founded in 1838, were partly responsible for scientific inputs.
However, there were other signs of major improvement: under-drainage, which was necessary for cultivation
of heavy clay land. This started extensively in the 1820s; and extensive use of fertilizer became noticeable
in the 1840s.
Population Increases: The 18th century is also known for the increase in population which is closely
associated with rises in agricultural output and a crucial factor in the growth of industrial capitalism. It is
important to note that the increase in demand and labour that a growing population supplied were crucial to
the development of industrial capitalism and substantial growth in population undoubtedly did take place
over the century, from 5.83 million in England and Wales in 1701 to 9.16 millions in 1801. There is debate,
however, about how such growth took place and what its impact since the estimates are based on the parish
registers of baptism and burial for the period. These registers are often considered far from reliable in
determining actual birth and death at any time. There are two points on which these are questioned:
(i) They have been questioned regarding the actual chronology of growth, which was normally
established as slow growth to 1751 and rapid growth after that period.


(ii) Similarly, there is also debate about whether the increases in population were due to a rise in the
birth-rate or fall in the death rate. The data available for improvements in medical facilities and
shifts in epidemic patterns as well as changes in consumption indicate towards the reason for growth
of population to be the fall of death rate.
However, the importance of the increase in the birth rate for population growth has been enhanced by
various studies. Moreover, some research shows that the social effect of improvements in medical facilities
in the eighteenth 18th century has been exaggerated. In the final analysis, however, there is no suggestion
which is entirely able to establish the ascendancy of the birth rate hypothesis due to its reliance on a not so
reliable source like parish registers of the time.
Supply of Capital: A reasonable and regular source of funds and money was essential so that these
changes could be successfully exploited by industrial capital. England faced the ups and down of the output
of coin a regular shortage of’ silver, gold and copper coins. For this reason, proper credit facilities were of
inevitable significance. While land inevitably attracted investment and loans, the industry, with its few
guarantees could not attract sufficient loans. The entrepreneurs, till the mid-18th century, lent to them within
the same trade, or drew on the funds that merchants made available to them. Then there were certain categories
of tax officials lent money to local agriculturalists, manufacturers, and traders. Thus, there were a few such
avenues for loans. When the commercial activity in agriculture and industry grew, such “bankers” were
joined by various country banks. These organizations were also backed by London banks in times of difficulty.
This network existed for redistributing resources at the time that manufacturing industry increasingly came
to require it.
Q. 2. Discuss the Political and economic background of German nationalism.
Ans. Political Background: Before the Napoleonic era, Germany had never had much of a national
identity; it consisted only of the loose grouping of states united only by a common language, vague cultural
ties and the weak government of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation,



which had included more than 300 independent states, was effectively dissolved when Emperor Francis-II
abdicated (6 August, 1806) during the War of the Third Coalition. Despite the legal, administrative, and
political disruption associated with the end of the Empire, the people of the German-speaking areas of the
old Empire had a common linguistic, cultural and legal tradition further enhanced by their shared experience
in the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars.
First half of the 19th century in unification of Germany was badly affected by different wars. Victory in
the Franco-Prussian War proved the capstone of the nationalist issue. In the first half of the 1860s, Austria
and Prussia both contended to speak for the German states; both maintained they could support German
interests abroad and protect German interests at home. In responding to the Schleswig-Holstein Question,
they both proved equally diligent in doing so. After the victory over Austria in 1866, Prussia could assert her
authority to speak for the German states and defend German interests, at least internally; Austria, on the
other hand, directed more and more of her attention to possessions in the Balkans. The victory over France
in 1871 confirmed Prussia as the dominant player in a unified German state. With the proclamation of
Wilhelm as Kaiser, Prussia assumed the leadership of the new empire. The southern states became officially
incorporated into a unified Germany at the Treaty of Versailles of 1871 (26 February, 1871; later ratified in
the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10 May, 1871), which formally ended the War. Although Bismarck had led the
transformation of Germany from a loose confederation into a federal nation state, he had not done it alone.
Unification occurred by building on a tradition of legal collaboration under the Holy Roman Empire and
economic collaboration through the Zollverein.


Unlike the prior German nationalism of 1848 that was based upon liberal values, the German nationalism
utilized by supporters of the German Empire was based upon Prussian authoritarianism, and was conservative,
reactionary, anti-catholic, anti-liberal and anti-socialist in nature. The German Empire's supporters advocated
a Germany based upon Prussian and Protestant cultural dominance. This German nationalism focused an
German identity based upon the historical crusading Teutonic Order. These nationalists supported a German
national identity claimed to be based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower,
loyalty, honesty, and perseverance.
Economic Background: Before 1850, Germany lagged far behind the leaders in industrial development,
Britain, France and Belgium. By mid-century, however, the German states were catching up and by 1900
Germany was a world leader in industrialization, along with Britain and the United States. But another
institution key to unifying the German states, the Zollverein, helped to create a larger sense of economic
unification. Initially, conceived by the Prussian Finance Minister Hans, Count von Bülow, as a Prussian
customs union in 1818, the Zollverein linked the many Prussian and Hohenzollern territories. Over the
ensuing thirty years other German states joined. The Union helped to reduce protectionist barriers among
the German states, especially improving the transport of raw materials and finished goods, making it both
easier to move goods across territorial borders, and less costly to buy, transport and sell raw materials. This
was particularly important for the emerging industrial centers, most of which were located in the Rhineland,
the Saar, and the Ruhr valleys.
By 1848, its revenues had steadily increased and it included most German states, the major exceptions
being Austria and those of north-west Germany. Prussia had succeeded to win the full cooperation of the
revenue services of the participating states to the extent that the Zollverein machinery was not seriously
affected by the events of 1848-49. Moreover, the Zollverein had neither a centralized bureaucracy nor a
national public forum that could have become the target of a revolutionary thrust. The budding attempts to



make the Zollverein responsive to popular interest in the period before the 1848 revolutions, such as the
Heppenheim program of October 1847 whose program included a call for a customs union parliament, were
swept away by the revolutionary surge that sought the solution of the German customs problem within the
framework of the new constitution for the proposed Reich. In some respect it may appear that the Zollverein
emerged structurally more cohesive from the revolutionary period; certainly Prussia’s leadership role had
been enhanced. Yet the Vörmarz movements for popular participation in trade policy died with the revolution.
Also the member governments declined in stature, as Prussia pointedly preempted the decision-making
process by entering into unilateral trade agreements with other countries leaving the other Zollverein states
no choice but to go along. The Austrian bid for union with the Zollverein resulted in greater economic
cooperation, but it also polarized the two German powers over the Zollverein issue by heightening Prussian
awareness of its kleindeutsch stake.
Q. 3. Expalin the role of ideology and class in the American Revolution.
Ans. Ideology and Class: According to Joseph Ernst, the American Revolution can be explained by
linking its economic and ideological aspects. Thus, he distinguishes between a revolutionary movement
between 1762-1772 and an independence movement between 1772 and 1776. During 1762-1772, the economic situation led the colonial elite to question the British mercantilist system but the crisis of 1772 proved
that the real problem was empire itself. Thus, the independence movement after 1772 raised new issues and
also involved a substantial involvement of farmers in the struggle after 1774. The artisans, mechanics and
day labourers acquired some form of class consciousness. These formed the urban lower classes that were
active in the non-consumption and non-importation agitation. It was considered that the protests of the poor,
the hungry and the unemployed were a threat to stability while political alliances were feasible with artisans
and farmers. When the economy collapsed in 1772 the movement for practical reform within the imperial
system was transformed into a demand for American independence. In the most radical colony – Pennsylvaniaartisans had been mobilized during the 1760s and in 1772 the master craftsmen formed their own organization candidates and policies. However, the mobilization of poorer artisans, journeymen, apprentices and
labourers into the militia drawn mostly from poorer artisans and labourers was far more radical. We find that
both evangelical and rationalist republicans had strong links to the artisan community of Philadelphia and
both used the language of millennialism and spoke of an internal transformation of American society. During the 1760s, Boston was an important centre of revolutionary activity but the presence of 2000 British
soldiers from 1768 onwards probably limited lower class participation. In the Stamp Act struggle during
1765-66 the movement soon resulted in spontaneous riots over local social and economic grievances.


Moreover, in 1768 some merchants were willing to risk social unrest and riots to rescue their goods
from customs officials. Similarly, lower class Bostonians acted swiftly on their own initiative when imperial
policies had a direct impact on their lives. in March 1770, a conflict between sailors, dock-workers and
mechanics with soldiers led to the Boston Massacre. When the movement against the Tea Act started the
Boston Committee of Correspondence had already developed contacts all over the province and the Boston
crowds largely acted within the anti-British framework. Their agitation was favoured by the Whig leadership.
To sum up, more radical ideas emerged during the revolution and the revolutionary elite was compelled to
adopt more accommodative and conciliatory approaches towards the people of the country.
Q. 4. How did Napoleon Bonaparte use bureaucracy and educational institutions to reform the



Ans. Bonapartism: There is no unanimity among the historians about the Bonapartist regime of Louis
Napoleon. When Europe was plagued by Fascism in 1930s, he was regarded as its precursor. However, historians have also estimated his contribution to French industrialization as in the case of a modern transport
infrastructure. Moreover, scholars agree that the establishment of the conditions for rapid economic growth
was a great advantage for the French bourgeoisie. However, the dictatorial regime might have thwarted
bourgeoisie’s political aspirations. Napoleon-III as the dictator had considerable personal power emanating
cetainly from the compromise with the bourgeoisie. Further, at a fundamental level, it was a result of continuous efforts to reinforce his authority by a direct appeal to the electorate. He considered himself as the incarnation of national unity at a time when the nation was torn by party divisions. Thus, Bonapartism refers to a
political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support of a
strongman or caudillo. Philosophically, Bonapartism was the adaptation of principles of the French Revolution
to suit Napoleon’s imperial form of rule. Desires for public order and French national glory had combined to
create a Caesarist coup d’etat for General Bonaparte on 18 Brumaire. Though, he espoused obeisance to
revolutionary precedents, he himself “styled his direct and personal rule on the Old Regime monarchs.” For
Bonapartists, the most significant lesson of the Revolution was that unity of government and governed was
paramount. The honeybee was a prominent political emblem for both the First and Second Empires, representing the Bonapartist ideal of devoted service, self-sacrifice and social loyalty. The defining characteristics of
political Bonapartism, however, were flexibility and adaptability. Napoleon-III once made a sardonic comment
on the diversity of the members of his cabinet, united under the single banner of Bonapartism.


Bonapartism had its followers from 1815 forward among those who never accepted the defeat at Waterloo
or the Congress of Vienna. Napoleon-I’s death in exile on Saint Helena in 1821 only transferred the allegiance
of many of these persons to other members of his family; however, particularly after the death of Napoleon’s
son, the Duke of Reichstadt (known to Bonapartists as Napoleon-II), there were several different members of
the family on whom the Bonapartist hopes rested. The disturbances of 1848 gave this group hope. Bonapartism
as an ideology of politically neutral French peasants and workers (E.J. Hobsbawm) was essential in the election
of Napoleon-I’s nephew Louis Napoleon Bonaparte as President of the Second Republic, and gave him the
political support necessary for his 1852 discarding of the constitution and proclaiming the Second Empire.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte assumed the title Napoleon-III to acknowledge the brief reign of Napoleon’s son
Napoleon-II at the end of the Hundred Days in 1815. In 1870, the French National Assembly forced NapoleonIII to sign a declaration of war that led France to a disastrous defeat at the hands of Prussia in the FrancoPrussian War. The emperor surrendered himself to the Prussians and their German allies to avoid further
bloodshed at the Battle of Sedan (1870), and went into exile after a parliamentary coup created the Third
Republic. Similar to the other Bonapartist regimes, repression in the Second Empire was finely blended with
a deft mobilization of popular support. However, the feature of plebiscite in the Bonapartist state made it
somewhat distinct from the Fascist dictatorships of the 20th century. It is true that in both systems there was an
underlying motive to transcend the limitations of a representational polity in which class and sectional rivalries
and competitions apparently were sources of major weaknesses for the state. The character of the Second
Empire shows that in certain situations the state, contrary to what Marx had visualised in the Communist
Manifesto, did not represent directly the dominant classes. However, it is in their interest that the repressive
machinery of the state functions. Louis Napoleon’s seizure of power represented an apparent abdication of
power by different sections of the bourgeois which certainly constituted the dominant class in favour of the
Bonapartist dictatorship in France.



Q. 5. What do you understand by Nationalism? How did idea of nationalism evolve in Europe?
Ans. The Meaning of Nationalism: In a lecture held at the Sorbonne in 1882, the French historian
Ernest Renan spoke of the nation as “A daily plebiscite” – perhaps one of the most quoted phrases in the
literature on nationalism even today. Renan regarded a nation as a spiritual human community, endowed
with a past, but also with a desire to uphold it through a day-to-day vote of confidence. According to Renan,
not only does the nation share common memories, it also shares an amnesia, a collective forgetfulness that
enables the members to forget past differences, while concentrating on the things that link them together.
Among many different definitions of the nation concept, one of the most influential definitions is provided
by Joseph Stalin (1913) “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the
basis of common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common
Hans Kohn is one of the earlier critical writers on nationalism. The earliest manifestation of nationalism,
as opposed to mere patriotic impulses, was the rejection of an ancient régime and the transfer of sovereignty
from monarch to people. There is in this event a note of liberation of the nation from oppression, either
internal or external. As Hans Kohn pointed out in 1957, “Nationalism is inconceivable without the ideas of
popular sovereignty preceding.” In the words of Carlton Hayes, it is a state of mind, “A modern emotional
fusion of two very old phenomena; nationality and patriotism.” If freedom to realize one’s individual potential
can be realized only in the nation-state, then nationalism becomes the antithesis of tyranny and oppression.


Historians Benedict Anderson and the communist author Eric Hobsbawm have pointed out that the
existence of a state often precedes nationalism. For example, French nationalism emerged in the 19th century,
after the French nation-state was already constituted through the unification of various dialects and languages
into the French language and also by the means of conscription and the Third Republic’s 1880s laws on
public instruction.
In Europe before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular
leader rather than to their nation. Nationalism has been an important factor in the development of Europe. In
the 19th century, a wave of romantic nationalism swept the continent of Europe transforming the countries
of the continent. Some new countries, such as Germany and Italy were formed by uniting smaller states with
a common “national identity”. Others, such as Romania, Greece, Poland and Bulgaria, were formed by
winning their independence.
The French Revolution paved the way for the modern nation-state. Across Europe radical intellectuals
questioned the old monarchial order and encouraged the development of a popular nationalism committed
to re-drawing the political map of the continent. By 1814, the days of multi-national empires were numbered.
The French Revolution, by destroying the traditional structures of power in France and territories conquered
by Napoleon, was the instrument for the political transformation of Europe. Revolutionary armies carried
the slogan of “liberty, equality and brotherhood” and ideas of liberalism and national self-determinism.
National awakening also grew out of an intellectual reaction to the Enlightenment that emphasized national
identity and developed a romantic view of cultural self-expression through nationhood.
Q. 6. Write a note on the cultural background of Italian nationalism.

Ans. Cultural Background of Italian Nationalism: The Italian Unification or Italian Risorgimento is
known as the chain of political and military events that produced a united Italian peninsula under the Kingdom
of Italy in 1861.



Idea of Nationalism: Italian nationalism refers to the nationalism of Italians or of Italian Culture. It
claims that Italians are the ethnic, cultural and linguistic descendants of the ancient Romans who inhabited
the Italian Peninsula for centuries.
Francisco Petrarch (1304-1374) and Cola di Rienzo in the 14th century attempted to unite the whole of
Italy under the hegemony of Rome. They shared his enthusiasm for antiquity but not his pessimism about
the present, so came to divide history into three periods instead of two: Antiquity, a period of decline, and
the new age, called with luxuriant abundance of metaphors an age of light after darkness, spring after winter,
awakening after sleep, recall, restoration, renovation, revival, rebirth (or renaissance). These terms began by
being applied narrowly to one form of activity; spread to others; and were finally applied to the period as a
Italian Language: In many areas the masses spoke dialect and not Italian. When Italy unified in the
1860s the question of languages other than Italian was never considered (several regional dialects continue
to survive as ‘household’ languages) and the administrative model chosen was designed to annex a dispersed
and disconnected plethora of pretty states to Piedmont. The national state that emerged was centralized but
weak –precisely what might have been expected – other things being equal – to give rise to waves of
peripheral resentments and mobilizations.
Humanism: The Italian humanism is considered as a biased in nature because the great Italian humanist
always “spoke for and to the dominant social groups”. Italian humanist apart from their primary affiliation
always tried to tie up the power elites or groups. They always favoured the elite’s conscience and sought
entry to ruling class and ignored the general masses which were poor. Even the Renaissance ideal of the
dignity of man was linked to the domineering position of urban ruling groups in an age of triumph. This kind
of affection with the power blocs was the reason behind the development of classical heritage and also they
were very much ignorant about the popular culture. Hence, the Italian nationalism of 19th century was failed
to forget the differences between elitism of Italian humanists and literary masters.


Q. 7. (a) The Thermidorian Republic

Ans. The Thermidorian Republic (1795-99): Following the fall of Robespierre, the convention started
a fresh discussion on the Declaration of Rights, the sovereignty of the people and on the principle of representation. Thus, all the fundamental problems re-surfaced. While the new declaration contained the supremacy of law as an expression of general will, the rights of resisting oppression (1789) or of insurrection
(1793) ended. Apart from the Right to Equality, there was the declaration of Duties. The goal was to avoid
the tension between the unlimited nature of rights and the necessity for social order based on law. In the
views of Sieyes, checks on sovereignty were to be imposed by creating a jurie constitutionnaire. This was to
be a special body which would have the task of exercising control over the constitutionality of laws and
administrative regulations. Under the new constitution, a bi-cameral legislature representing the general
will to be exercised with restraint based on high property qualifications was created. The Directorial regime
which into being achieved the thorough depoliticizing of France. The petty bourgeoisie was barred from all
offices, voting existed only in name and politics was dominated by the oligarchs and professional administrators. It was the police, army and the bureaucracy in which the force of this regime resided and not in
legitmation by elections.



(b) Free Trade
Ans. After achieving the position of economic preponderance in the Western world due to the success of
its Industrial Revolution, Britain began to talk of laissez faire or free trade. This required the removal of all
tariff and customs barriers between trading countries. It may be noted that the doctrine of free trade proved
to be as harmful for the semi-colonies as it was for the full colonies.
It has been observed that the concept of free trade was a misnomer because it was England alone which
stood to gain from it. At this stage, all the countries participating in it had not reached a comparable level of
economic development and the free trade was virtually imposed on the backward economies of Asia and
Africa. The products of these backward economies like handloom goods could not compete with the machinemade textiles from England’s industries. Thus, the flood of cheap textiles from Lancashire and Manchester
virtually ruined the indigenous economies of the colonies and semi-colonies.