THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
The essence of the Industrial Revolution is the substitution of competition for the mediaeval regulations which had previously controlled the production and distribution of wealth. On this account it is not only one of the most important facts of English history, but Europe owes to it the growth of two great systems of thought. --Economic Science, and its antithesis, Socialism.
ARNOLD TOYNBEE, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, p. 85. ( 1884).
De la révolution économique opérée en Angleterre. . . .
Tandis que la révolution française faisait ses grandes expériences sociales sur un volcan, l'Angleterre commençait les siennes sur le terrain de l'industrie. La fin du dix-huitième siècle y était signalée par des découvertes admirables, destinées à changer la face du monde et à accroître d'une manière inespérée la puissance de leurs inventeurs. Les conditions du travail subissaient la plus profonde modification qu'elles aient éprouvée depuis l'origine des sociétés.
ADOLPHE BLANQUI, Histoire de l'Économie Politique en Europe, ii. 207 ( 1837).
LIFE in many parts of Europe and elsewhere at the beginning of the nineteenth century was strikingly different from what it was a hundred years later. There was no such enormous difference between the eighteenth century and the seventeenth, or between the seventeenth and the sixteenth, or even between the sixteenth and the tenth or the fifth. In the slow course of these centuries there had been vast changes in political and governmental affairs, states had risen and fallen, old religions had changed and new ones appeared, great literatures had flowered, philosophies
Slowness change in the past
had been explained and discarded, and men had come to think of the universe in a way their ancestors would scarcely have conceived of; yet during all the time of the Christian Era, and for a great while before, there had been few changes in the way that most people lived their lives.
The Renaissance, slowly maturing for some hundreds of years, had stirred and quickened men's minds, and in the wonderful fifteenth and sixteenth centuries opened up immense new realms of enjoyment and thought. There seemed to be lovelier things in the world now, the greatness and charm of the past were known better to some, and new writings of strange and wondrous beauty appeared; but most men and women found the ordinary conditions of life scarcely altered. The period of the Reformation-when ideas of religion and church, of pope and bishops, of Bible and church ceremonies were altered or retained-brought to the people of western and central Europe for more than a hundred years a time of mental uncertainty and stress scarcely to be conceived of now, and people presently found their mental and religious world so much altered that things could never be again as before. But still men made their living and spent most of their lives much the same way as in the past. The French Revolution brought enormous changes; but the men who now spoke of democracy, believed in liberty, fraternity, and equality, and whose laws were passed by elected legislatures, continued to make their living and spend their lives much as men had done before.
Previous epochs of change
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most people in Europe made their living in agriculture, by long, hard work, using plows and tools like those which had served for a thousand years. They dwelt in small, ill-heated, poorly ventilated houses. They did some manufacturing, or work with their hands, spinning, weaving, and the many things that go to supply men and women with what they must
Life of the people
have. Much manufacturing and trading were carried on in the cities and towns, where living conditions were better for more people; but still the manufacturing was usually done in the midst of the family, in little houses, or in a few rooms of some tenement, with simple tools and by processes which had come down scarcely changed through generations. The conditions in which most of these people lived can best be realized now by going to some small village, isolated and off from the currents of modern progress, to which the changes of the past hundred years have scarcely come yet. In village or in town then people got their water from spring or pump, and there could be little washing and cleanliness of person. In winter the diet was monotonous and meager, for there was yet no canning and preserving, and usually meat could be kept only by salting. Most people never had coal for heating; there was no steam heat; people wrapped up in their warmest clothes to keep warm at night or lese went early to bed. There was no electric illumination; streets in the cities were generally dangerous and ill-lighted at night, and houses were shrouded in gloom unless the inhabitants could afford to buy lamps or candles. There were no railroads, no steamships, no telegraphs, no telephones. Travel by horse or by stage-coach and communication by messenger or dilatory post were so slow and uncertain that most people never traveled far, and outside of the few large cities people remained ignorant of what went on at a distance, or only learned of passing events a long while after they happened. There was, indeed, not a little of comfortable, splendid living, with so much beauty and grace, that we love to look back upon it now and try to recall it; but this was only for the few. Most people had no share in it, and never could hope to have. Not only did they have few of the things now taken as a matter of course, but, however they strove, they could not hope greatly to better themselves, for, working as they did then
Things now common then wanting
with rude appliances and without machines, alone in their homes, with little coöperation or division of labor, it was not possible ever to produce much more than was needed for a bare subsistence. So it had been in ancient times; so it continued to be down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Then at last began changes so profound that for many people conditions of living were altogether altered; and presently began immense social changes and new problems, enormous and baffling.
Not much surplus produced
At the end of the eighteenth century in Great Britain, and during the course of the next hundred years in much of the rest of Europe, there began a change, which afterward men saw as the most important revolution in historical times. A series of great inventions came, which presently resulted in most things being made by machinery instead of by hand, so that the word "manufacturing" came to have a meaning fundamentally different from before. These machines, which did the work better and more quickly than had ever been possible by hand, were presently operated by power of water or steam, after which they produced manufactured things in immensely greater quantities than before, so that presently there was a larger quantity and surplus of things than ever previously in the history of the world. All this would have involved immense change in the condition of people, but other circumstances which immediately arose altered the very structure and organization of society. Previously men and women had labored in their own homes or the fields about them; now they went out to do industrial work in large numbers together. Then they had worked for themselves; now they worked for wages which some capitalist paid. Once manufacturing and conditions of labor had been carefully regulated by governments or guilds; now the conditions were left to adjust themselves. The changes brought about by all this were for a long time only partly understood. But when a hundred years had gone by and men
The Industrial Revolution
appraised the alterations which had slowly taken place, they began to understand clearly that the nineteenth century marked off, more than any which had gone before it, an old world from a new, and that the Industrial Revolution still promised changes which might affect all government and social life.
It was in Great Britain that the most important changes of the Industrial Revolution began. The seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries were for all of western Europe a period of great intellectual and scientific activity. Germans, Frenchmen, Italians, Dutchmen, as well as men of Scotland and England, busied themselves with study of the world about the, and there were so many great scientific discoveries and inventions. During this period many men understood that the earth revolved about the sun, that the blood circulated through the body, and believed that all things attracted each other in proportion to their mass and their nearness; it was also in this period that telescopes, microscopes, clocks with pendulums, and not a few rude machines first came into use. Some peoples lagged behind in industrial development. German lands were ruined by the wars of religion, while the various German states were not able to unite and give their people the prosperity of union and strength. Italians remained disunited and under the yoke of foreign masters, and then, as later, they lacked the material resources for considerable advance. Holland was small and her citizens gave themselves above all to commerce and colonial development. There was notable progress in France, but Frenchmen were involved in continuous and costly wars with the neighbors who touched their frontiers, while they too were seen after a while to lack some of the basic resources. None the less, France and Holland especially were slowly going along the same road the British people were traversing.
Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in western Europe
But it was especially in Great Britain that conditions favored large change. There a strong and settled govern-
In Great Britain
ment had long existed together with greater freedom for the individual and less of the old restrictions made by guild officials or lords of the manor. For more than a hundred years British commerce had developed, bringing much wealth into the county, and creating a large class of eager, ambitious leaders and adventurous men with keen minds. The habits and temperament of the people had disposed men to apply themselves more to making things work in actual practice than to speculative philosophy and artistic creation. Though English poetry and prose writing had developed into the greatest of modern literatures, the people of Britain had failed to make any signal contribution to music or sculpture and had not done much in painting; but some devoted themselves eagerly to scientific study, especially to the practical application of science. Men, whose names are forgotten now, labored to make machines that would pump water from mines or dredge the bottoms of swamps or rivers, boats to sail faster, or devices for doing work more quickly or more cheaply. In the Public Record Office in London are many manuscripts with rude drawings of machines upon which the inventor desired to take a patent or for which he wanted government help. So, after many failures and by slow degrees were perfected the engines that ran by steam and the machines that took the work from men's hands; for neither the steam engine, the railway train, the steamboat, nor numerous other things, were suddenly perfected, but were often the products of long and painful evolution. Mechanical invention
In the eighteenth century a series of inventions brought about a great change in England. The first of them concerned the clothing industry, which up to that time had depended upon slow, patient, laborious work. Most cloth then was made of wool, though silk had long been used for the wealthy, and for some time cotton, brought from Asia and the new American lands, had been growing in favor. Wool, silk, or cotton, the fibers had to be slowly arranged
Inventions in the textile industry
and patiently spun into thread, and the threads woven by hand into cloth. By such devices there could never be much cloth produced, and the generality of men wore what clothes they had as long as they could. In 1738 a certain John Kay invented the "fly-shuttle" with which weavers could make cloth more quickly than before. But as the thread was still produced largely by women working at the old spinning-wheels, with one wheel turned by motion of the foot, not enough thread could be spun to let the weavers work faster. A generation later, about 1770, James Hargreaves, a weaver of Lancashire, completed an invention, the spinning jenny or engine, by which a number of wheels could be turned by revolving a crank, so that one person could now spin out eight threads at once. Up to this point in the textile industry simple machines had been perfected enabling laborers to accomplish more with the work of their hands. But already in 1769 Richard Arkwright, a successful business man, began applying water power to spinning devices. His machines were large and costly, and there now began one of the most significant things in the revolution. Only rich men could afford to have the machines, and once having them could dispense with a great part of the labor of employees, while those whom they did required had to work for them in factories under their authority and direction. Then in 1779 Samuel Crompton, using the inventions of Hargreaves and Arkwright, produced the "spinning-mule," by which much more thread could be spun than ever before; and in 1785, Edmund Cartwright succeeded in applying waterpower to a weaving-machine, and it was soon possible for a boy, scantily paid, to do more with such an appliance than three skilled weavers without it. In America, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin or engine in 1792, by which cotton could be separated from its seeds much more quickly than ever before. The result was that huge supplies of cotton were soon raised and picked and sent
Application of power to machines
to England, where already enormous quantities of wool were being spun and woven, and Britain became beyond all question the center of world's spinning and weaving.
One might think that these inventions would have been studied and then copied in other lands, and so they presently were; but generally foreigners were slow to interest themselves, the old regulations of trade and industry hampered the adoption of new devices on the Continent, and very soon came the Wars of the Revolution and Napoleon, when for more than twenty years, outside of Britain, Europeans gave little though to industrial development. Britain had also another advantage in great deposits of coal and iron, lying near to each other, easily got and used, presently applied to run the machines, and make vaster industrial progress.
Pre-eminence of Britain
For a long time men had dug the black stones of north England about Newcastle, and sold them as sea-coal to be burned in the winter. But down to this time not much had been mined and it had generally been used as fuel in houses. The forges and small furnaces burned wood, until a great part of the English forests had been consumed and the woods of Ireland nearly ruined. In the eighteenth century, however, coal began to be used for the smelting of metals and to get power for running machines, and soon the age of steam began.
Rude steam engines for pumping water from mines were invented at the end of the seventeenth century, and there are traditions of devices much earlier. Improvements were made by many who worked upon them, especially by Thomas Newcomen in 1705, and above all by James Watt, who in 1769 began making improvements which are practically the basis of the modern steam-engines. Before his time they had been used only for pumping, but as a result of his improvements they were applied to the driving of machines. To make these large, heavy engines and ma-
The age of steam
chines much iron was needed and it could not be got without a great quantity of fuel. In the central and northern parts of the island large iron deposits existed, with vast coal fields in south Wales and northern England. So in the vicinity of the coal deposits blast-furnaces appeared, and huge forges and rolling mills, beyond anything ever seen before. Gradually many powerful tools and machines came into use, making possible the production of a still greater quantity of manufactured goods.
Not only industry but communication was altogether changed. In the eighteenth century in England and in France roads and canals had been improved and extended. In the early part of the nineteenth century many efforts were made to use steam engines to drive boats forward, and this culminated with the work of the American, Robert Fulton, in 1807. Steamboats now moved up and down rivers and along coasts, defying current and tides, and after the voyage of the steamship Great Western in 1838, the ocean could be crossed in two weeks instead of a month. Meanwhile efforts were being made to have engines drive coaches or cars. A hundred years later it was done very differently when automobiles were invented. The appliances developed at the beginning of the nineteenth century were far clumsier and much less powerful, and the problem was solved then by making an engine drag cars along rails laid for the purpose. Such was the origin of the railway. In 1808 Richard Trevithick ran the first steam engine along a railway in London, and in 1825 George Stephenson perfected a more powerful locomotive.
Communication and transportation
Steamships and railways
The history of the Industrial Revolution in Continental Europe is a story of the adoption, imitation, and later perfection of these appliances and methods. For a long time Britain remained far ahead. She was in the earlier part of her industrial transformation when the French Revolution began. When the final victory over Napoleon came she was the workshop of the world, and as supreme in
Great Britain outstrips other countries
industrialism as she was in commercial power. For a time Europe, exhausted and shaken, found it easier to buy from her than attempt any industrial development, but presently the industrial Revolution spread from England to lands near by.
French industry, developing more slowly, had been greatly checked by the wars; but now it went on with its expansion after the time of the Congress of Vienna, and presently a new generation had brought into France the machines and the methods of England. In Great Britain the new industrialism had brought such profits and success that agriculture was partly abandoned, and by the latter part of the nineteenth century most of the people were employed in making manufactured goods. But there was never anything like this in France, where the greater part of the population continued to be engaged in agriculture, since in France there were no such great deposits of coal and iron, and the temperament of the people did not so readily tend toward large-scale production with machines. Nevertheless, by the middle of the century the Industrial Revolution had done its work and brought about in France the problems which England was facing. It had already spread also to Belgium.
The Industrial Revolution in France
More slowly it moved across central and eastern Europe. In Austria for a long time it made little progress. In the German lands to the north also it developed somewhat later. After the Congress of Vienna the Germanies remained separated. It was not until 1834 that they went so far as to form a customs union. After this had been achieved the old barriers obstructing commerce were removed, and wealth and manufacturing increased. After the establishment of the North German Confederation ( 1866), and especially after the Franco-Prussian War and the founding of the Empire ( 1871), industrial development went forward with giant strides, and the vast alteration and the problems which had revolutionized Britain half
In central Europe
In the German Empire
a century before were now seen in Germany also. The German, adopting the devices which others had invented to do new work or save labor, perfected them by patient endeavor, accomplished with them new results, and presently worked upon large-scale production more cheaply and successfully than any other people in Europe.
Spain and Italy, lacking coal and iron, none the less developed modern industrialism in some places in the later years of the century, and about Barcelona and Genoa and Milan appeared the great factories, the slums, and the socialism, long before seen in Birmingham and Paris. In Switzerland great deal of manufacturing continued to be done, as before, in houses or small shops; but the abundant power of numerous swiftly descending streams was also employed for industrial development in place of coal, which was lacking. Utilization of water power for factory development seemed to promise greater industrialism in northern Italy, and it did actually make possible a large amount of manufacturing in Norway in the early years of the twentieth century. To the Balkan countries except Rumania--a very striking exception--backward, and but recently escaped from the debasing tyranny of the Turk, little of the Industrial Revolution ever came, and these people remained what their fathers had been before them, mountaineers or shepherds or farmers.
In other lands
In Russia, all the eastern half of Europe, the Industrial Revolution began a hundred years after it commenced in Great Britain. This was not because the Russians lacked the materials for industrial development, since they, like the Chinese, had abundance of coal and iron and they had one of the largest supplies of petroleum in the world. Their backwardness was owing to comparatively low civilization, their unwillingness to take up manufacturing, and their lack of aptitude and skill. In Russia almost all the people, generation after generation, had done little more than carry on a rude agriculture; few of them had
The Industrial Revolution in Russia
any education or any industrial training, so that it was not easy for Russian capitalists to find skilled and industrious workmen, and what they could produce was often not to be made so cheaply or well as it could be in Great Britain or the German Empire. They were also immensely hampered by vast distances and lack of railroads and good transportation. Nevertheless, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution began in Russia. Factories were established and artisans trained and gathered together, mostly in the western parts bordering on Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the center of Russian industrial life was in what had been the old Kingdom of Poland. In the early years of the twentieth century Petrograd, Lodz, and Warsaw had their tall chimneys their slums, their proletariat, together with the dark, strange problems which the Industrial Revolution had brought to western Europe long before.
Some of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe were temporary, some were lasting. Europe, and especially the western part, obtained still greater supremacy and wealth. There was an enormous increase of population throughout Europe in the nineteenth century. Levasseur, the French statistician, reckoned the number of inhabitants in 1801 at one hundred and seventyfive millions. By 1900 the population was about four hundred millions. This was partly due to the increasing numbers of people on the wide Russian plain; but in some countries, like Great Britain and the German Empire, it was principally the result of industrial growth. General results in Europe
In 1801 the population of England was only about eight millions five hundred thousand; in 1901 it was more than thirty-two millions, having very nearly quadrupled. During that period agriculture in Britain fell back, and it would have been impossible to feed the increasing multitudes except for increasing importations of food bought with manufactured goods. At last three fourths of all the people
Industry and agriculture in Great Britain
were occupied in industry and commerce. Britain, being first in the field, found it easy enough to support growing numbers by selling manufactures to other peoples still mostly engaged in agriculture, and she had, moreover, an immense colonial empire, in many parts of which the greatest opportunities for a long time would be in agriculture, in grazing, or in mining. But obviously, in course of time, each country would desire to develop its own manufactures, and when this came to pass, the older industrial communities would no longer be able so easily to get their own living.
Germany afforded some evidence of this. Her population also greatly increased as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In 1837 the population of the lands later on contained in the Empire was a little more than thirty-three millions; by 1910 there were sixty-five millions, the population having almost doubled. Three fifths of these people were now engaged in manufactures and commerce; and many of them got their living by making goods to be exchanged abroad for food. But the Germans had no great colonial empire to buy manufactured articles from them, and were obliged to compete in a field, largely taken by the British before them, which was now slowly diminishing as other countries established their own industrial systems. In the latter part of the nineteenth century Germany could well support her population by expanding manufactures and selling at lower cost; but many of her people believed that later on this could not be done unless they obtained great colonial dominions. At the present time the United States has become industrially self-sufficient, and other countries are on the way to achieving such state. Japan aspires to become the workshop of the Orient until such time as industrialism develops in China. Probably countries like Great Britain and Germany are not destined to continue indefinitely their expansion in population and wealth, in so far as that expansion is based on making and selling to other peoples the manufactured goods which they need.
In the German Empire
Prospect of the future
There was a change from rural to city life in many parts of Europe. Down to the end of the eighteenth century, there was no large community in Europe in which the great majority of the people did not make their living by agriculture and live in villages in the country. Afterward, however, in those countries like Great Britain, Belgium, and the German Empire, where the new industrialism most flourished, in course of time most of the people were gathered together around factories in cities or towns. So most of these people were cut off from contact with the soil, and in some of the larger places almost removed from knowledge and acquaintance with the country, from which their forefathers had developed character and derived their principal thoughts. In this manner arose not only a new set of problems, but also a different character and a new way of looking at things.
Great Development of Cities
Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution brought about a shifting of population, with alteration in the relative importance of different parts of the same country, or indeed of different countries. Down to the middle of the eighteenth century the rich and important parts of England were the east and the south, containing the best agricultural lands and the principal seaports. After 1760 this was gradually changed until the greater part of the people lived about the new industrial centers of the west and the north. Scotland's larger prosperity dates from the latter part of the eighteenth century when industrial life developed on the banks of the Clyde. In the early Middle Ages Flanders and the western Netherlands contained splendid cities with flourishing small manufactures, but after the sixteenth century, those parts which freed themselves from Spain and which are nowadays known as Holland, beginning a great commercial development became far richer and more powerful than the parts which remained under the Spanish rule, known as the Spanish Netherlands, and which later as Belgium were made subordinate to Holland.
Shifting of centers of population
But with the industrial development which followed separation from Holland in 1830, Belgium, with her coal and iron and huge factories in the valley of the Meuse, went forward in wealth and population faster than Holland. Until the middle of the nineteenth century France continued to be as populous as Germany and stronger, but after that time, when German unity was accompanied by mighty industrial growth, Germany went forward so much more rapidly that in 1914 she had half again as much wealth as France and nearly twice the population.
Industrial development also brought great changes in military strength. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, machines and tools of all sorts became so much more complicated and powerful that a great change took place which was ill understood before the events of 191415. By the time of the outbreak of the Great War, the power of cannon and rapid-fire guns had become so immeasurably great, and so enormous the disparity between men supplied with modern death-dealing instruments and the very bravest not so equipped, that a nation's military strength was no longer in any direct proportion to the number of its warriors, but to the size of its armies equipped with modern weapons and supplied with the ammunition which they needed. Therefore, states possessing abundant iron and coal with developed industrial systems, numerous factories and machines, and multitudes of skilful workmen able to produce vast quantities of pig-iron and steel to be worked up into mighty weapons of precision and other implements without number, were the only powers that could fight a great war with any chance of ultimate success. Russia--which a hundred years before had appeared a colossus and still had by far the greatest number of fighting men to call into service, but which had as yet few railroads and factories and trained industrial workers--was found to possess slight military power compared with Germany. The industrial strength of Germany was then
Industrial basis of new military strength
Downfall of Russia
seen to be the basis of military power so enormous that at first she easily defeated all her opponents. The war presently became fundamentally a stern duel between Germany and England, the other great European industrial nation; and was finally decided, after Russia with her millions had been completely crushed, by the entrance of the United States, the greatest industrial power in the world.
The problems, the ideas, the beliefs which arose out of the Industrial Revolution, varied in different places, and, also, in some parts of Europe they appeared much sooner than in others, since, generally speaking, the Revolution reached from the western part of Europe to the east in about a hundred years. But in all places there were certain conditions of primary importance, and in almost all places similar results followed from them.
The Industrial Revolution involved a fundamental change in manufacturing methods, in living conditions, and in relations between employer and employees. Machines came to be more important than workmen. Factories became larger and larger. Independent workingmen disappeared before capitalist employers, small capitalists before large ones; and in the end industry was more and more organized in stupendous corporations, in which there was no longer any personal relation between employer and employees, and often no understanding between them. New industrial organization
Under the old system of industry manufacturing was carried on mostly in houses of the workmen themselves. There the man of the house made his shoes, wove his cloth, or worked with his leather or iron, assisted by wife and children, or, where the guild system still survived, the master worked in the midst of apprentices who were learning their trades. Most of the work they did with their hands, or with small and simple machines. Personal, intimate relations existed among all these workers. The father
The domestic system
7. THE COAL, IRON, MINERAL RESOURCES OF EUROPE
might be a little of a tyrant; a bad master might abuse or overwork his apprentices; but an honest and kindly man watched out for the welfare of those around him, and was able to do it because he lived with them and knew of the things which concerned them. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this system was being partly superseded by small factories and capitalism. None the less most of the manufacturing continued to be done as before by the domestic system, in the houses of the workers, and many of them worked for themselves.
At first the new inventions made no great change. Not every successful workman could afford to buy Hargreaves's spinning-jenny, yet this machine was not very cumbersome or costly. But the heavy-power spinning machines of Arkwright could be got only by the few who had considerable capital to buy them and put up buildings in which to instal them. And when presently powerlooms and spinning appliances were run by steam engines, then only capitalists could buy them.
Changed by the large machines
This involved hardship in the time of adjustment, and entire change in the way manufacturing was done. In all countries where the large machines were brought into use most of the domestic industry was slowly crushed out. For a while the workers would strive desperately to compete, working longer hours and selling their products more cheaply than before; but almost always in the end they failed completely. Hence the old system passed away. Most of the workers drifted to the towns where the factories were rising. Some could find no place in the new system; and it seemed to them very wrong that through no fault of theirs they could no longer make a living, because machines took away all their chance. Sometimes they resisted desperately, and mobs of weavers smashed the new looms or tried to prevent other workers from using them. When the law was invoked all this came to an end, and, more and more, men and women who had
The old system passes
worked in their cottages with wheels and hand-looms gave up their efforts and tasked for factory employment.
In Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century and in the German Empire in the latter part, it was less easy to make a living in agriculture, because grain and meat could be produced so much more cheaply on a large scale in Argentina, Australia, and the United States. German agriculture after 1879 always held its own because it was protected, but in Britain after the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, when such protection was abandoned, British agriculture declined, and people were not only ittracted to the factories but to a considerable extent almost driven from the farms. Long before this there had been a steady drift of workers to industrial towns, where they were crowded and huddled together in the miserable tenements of squalid parts newly built. There was wretched overcrowding, with much dirt and unhappiness and disease. Many people now spent their lives working in factories, living in narrow streets, blackened and soiled with smoke from the chimneys, after a while so far away from the country that many lost all love for nature.
Formerly, life had often been hard enough, and living very meager, but many of the workers had been their own masters. Now they worked very largely at the mercy of employers who owned the indispensable machines, and whose principal consideration was usually the getting of wealth, not the employees' welfare. Generally there were more laborers seeking work than were needed, so that the employer had great, even cruel advantage.
In all places the beginning of Industrial Revolution brought as much misery as benefit to the workers. This resulted very largely because certain principles and ideas were applied to conditions for which they were not adapted. The Industrial Revolution resulted not merely from great mechanical inventions, from power-looms, engines, and steamboats, but also because of the rise of the Laissezfaire, let do, or non-interference marks the Industrial Revolution doctrine of laissez-faire and the abandoning of previous restrictions by which industry had been regulated and employers and employees protected. Formerly in England and in Continental states there had been elaborate governmental regulations, which, though they were made by the upper classes, gave some protection to the workers. But in course of time, as the older system decayed, those who favored new methods believed that these regulations interfered with industry more than they helped it; and during the latter part of the eighteenth century the whole tendency had been to remove restrictions and let things take their own course. Hence arose the doctrine of laissez-faire, taught by Turgot and other French writers and brought by Adam Smith into England. At this time also Rousseau and his contemporaries were teaching that men had natural rights which had been obstructed or taken away by interference of the government above them. This doctrine developed in one direction toward equality, democracy, and self-government: in another direction it led to the belief that men should have freedom of contract, freedom to work in such conditions as they chose, or liberty to manage their business without governmental regulation. Experience was to show that the freedom of laissez-faire would give more power to the strong and put the mass of the laborers in more lowly and hopeless subjection.
One effect of the Revolution was to establish a new upper class. "Aristocracy always exists," said Napoleon on one occasion. "Destroy it in the nobility, it removes itself immediately to the rich and powerful houses of the middle class. Destroy it in these, it survives and takes refuge with the leaders of the workshops and people." Napoleon could little understand the forces of democracy then rising, and he could not foresee that perhaps the greatest movement of the next hundred years would be the attempt really to improve the condition of the masses by giving them control of their governments and bettering their economic
The new upper class
position. Neither he nor his contemporaries could know, perhaps, that the Industrial Revolution then progressing in England would be the most powerful factor in bringing this change. But contemporaries must have seen then that one of its first great effects was to make a powerful new upper class.
Owners and managers were an upper industrial class, since only the rich and successful could buy the machines and develop the great new industrial arrangements. In medieval times the barons and lords of the manor had held much power over the villeins who worked their estates; scarcely less great was the power now of manufacturers over their employees. There was frequently a surplus of labor; so they could get as many workmen as they wanted, decide which ones to employ, and dictate to them the terms and the wages. The government ceased intervening to protect the workers, and it was moreover controlled by the upper classes who considered their own interests first. The belief was held that poverty and suffering resulted from operation of natural laws, which kindness could never remove, and that best results were always obtained by each man seeking his own selfish interest. It was often said then, as later, that larger wages would only result in larger numbers of children, after which the families would be no better off than before. So, the predominating doctrine in England was that capitalists should make as great profits and take from the workers as much labor as possible, and pay as low wages as they could.
Power of the capitalist owners
And this was done in Britain, and at other times in almost all places where industrialism was being established. Great prosperity came to some, and the nation seemed rapidly growing rich, but actually there were horrible results. Workers with their families crowded into the factory towns because they could no longer make a living in their cottages or out in the country. The throngs of laborers bid against each other for work, and wages were
Depression of the mass of the workers
easily driven down. Often the man alone could not support his family. This had frequently been so under the older system, for in the home industries often the man was helped by his wife and his children. Now they also must go to the mills and get scanty wages. This depressed men's wages still more, for frequently capitalists found that their machines could be run just as well by the cheap labor of women and children. Not all of the picture should be dark; but in the mill towns of Britain there were presently many idle men and many more who got insufficient wages. There were also women working long, hard hours, and so weakening themselves that often their babies died soon after birth, or lived to grow up weak and sickly. There were also in the factories many small children, who should have been at play or in school, but who at the worst should never been have made to toil the long hours of drudgery given them. In England there had been for generations a sturdy agricultural population which supplied the fighting men who won England's wars; now a considerable part of the population degenerated, and the factory towns contained many poor, ill-nourished, over-worked men, women, and children, pale and weak and disheartened.
It was scarcely realized at first how much power the concentration of wealth was giving to the industrial magnates who possessed it, and how helpless the individual worker was before them. It is clear enough now that whereas in the Middle Ages aristocrats or the strong and able men either went into the church and rose to be powerful ecclesiastics, or got to be captains in the wars or noblemen with castles, men-at-arms, and manorial rights over their fellows, now the able or the privileged went into industry and commerce and won for themselves power and position with their gold or with their machines. Only by uniting could the workers hope to oppose them successfully. Long before the Industrial Revolution English
Combinations of workmen forbidden
workingmen had attempted to form combinations, but these efforts were frustrated and forbidden by laws, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was a wellrecognized principle that unions of workmen were harmful to industry and also dangerous to the state.
The result was that for a great number of people conditions became worse and not better. Splendid new ideas about equality had come into vogue, and there had even been some attempts to let men govern themselves; but the mass of the people found that they could not get their living any easier than before and some found it harder than ever. The French Revolution had affected civil and legal affairs, rather than economic, and moreover new economic conditions were now being created by the Industrial Revolution which only new reforms could amend.
Conditions worst, not better
There was no simple remedy. In some respects a new world was being made, and for a long time the utmost to be accomplished would be the gradual bringing about of new and better conditions as the result of long work and patient endeavor. After a while some things were done. In England, where the Revolution first went far, the doctrine of laissez-faire was presently abandoned. In course of time people, becoming more enlightened and humane, could not believe that "enlightened self-interest" did bring the best results. The government began again to intervene passing laws to limit hours of labor for women and children, specifiying the age under which children might not be employed, and presently allowing workingmen to combine in unions for their advantage and protection. Progress was slow, for legislators hesitated to curtail the rights of individuals or let the state intervene in industrial affairs, so that often the early laws didi little to regulate conditions and brought small relief. Moreover, restrictions were generally evaded at first and ill-enforced. But in course of time the protection given workers by the
The state intervenes
government was greater, and much good followed. Meanwhile combinations of workingmen, which had been specifically forbidden in 1799 and 1800 but legalize in 1824 and 1825, slowly went forward. They were very weak at first and usually lost their contests with employers. It could scarcely be foreseen then that less than a hundred years later labor unions would have got so much power as to be threatening governments and in some places making their members a specially favored industrial class. For the present, however, the condition of the industrial workers, or the proletariat, as they were getting to be called, was generally low, and improving so slowly that impatient or radical thinkers believed the whole existing system to be wrong, and that new conditions demanded a new and different system. This led to the rise of new doctrines, some of which were among the most important contributions of the nineteenth century, especially socialism, which, as Toynbee said, was one of the paramount results of the Industrial Revolution.
To the humane French philosophers of the latter part of the eighteenth century the world had seemed full of abuses, and they had stated the means by which men could be given what they believed was their natural equality and the happiness which should be their due. These doctrines had been restated in the French Revolution, and attempt made to carry them into effect. Hence had come civil equality. But the radical reformers of the Revolution had clearly perceived that the better state which they hoped for could never be attained unless economic equality was brought about also. Presently the effects of the Industrial Revolution were apparent, and economic inequalities appeared still more striking. To remedy these conditions old doctrines were restated so strikingly that they have never since failed of attention.
The ideas now known as socialism did not originate in the nineteenth century, but in some form can be traced back very far. Plato, who perceived the inequalities of his time, and who declared that in every city there were two great groups--the few who had, and the many who did not have, always at war with each other--described in his Republic an ideal state in which there should be community of goods and all fare alike. Others before him had dreamed of this, and the idea was handed on down. When Christianity was established something of communism was adopted. "If thou wilt be perfect," said Jesus to a certain one, "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." Holding of property in common for all the members came to be the rule of organization in the early church as it was in the later monastic societies; but as time went on it was not retained in the general organization of the Catholic Church. In 1360 John Ball and others preached to English villeins that in the beginning all men were equal and that serfdom ought to be abolished. The doctrine of communism was again memorably stated in the sixteenth century by the Englishman, Sir Thomas More, who described the blessed country of Utopia where community of goods prevailed. During the period of the Reformation there was some attempt to realize this, especially in places where the Anabaptists for a moment were in control. During the seventeenth century in England certain Levellers arose to preach that all men should have equal position. In the eighteenth century French philosophic writers again expounded the doctrine. In 1748 Montesquieu recalled the communism of the republic of Plato, declared that the rich obtained their wealth by taking from others, suggested that the state should divide great fortunes, and asserted that in return for their labor the state owed food, clothing, and a healthful living to all of its citizens. Somewhat later Rousseau, who learned much from Montesquieu, asserted in his Discourse Concerning Inequality ( 1754) that in the state of nature, before man's natural rights had been abridged, there was
Communist ideas in earlier times
In the church
Montesquieu and Rousseau
no private property, but all men were free and held the property in common.
In the French Revolution the disciples of Rousseau and his fellows, both Girondists and Jacobins, held similar ideas; and, though these ideas had almost no actual result, yet during the most extreme part of the Revolution some attempt was made to put them into effect. One of the Girondists asserted that equality would come only if fortunes were equally divided by law, and if laws were passed to prevent inequalities in the future. In 1792 Robespierre declared that property held in common by all of society was indispensable. "The French Revolution," said Sylvain Maréchal in 1796, in his Manifeste des Égaux (Proclamation of Equals), "is but the forerunner of another revolution much greater . . . which will be the last . . . we move forward to something more sublime and just, the common weal and community of goods. No more private ownership of land, the land belongs to no one." By this time reation was already under way, and the bourgeois Directory was in control. Against this government Frangois Babeuf, who advocated complete equality and community of property, headed a conspiracy in 1796. His scheme, which at once came to naught with his capture and execution, had been the establishment of a state in which private property should not exist, and in which the commonwealth, holding all property, should direct all the work of its citizens, dividing their tasks among them, and, if necessary, compelling men to do the work assigned. Actually, during the Revolution the principle of private ownership of property was not seriously attacked, and despite much confiscation and change of ownership, such holding was thoroughly, safeguarded. Indeed, in France presently more private property was held by a large number of proprietors than before. From France communistic doctrines had spread over into England, but no substantial results were apparent.
Communism in the French Revolution
Economic equality by law
Private ownership upheld in France
For the most part the communistic theories of the Old Régime and the Revolution had to do with landed property, but during the first half of the nineteenth century the Industrial Revolution produced in western Europe such large results, such power and wealth in the hands of capitalists and factory owners, and made so evident the lowly dependence of a multitude of workers, that again the ideas of better arrangement of wealth and of regulation by the state were taken up. They were directed now more against the bourgeoisie. In Great Britain, and also in lands near by, the Industrial Revolution was now creating a new proletariat, for whom other measures were needed.
The Industrial Revolution
In England, where industrial change had been greatest, came the first important development in this period. Early in the nineteenth century Robert Owell, a Scotsman, developed at New Lanark a model factory community, where the workers shared in the profits of their labors. He believed that it would be possible for industrial and agricultural life everywhere to be so arranged. The enterprise at New Lanark was very successful, but attempts to set up similar communities in other places usually failed. It was generally found that a leader with the enterprise and the skill necessary to win such success would only work for himself, while the workers, much pleased to share in tile profits, were unwilling or unable to assume any part of the losses. Later on, however, coöperative enterprises and stores were established, not only, in Great Britain but elsewhere. Owen himself went beyond his undertaking at New Lanark, constantly interesting himself in assisting the poorer classes and reforming society. He tried to establish various communities in which property and interests should be in common. He was afterward regarded as the founder of socialism in England. Indeed, it was in connection with his efforts that the term "socialism" arose. He himself may have employed it, but as early as 1835 one of his disciples is
Socialism in England: Robert Owen
Origin of the term "socialist"
known to have used the word "socialist " (socius, comrade or ally). In the following years socialism permeated the ideals of the Chartist reformers, but died down with the failure of their schemes.
During this time the Industrial Revolution was developing also in France, where factories, slums, proletariat, all attracted increasing attention. Thoughtful and humane men began to advocate fundamental reform, going back to the ideas of Rousseau, Robespierre, and Babeuf. Claude, Comte de Saint-Simon, later regarded as the founder of French socialism, who developed his ideas in the years 1817-25, proposed that all property should be owned by the state, that inheritance should be abolished, and industry regulated by men of science. Franqois Fourier believed that reform should be made through establishing industrial communities, in which the profits would be divided among capital, labor, and talent. Somewhat later appeared Louis Blanc, who published his Organisation du. Travail (Organization of Labor) in 1839. He condemned industrial competition, and taught that the state should institute "social" workshops, in which the workmen should choose their managers and divide the gains. His plan for national workshops was soon espoused by many workingmen in Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 a provisional government was set up in which Blanc and other leaders of the socialist-.i were represented. National workshops were established but soon abolished. Then the socialists and workmen rose in revolt, but after three days of fighting in the streets they were mercilessly crushed, and the experiment came to an end.
Nevertheless, the idea persisted that enterprises should be owned by the state and managed for the workers within them. In the following decades many of the great public utilities were purchased by the governments of European countries, and public ownership was widely extended. In France, in Prussia, in Italy, in England, railways,
Public ownership and nationalization
tramways, telephones, telegraphs, were bought by the central government or by the governments of the cities; but the benefits of this public ownership were for all the people and not merely for the particularly employees in question. After 1914 especially, the doctrine was spread about that capitalists must disappear, that industries, like transportation and the mining of coal, must be purchased by the state, and then operated and managed by their workers who would share such profits as arose.
Thus it is evident that ideas of socialism or communism had had a long development before the middle of the nineteenth century, and that many thinkers who contributed to its teachings continued to influence men after this time. But by the end of 1848 the socialism of Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, and their followers was visibly sunk in decay; their efforts had failed and it was apparent that their teachings had not produced the results they hoped for. Chartism in England was dying out. The schemes of Louis Blanc had failed in Paris. As early as 1840 many radical workmen had lost faith in the doctrines of these teachers, and some of them began to believe that reforms by the government, and remedies brought by philanthropists or conducted "men of science" would help them little. The betterment of the condition of the proletariat, it was said must come through the efforts of itself. The doctrines which such men held vaguely and not yet well defined had to some extent been stated by the German, Wilhelm Weitling, and by the Frenchman, Étienne Cabet who in 1840 described his Voyage en Icarie, a philosophic romance which described the communism of an ideal state. Presently German refugees, followers of this workingmen's movement, founded the Communist League, a secret society, with headquarters in London. At this point appeared Marx, the great expounder of modern socialist doctrines.
Decline of the older socialism
Karl Marx ( 1818-83) was of Jewish descent, and came of a middle-class family in Rhenish Prussia. He was destined for the law, but his own inclinations carried him to philosophy and historical studies. He was at first a liberal bourgeois, in the days of political repression in Germany before the Revolution of 1848. Soon he found it expedient to leave the country. In 1843 he went to Paris. There he met Friedrich Engels, his companion and co-worker thereafter. Through study of the teachings of Robert Owen, and through acquaintance with Louis Blanc in Paris, Marx became a social reformer and an advocate of the workingman's cause. In 1847 Marx and Engels attended a meeting of the Communist league held in London. The views which they there stated made much impression, and they were asked to draw up a working programme for the league. This they did, and in 1848 appeared the Communist Manifesto, a small pamphlet containing in brief form their socialist doctrines. "Let the ruling classes tremble," they said. "Workmen of all lands, unite." In 1849 Marx, having returned to Prussia, was expelled from the country. Presently along with his wife he took refuge in London, and remained in England until his death. During these long years, in the midst of poverty, discouragement, and meager living, sustained by the devotion of his wife and the sympathy of followers and friends, haunting, as many a scholar since has done, the Round Room of the British Museum in quest of materials for research, writing in his rooms, often in the midst of the children whom he loved, shouting, tumbling, harnessing him as he wrote and whipping him in the midst of laughter and shouts, he composed his profound and extensive studies which constitute a landmark in the development of socialist writing. His chief work, Das Kapital (Capital), was published in 1867.
Finds refuge in England
Communism, or socialism, as it was called again later on, received vast impetus and new meaning from the teachings of Engels and Marx. Everywhere the Communist Mani-festo Influence of Marx festo attracted attention. Das Kapital did not directly influence many, but the ideas of the master were reduced to simple form, popularized and spread broadcast, as new teachings and great doctrines usually are, by numerous disciples who proclaimed them again and again. In another generation they had become mighty factors in the intellectual and economic life of the world; and when the century ended, it was seen that the teachings of Marx-like the exhortations of Luther and Calvin, like the theories of Rousseau, like the doctrine of evolution taught by Darwin had profoundly affected the minds of great numbers of men.
According to Marx there had always been a few at the top ruling and exploiting the many beneath them. Between the two groups there had been a struggle from of old. In ancient times the contest was between masters and slaves; slavery had gradually disappeared, but then society was divided into the lords above and the great body of the serfs beneath them; gradually serfdom had disappeared in most places, as nobles and lords lost their power, but from the ruins of feudal society had come the modern bourgeois society, and the age-long struggle was still being fought out between capitalists and industrial workers. "Society as a whole," said the Communist Manifesto, "is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat." In the end the upper class, the workingmen's enemy and master, would be completely overthrown. Now the workers toiled for their masters in factories and were huddled together in tenements and Slums, but their number was great, and if they could unite with the workers in the country they might some day get the government within their control. Capital and wealth were held by a few; they were destined to be concentrated in still fewer hands; then, finally, when the people had control, all would be taken over by the
Doctrines of Marx and Engels
Struggle of classes
state for the people. Marx declared that upper-class capitalists largely owned as private property the wealth that had been created by the workers, and that with the destruction of the bourgeoisie and their organization, this would be brought to an end and capital be the common property of the people. The Manifesto stated in simple form some of the measures which it was hoped would be ordained: abolition of property in land, all rents to be taken for the public; a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; abolition of inheritance; centralization of credit in the hands of the state, the state setting up a national bank with exclusive monopoly; all means of communication and transport to be centralized, controlled by the state; state ownership of factories and instruments of production; equal liability of all to labor--establishment of "industrial armies"; free education of all children in public schools, and abolition of children's factory labor. "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.""The proletarians," said the Manifesto, "have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
It was the work of these communist teachers, and especially of Marx, to take the earlier socialist speculations, and give them apparently firmer foundation and certainly greater distinctness. The doctrines of Marx were no mere abstractions conceived in his own mind nor brilliant speculations based upon foundations which be merely assumed. For years he carried on tireless research in the past records of industrial history and development, and whether or not his deductions were correct, he deduced from study of the past his interpretation of the present and his prophecies for the future. His conclusion that all history recorded a struggle between classes was plausible enough, however true it may be. His prediction that the mass of the people
would certainly control the governments of their states later on was in accord with the splendid dreams of the democracy then developing, which since his time have developed so much further still. His conclusion that under the control of the people communism would be established for the betterment of the lot of the people had for more than two thousand years been the dream of not a few philosophers who hoped to ameliorate the lot of mankind. His idea that the proletariats of the several countries had interests in common and should live together in amity and accord was but an aspect of the scheme which many noble spirits have cherished for the attainment of peace and things better.
The ideas of Marx and other great socialists were carried further and sometimes perverted by rasher and more ardent spirits, whose declarations filled contemporaries with aversion and horror. Socialism soon came under the stigma of intending to break up the family, abolish marriage, bring community of women, divide all property equally, and do away with the Christian religion. There was good reason to think that if those who cherished these ideals could, they would bring them to pass by force through sudden overturning and revolution. Accordingly socialism, like the doctrine of evolution, had to encounter not merely the conservative instinct of the time in which it appeared, but also the repugnance and dread of many who were frightened at radical wildness. For not all of this was Marx responsible. It should be remembered also that, whatever his mistakes, and some of them only time will determine, his motives were of the best. He was filled with a passionate humanity and desire to make the lot of his fellowmen better. "The poor always ye have with you," was the maxim brought down through the ages; but these socialists conceived of poverty as a disease in the state, curable, and preventable, indeed, if the state were but organized better.
More radical doctrines
Nobility of the motives of Marx
8. EUROPE: SHOWING RAILROADS, CANALS, AND PRINCIPAL RIVERS
In the latter part of the nineteenth century socialist and communist doctrines became increasingly influential and important. Many of the socialists themselves gradually became less extreme, and expected to bring their reforms about slowly, in consequence of perception by most people that their doctrines were best. Some of their ideas in course of time were adopted by governments themselves and put into effect, for the most part, it would seem, for the better. Generally, however, their fundamental doctrine, that private property should be abolished and that all should be held by the state for the use of its people, found slow acceptance. It would be possible to point out that communism had existed probably in every primitive society, and that if the history of mankind extended over 100,000 years, perhaps much the greater part of this time had known the existence of communistic organization. It was certain that in the development of what most people conceived to be the better civilization of the more recent centuries, always common ownership had yielded to the system of private holding. Whether, then, communism was well adapted for advanced peoples, whether it could ever be put into operation for the welfare of the majority was for most people hidden in doubt and in the future.
Criticism of socialist doctrines
Doubt concerning socialist doctrines
No teachings in the nineteenth century aroused stronger opposition and greater dread than the socialist doctrines. They were boldly aimed at existing political and social systems, so that governments, churches, and the great body of conservative and propertied people everywhere were almost always hostile and suspicious, in so far as they knew anything about them. Twice did the French government suppress French socialists by force; and under Bismarck's leadership the government of the German Empire passed drastic laws against them. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, socialists became more moderate and also began to have wider influence Ac-
Hostility to socialism
cordingly, governments themselves undertook to carry out some of the socialist ideas. This state socialism was begun by Bismarck in Germany in the years 1883-9. Thence it spread into France; and largely as at result of the influence of the Fabian Society was to some extent accepted by the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom.
More determined was the opposition of the churches. In England, in France, in Germany, and elsewhere, it is true, Christian Socialists, like Charles Kingsley and the Abbé Lamennais, had striven to amend the condition of the poorer classes through legislation by the state, but they were usually altogether opposed to the ideas of Marx; and most churchmen were against all socialist teachings. Greatest of all was the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church. Its authorities condemned the new teachings completely. In 1864 Pope Pope IX denounced socialism and communism in the Syllabus of Errors, and in 1891 Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical or circular, Rerum Novarum (Concerning New Matters), declared that socialist teachings violated the natural right of property, though he deplored the greed of employers and urged that the condition of workers be improved. "The last great fight," said a socialist leader, "will be between the Blacks and the Reds"; meaning the Catholic Church, with its black-robed priests, and the socialists who had taken for their standard the red flag. Socialists refused to follow the dictates of the church; while conservative people looked on the churches as a bulwark against radical teachings.
Hostility - the churches
Meanwhile profound changes had been brought about in the character and position of the great body of the people through consequences that followed the Industrial Revolution. Nothing else was so potent in advancing democracy and self-government, education, the emancipation of women, and the spread of numerous liberal ideas. Great numbers of people were brought together, and mere association with one another gave them the quicker, more
Further effects of the Industrial Revolution
open, more radical minds which come in city life, the power of numbers, and the habit of acting together. However wretched their condition often might be, factory workers in the towns were soon mentally more alert, more apt to question existing conditions, better able to comprehend changes, and more insistent that changes should be made, than the inhabitants of farms or little villages had been. During the course of the nineteenth century the great ideas which had first been formulated in England, worked out in the United States, and afterward more grandly stated in France, were followed by the masses of the people in western Europe. Gradually in Great Britain, in France, in Italy, in Belgium, and to a less extent in the German states, workingmen and rural laborers were admitted to the franchise, after which, because they were the majority of the people, they tended to get control of the governments as Marx had foretold. They themselves, and the upper classes as well, saw that this power could not be gained, and certainly not well used, unless they obtained education; and in the nineteenth century, for the first time in the history of the world, it became a great purpose to see that all men and women should be able to read and to write. Then when most of the people had obtained some education and political experience, they began to demand reforms in government and life which would make their lot better, and after a while to agitate for thorough changes to bring this about. By the beginning of the twentieth century it seemed certain to many that the future of the world lay in democracy, even though democracy often had not yet learned to act wisely.
Increase of urban life
Finally, it was because of the Industrial Revolution even more than the French Revolution that the position of women was changed so much in the last hundred year. The Renaissance, the Reformation, even the French Revolution, which carried some men so far forward left women much as they always had been, inferior
Position of women altered
and subordinate to men. Down to the time of the new factories and the large machines, most of women's work was always done in the home, under control and supervision of the men, whose authority was recognized by law. But one of the results of the Industrial Revolution was that much of all the toil formerly done at home--spinning, weaving, making of clothes, preserving food and a part of the work of preparing it to be eaten--was taken away and given to factory workers. A large part of such labor had formerly been done by women in their homes; now they went forth to work for wages, which, after a while, they considered to be theirs and kept for themselves. In this way gradually some economic independence was achieved. Moreover, socialist and labor leaders almost always insisted on the equality of women with men.
THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832
And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints: restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear, upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.
BLACKSTONE, Commentaries on the Laws of England ( 1765), book i, chapter i.
The higher and middling orders are the natural representatives of the human race.
MACAULAY, in the Edinburgh Review, March, 1829.
THE history of Great Britain differs from that of other western European lands in that the French Revolution made no sharp break or beginning of a new era there. In France and some of the neighboring countries 1789 marks the end of an old régime. In England, where the Revolution had no profound immediate effects, the old system of things never ended abruptly, and was not seriously disturbed until 1832, when, indeed, there was no revolution. It was always by gradual changes that England of the eighteenth century was transformed into the democratic nation which existed just before the War. The English people had become conservative and for a long time they had no violent revolutions or changes very abrupt. At the same time they were so wisely, liberal and constructive, that, continuously making changes as changes seemed needed, they often advanced along the
The Old Régime yielded slowly in Britain
pathway of reform more quickly than any other people. Some, like the Americans and the French, established a new order, recording the change in a new constitution. After the first ten amendments ( 1791), the American constitution ( 1787-9) was for a long while scarcely altered at all. The French making several complete changes about the same time, several times afterward discarded their work and returned to an older form. But the British people have no constitution in any single document, and their constitution shows better than anything else how their government has been a gradual growth. It consists of great statutes from Magna Carta to the Electoral Law of 1918, of all the lesser laws which continue in force, the great decisions of courts, and at body of precedent and custom. The elementary student finds the American constitution in a few pages near the end of his text-book; only gradually is he able to discover what the British constitution is.
English Government Slowly changed
In spite of such gradual alteration, the changes in the British Isles since 1789, seen from a distance, are enormous. Britain of the twentieth century is a liberal democracy with government vested in representatives of the people, with men and women taking ever more decisive part in ordering the affairs that affect them, and constantly striving to direct affairs in the interests of the body of the people. The Britain of the eighteenth century, though the lot of its inhabitants was better than that of any others in Europe, was a land of privilege and wealth for the few, with power in the hands of a small number at the top, a land of class distinctions and class privilege, of vested interests and subordination of the many.
Eighteenth Century England
It was still an age of established religion. At the time of the Reformation most Englishmen became Protestants, adherents of the Church of England. This church, established by the government, took for its use the old cathedrals and churches, and administered the religion which
Discrimination against Roman Catholics
all the people were to have. But some adhered to the Roman Catholic faith. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries these English Catholics were put under penalties, which, if enforced, made them outlaws. They might not sit in parliament or hold public office, or practise their religion openly, nor might they have priests in private, while the law compelled them to attend services of the Church of England. Some of the regulations were commonly not enforced, but always they could be an instrument of oppression in enemies' hands. There were also many Protestants who had desired reformation different from that established by the Anglican Church. Such were the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, and at a later time the Methodists. For a long while now these dissenters had been allowed to worship as they wished, but they also subject to discrimination and debarred from holding office by the Test and Corporation Acts passed in the seventeenth century, though they were now regularly relieved from the operation of these statutes by annual indemnity, acts.
Against Protestant dissenters
The government was a limited monarchy, with parliament the principal power. The king, who as late as the sixteenth century had almost all the functions of government in his hands, afterward lost to parliament his most important powers: making laws and levying taxes. During the eighteenth century his executive power and control of foreign affairs were taken over by the ministers of his cabinet council. According to the law the king still appointed officials, commanded the army and navy, executed the laws, which could only be passed when he approved them, and presided over the administration of affairs. And it should be noticed that it was partly because the statesmen who drafted the American Constitution believed that the king of England was really an executive that such powers as these were given to the president of the United States. Actually however, in Britain almost all Government
The king loses power
of these powers had been completely lost to the ministers of the cabinet.
The cabinet form of government arose in England. From of old English kings had had a council of assistants and advisers to help them in governing their kingdom. In the sixteenth century this body was known as the privy council. In the course of the seventeenth century the privy council became too large, and kings caused a few of its ablest and most trusted members to meet privately for important business. This followed contemporary usage in France, where the meeting was often held in one of the cabinets or smaller rooms of the king. Gradually in England the small body came to be known as the cabinet council. It was strictly subordinate to the king, who always presided at its meetings
The king's power had long been declining, but in 1714 a dynasty of German princes was called to the throne. The first of them was not only dependent on the great leaders who gave him support, but could not speak English and knew little about the government of his kingdom. Accordingly, he soon stayed away from cabinet meetings, and in his place a first minister or prime minister presided. In the period 1714-60 the cabinet ministers, who were the leaders of parliament, gradually took away the king's power. In 1760 George III began a long effort to get back what his predecessors had lost, and for a while he had much success. After a period of disasters and trouble, however, he gave up the struggle, and since about 1783 the executive power in the British government has been in the hands of the prime minister and the cabinet. Gradually it was established that these ministers, who were leaders of the houses of parliament, were to be dependent on a majority of the representatives in the house of commons. In the British system now the executive, the cabinet, is a committee or part of the legislative, the house of commons, whereas in the American form of government execu-
Cabinet displaces the king
tive and legislative are separate completely. In the American system the president, after being elected by the people, except where his power is shared with Congress, is, throughout his term, largely uncontrolled, save by public opinion. In Britain under the cabinet system the executive depends directly upon the approval of a majority of the representatives in the commons. When it no longer has this support, it quickly passes from power.
In 1789 this had by no means completely developed. The ministry or cabinet was largely dependent upon parliament, but in no modern sense did parliament represent the people of England. Less than one man out of ten could vote; representation was not in proportion to population; and the franchise was dependent on property or old right to the suffrage.
Parliament once not controlled by the people
Parliament consisted of the house of Lords and the house of Commons. The lords were hereditary noble members. The house of commons was composed of members elected from the counties and from some of the boroughs or towns. From the counties members were elected by property-owners in accordance with a law passed in 1430. Most of the members of the commons came from the boroughs. By no means did all of the towns have representation--only those which kings had formerly invited to send members. For a long time no new ones had been invited. Now in the industrial regions large cities were growing, which had no representation whatever, while places once given the right continued to have it even though their population was small, or, as in some cases, it had disappeared altogether. In the boroughs the franchise was generally restricted to a very few voters, who were property-owners or had inherited their right to vote. Wealthy men were easily able to buy up the "decayed" or "pocket" boroughs and manage their representation as they pleased. Hence the principal members of the house of lords, wealthy nobles and landlords, had control of a Parliament in the eighteenth century
Many Towns not represented
great part of the commons; and when George III tried to regain the lost power of the crown he began his efforts by buying members of the house of commons.
Only indirectly and faintly did such a parliament represent the people. Perhaps this was not to be helped, for most of the people could not read or write, and there were not any very effectual means of informing the people about politics or of making their influence felt. Long before, Cromwell had tried to reform the electoral system, basing representation on population, in the modern way; but this plan failed almost at once. At the end of the eighteenth century many Englishmen wanted parliamentary reform, but their projects had to do with giving representation to the larger places and taking it from some of the small ones. Not many advocated representatives in proportion to numbers, because very few believed that most men should vote.
Representation not based on population
As yet there was little of democratic ideals. The democracy of Athens and other classical places had been for free citizens supported by a much larger number of slaves; and in the city communities of the Middle Ages power and privilege of government were generally limited to only a few. Some teachings of the Christian religion seemed to imply equality, but some of its precepts also proclaimed the subordination of the many to the few. From time to time there bad been teachers who asserted the equality of men, but their schemes had failed and their teachings were regarded as false and misleading. Just before the French Revolution Rousseau and others had declared that government should rest on the consent of its people. Soon after, the Americans wrote in their Declaration of Independence "All men are created equal," and a little later the French Revolutionists asserted that men are born and continue equal and free. But the French soon went back to monarchy and kings; and the Americans had in their midst black men whom they did not consider, and according to
Democracy Little Developed Anywhere then
The American and the French Revolution
the state constitutions which they drafted only a small proportion of their men had the vote. In Great Britain at this time there were only a few people, regarded as radicals or dangerous dreamers, who believed that men were equal or that government should be a democracy based on the votes of its men. "I do not know," said an English bishop, "what the mass of people in any country have to do with the laws but to obey them"; and there were few, even in the lower classes, at this time who would not have in his doctrine.
The masses obey, not make laws
There was then much reason why the people of England should consider themselves well off as things were then. Most of the land and much of the property were in the hands of a small class of aristocrats at the top, but there was much simple well-being among the people. They did not control their government, and it was often directed in the interests of the upper classes, but the aristocracy did on the whole give good rule. Furthermore, there had long been limitations on the power of king and great lords. Men were entitled to trial by a jury of their neighbors, they could not be imprisoned without some cause being shown, and they were not put to torture; while until the days of the French Revolution, on the Continent men and women had little security against being imprisoned without trial or accusation, and against being put to torture to make them confess or to punish them. In Great Britain for some time it had been well established that no taxation could be levied by the government unless allowed by representatives in the commons, and little though these members stood for the people, this was a limitation upon arbitrary government which down to 1789 existed in no other great country of Europe. Hence Englishmen rejoiced. "It requires no proof," said the Lord Justice Clerk, "to show that the British Constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better."
Relatively good conditions in Britain
Most of the people were still engaged in agriculture, though more and more now made their living in the expanding industries of the time. Usually the body of the rural population had little part in the government, and, even in local government, offices were almost always held by the gentry from whom came the justices of the peace. The rural inhabitants were generally rude, ignorant, and simple; their work was long and hard; they were frankly regarded as inferior to the upper classes who lived in their midst. In the towns there were throngs of cheap laborers, almost entirely at the mercy of employers. Combinations or trade-unions were forbidden by law, and many laborers worked in the midst of bad conditions and long hours for low wages. Three out of four children, perhaps, never got education. As late as 1843 it seems probable that one third of the men and one half of all the women could not even sign their own names.
The life of the people
The position of women was inferior to that of men. There had until recently been little work that a woman could do except about the home. Usually they were not supposed to have any learning except what pertained to home duties; and if they had education in other things they were often advised to keep their knowledge a secret, since female erudition was thought unwomanly and improper, not liked by men. In 1792 Mary (Wollstonecraft) Godwin thought that "women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed," but she was aware that this would be laughed at. Women were not allowed to vote or permitted to hold office, though it should be remembered that most men also were debarred. They might not serve on juries, and they were sometimes punished with harder punishments than men. Otherwise, if they remained unmarried--which few women wished-they had the same legal status as men. But married women, the great majority, were put on a distinctly different footing. The laws had been made in an earlier time
Position of women
when women were very dependent on men for protection. Accordingly, women were expected to obey their men. A married woman had no separate existence according to the law, but was a part of her husband, who was responsible for her, and had entire authority over her. Upon marriage the husband became the owner of the wife's property, and the children were legally his. If he saw fit, he might chastise his wife. Finally, it should be noticed that in earlier times families were generally larger than now, and that a great part of all the energy and mental activity of most women was given entirely to the bearing and raising of children.
In British life of the eighteenth century there was much apathy and also much contentment and disposition to believe that things were well enough as they were. There were some who strove zealously to remove the disabilities from Catholics and Dissenters, and effect parliamentary reform; and just before the French Revolution it seemed that there was fair prospect of changes being made. The vast cataclysm which now burst upon Europe, however, affected Great Britain profoundly. The conservative temper of the British people was shocked by the execution of nobles and king, the confiscation of property, the fundamental alteration in the life of the state. Moreover, Britain was soon involved in a long and terrible struggle with France and with Napoleon, and this made the reaction far greater. Hence reform was postponed for many a year, and reaction came in its stead.
Effect of the French Revolution
In England at first the French Revolution was viewed with approval or hailed with delight. Many people of property and substance thought England more progressive than France, and believed that France was now following good English example. Dr. Richard Price declared that the French were but carrying further the principles of the English Revolution of 1688. Charles James Fox, the Whig leader, thought the fall of the
Approval of the French Revolution in Great Britain at first
Bastille the greatest and best event that ever had happened. A large number of the English dissenters approved and commended. Many of the younger thinkers and writers, as always in time of great change, were enthusiastic at the prospect of large alteration. In 1791 the young poet Wordsworth visiting France was stirred with generous emotion. The youthful Coleridge and the youthful Southey were full of sympathy and admiration. The radicals and seekers after social reform, of whom there were then many in England, gave warm approval, as long afterward foreign radicals gave it to the Bolsheviki. Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, afterward her husband, and others were ardent champions and supporters.
Soon, however, a change of sentiment began. In 1790 Edmund Burke published his Reflections on the Revolution in France, and a little later his Appeal to the Old Whigs. In these treatises, which were the most important philosophic defence of conservatism ever composed, Burke condemned the methods of the revolutionists in France, and declared that their work could not be successful and was not to be imitated or approved in England. Human society at any time was the result of accumulated work and experience from the past. There was intimate and natural connection between those who had been, those who were, those who would be. Society was the product of gradual development--or as would have been said later on, of evolution. Change must be slow, and in respect of the past. Violent, complete alteration, revolutionary change was unnatural, and could not bring permanent amendment. Next year he was answered by the Vindici Gallicæ (Vindication of France) of Sir James Mackintosh, and about the same time by Thomas Paine Rights of Man ( 1791). Paine delighted in large alteration and was thrilled with generous hopes of mighty reform. He had assisted the American revolutionists some years before; now he enthusiastically supported the new leaders in
Condemnation by Burke
Defended by Paine
France; a little later he was elected to the French National Convention. In his striking and brilliant pamphlet, addressed to the mass of the people, he declared that the people never could surrender their natural rights, that they might always alter their government just as they pleased and establish whatsoever system they wanted.
In Great Britain many had been persuaded by the reasoning of Burke. Many more were now terrified by the writing of Paine. The course of events in France heightened fear and aversion: old privileges were abolished, the lands of the church were taken, nobles driven from the country, the monarchy abolished, and presently the king then the queen put to death. The Reign of Terror struck Englishmen with horror, and French exiles brought over tales of pity and terror just as Russian refugees now carry them all over Europe. When the new French government announced that it would assist in overthrowing governments in neighboring countries and help to carry the French Revolution to other peoples, the great majority of the influential and propertied classes in Great Britain definitely drew back in reaction. Several associations, such as the Society for Commemorating the Principles of the Revolution and the London Corresponding Society, had been formed to communicate with the Jacobins in Paris. They were increasingly frowned upon. In 1792 a proclamation was issued against seditious writings. Presently English radicals were looked upon as enemies and traitors. There was now far less disposition for change and reform than before the French Revolution began. Men feared any alteration, lest violence tear all their edifice down.
General aversion and reaction in Great Britain
After George III's failure in the war with the colonies and with France, he had ceased attempting to control the government of England. In 1783 administration was committed to a ministry under William Pitt ( 1759-1806), son of that Pitt who led Britain to triumph in the Seven
Ministry of the younger Pitt
Years' War, and who had presently become earl of Chatham. It has often been said that with the younger Pitt's accession to the premiership modern cabinet government was definitely established. Long before, the cabinet had been the king's select council. During the first half of the eighteenth century cabinet ministers had taken away most of his real control over the government. In 1760 George III had begun to reign. Soon he attempted, largely by using the measures of patronage, bribery, and favor that had enabled the principal ministers to get their control, to win back much of the power lost by the monarchs preceding. For some years he had great success, and again in Great Britain, as had once so long been the case, the king ruled while he reigned. In 1783, however, following disasters in war, the government of George III was compelled to cede certain possessions to France and to Spain and to acknowledge the independence of the principal colonies of the British Emphire. With this collapse of his foreign policy, the king had to abandon his efforts to direct the ministers and control the government of the realm.
Attempt of George III to rule
The attempt was never resumed. It may be, however, that the definite establishment from this time of ministerial power mostly independent of the king was largely the result of accident and chance. There was no reason why the king or one of his successors should not have tried it again. Actually, however, George III soon showed signs of insanity. After several intervals of temporary derangement he became insane permanently in 1811. Great Britain was now administered under a regency controlled by the ministers. After the death of the king in 1820 two monarchs of small attainments followed with short reigns, to be succeeded in 1837 by a young girl, Victoria, who reigned until 1901. She had neither the ability nor the aptitude to struggle to regain lost royal power, even if she desired to do it; and after her long reign the new system of control of the government by the ministers of the cabinet
Governing power definitely lost by the crown
was too thoroughly established to be easily shaken. It should be noted, however, that the husband of Victoria, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, had much interest in state matters and especially foreign affairs, and gradually acquired great influence in them. By some it has been thought that had he lived longer, and especially if he had been king of England, the crown might still have regained much power lost in the century preceding.
The first premiership of William Pitt the Younger lasted from 1783 until 1801; and after a brief interval he was prime minister again for two years ( 1804-6). When the French Revolution began Pitt had succeeded in recovering for Great Britain the high position she held before the American Revolution. In 1788 a defensive agreement, the Triple Alliance, had been formed of Great Britain, Prussia, and the Dutch Netherlands, for maintaining peace and the existing posture of affairs. A little later ( 1790) Spain was forced to abandon claims which she was maintaining to the Nootka Sound territory near the modern Vancouver. At first he made such effort as he could to avoid being drawn into French affairs. When in 1792 monarchy was overthrown in France, the British ambassador was withdrawn from Paris. A little later the French overran the Austrian Netherlands and threatened the neighboring Dutch country also. The Dutch government appealed to Great Britain, and promise was made of assistance if needed. Accordingly, Great Britain and the revolutionary French republic drifted toward war. While the French were preparing to invade Holland they declared the River Scheldt--closed by the Treaty of Münster ( 1648)--open to navigation; and the Belgian country was now treated as part of France. For ages England had dreaded to see this country in the hands of any strong power, for Antwerp and the estuary of the Scheldt afford one of the best possible bases for a deadly stroke at England. To prevent France obtaining this
Causes of the war with France
country had been one of England's objects in the Hundred Years' War ( 1336-1453). At a later time invasion of Belgium by the Germans ( 1914) would bring England. into the War of the Nations. Now in 1792-3 the British government negotiated with France to reverse what had been done, but the French refused. Presently the Revolutionary ambassador was dismissed, and early in 1793 the French declared war. Pitt believed there would be a short struggle, of one or of two campaigns. But Britain was entering on one of the most terrible wars in which she had ever engaged.
Great Britain proposed to carry on this war as she had waged other struggles in Europe. At sea she was allpowerful. The sea she would hold, and her enemy's outlying colonial possessions would be seized. Her army was small. She would dispatch forces abroad, but for operations on land she would seek allies and encourage and assist them against France. Alliances were made with Austria and with Prussia, and the First Coalition was formed with these powers, with Spain, and with some of the Italian states, while troops were hired in the German countries. For a moment in 1793 it seemed that France would be overthrown. On all the eastern frontiers the French were driven back. The British swept the sea, and presently the British and the Spaniards seized the great naval base at Toulon. But the French rallied, drove back their enemies, and Toulon was presently recaptured. The war now went against the allies, and the coalition threatened to break up. In 1794 a British fleet defeated a French fleet off Ushant near Brest, but on land the French carried all before them. By 1795 the coalition was dissolving, and all of Holland had been conquered. The Reign of Terror had now ceased in France, and in England a peace party insisted that the war be brought to an end. The contest had brought much suffering and discontent in the island, and when in 1797 Austria also made peace
Beginning of the struggle
The French defeat the coalition
with the Directory Great Britain was left to face her enemy alone. Pitt would gladly have made peace, but the French refused to give up the Austrian Netherlands, about which the war had begun.
The French, now directed by Napoleon Bonaparte and his associates, strove to carry the war into the British Islands. In 1796 an expedition had set out for Ireland. About the same time another actually landed in Wales, though nothing was accomplished. The great cost of the war and the dread that the enemy might strike into England caused a financial panic. In 1797 the Bank of England was ordered to suspend specie payments: they were not resumed until 1819. France now planned a grand naval campaign for invasion of Britain. A Dutch fleet from the northeast and a Spanish fleet from the Mediterranean were to join the French warships at Brest, and the combined armada bear down upon England. But while the British blockaded their opponents at Brest and in the Texel on the Dutch coast, their Mediterranean fleet fell upon the Spaniards off Cape St. Vincent at the corner of Portugal, and won a decisive triumph. Here Horatio Nelson first gained distinction. Britain seemed saved by her naval power, but now mutinies broke out in the fleets at Spithead--off Portsmouth, and at the Nore or mouth of the Thames. Low wages and hard living conditions combined with the general spirit of unrest were the cause. For a moment England's shield was down, but before the enemy knew of the crisis the mutinies were entirely ended. A little later that year the Dutch fleet was defeated at the Battle of Camperdown off the coast of Holland. Meanwhile the unrest had spread to Ireland. There the disaffected appealed to Frenchmen for aid. In 1798 a rebellion broke out. After much confusion, savageness, and treachery, it was presently stamped out with ferocity and horror.
Attempts to invade the British Isles
The naval mutinies, 1797
Rebellion in Ireland
The fortunes of Great Britain rose again. To break British power in India Napoleon planned an expedition to the East. In 1798 he conducted a powerful fleet with a strong army to Egypt, seizing the island stronghold of Malta on the way. Then the French fleet was destroyed by Nelson in the decisive Battle of the Nile ( 1798), and Napoleon after fruitless victories was checked at Acre in Palestine. Some of the Indian princes had been roused against the British, but their power was broken and the foundations of a much greater British empire in India were laid. The Second Coalition against Napoleon was now formed ( 1799-1801), but Napoleon carried all before him on land while the British held the sea and captured Malta--thenceforth one of their important naval bases in the Mediterranean. In 1801, when the northern powers influenced by France joined in agreement prejudicial to England, a British fleet bombarded Copenhagen and then overawed all the Baltic. France now desired a rest, and the English were weary and disheartened. In 1802, by the Treaty of Amiens, Great Britain surrendered her conquests save for Trinidad taken from the Spaniards and Ceylon taken from the Dutch. Malta was to be restored to the Knights from whom Napoleon had seized it.
Struggle with Napoleon
The Treaty of Amiens
Next year the struggle was resumed. The British had delayed the surrender of Malta, and believed that Napoleon was making ready for another attack; while he apparently hoped to finish what the last war had left incomplete. A great French army was prepared for the invasion of England. Nelson guarded the seas with his fleet. In 1805 Pitt formed the Third Coalition of Great Britain, Austria, and Russia, but Austria was completely overthrown, and Russia defeated made peace later on. Meanwhile, however, Nelson annihilated the principal fleets of Napoleon in the Battle of Trafalgar ( 1805). During the remainder of the war, though never relaxing her vigilance at sea, England was not gravely threatened again. In 1807 the British, believing that the Danish
Struggle with Napoleon resumed fleet would fall into their enemies' power, again bombarded Copenhagan, and seizing the fleet brought it to England. By that time Napoleon had conquered all his opponents on the Continent, and made a friendly agreement with Russia. He now undertook to ruin Britain's trade by closing her markets. By various decrees he shut the Continental ports to British vessels, while the British government promptly retaliated with orders in council blockading the enemies' coasts. In this contest, the British, having command of the sea, had the greater success. Moreover, Britain having by now, in consequence of the Industrial Revolution, become the main workshop of the world, her goods were much needed in Europe, and Napoleon often relaxed the Continental System so that her goods might be bought for his service.
Attempt to ruin Great Britain
Pitt had died in 1806. He was succeeded by various ministers less renowned who governed during the long struggle that continued. The navy was kept powerful and alert, and gradually, through the efforts of Castlereagh, secretary for war, a capable army was created. Suitable opportunity in a proper theater of war now appeared for this army. In 1808 Spain and Portugal were overrun by the French. A British army was at once sent to Portugal, which the British had several times before used as a base for operations against Spain and also France. When it entered Spain, Napoleon himself drove it out; but meanwhile Sir Arthur Wellesley had won successes in Portugal, and presently he began the long and difficult campaigns which ultimately destroyed French power in Spain completely. This might have been accomplished sooner if the British government had not decided in 1809 to use a great part of its available forces in a fruitless expedition against Antwerp. In the marshes of the island of Walcheren, at the mouth of the Scheldt, much of the army was lost and nothing accomplished.
The Peninsular War
None the less, the Peninsular War was waged with increasing success by Wellesley, who became Viscount Wellington. He was assisted by the nature of the country, and by guerrilla warfare carried on by the Spaniards themselves; and gradually he built up a powerful army of veteran soldiers. For a time he was compelled to retire into Portugal. There he established his army behind the impregnable lines of Torres Vedras, which he constructed to defend his base at Lisbon. In 1811 he fought a series of bloody battles along the Spanish border, and next year when Napoleon had assembled most of his forces for the invasion of Russia, Wellington was able to commence decisive operations in Spain. In the summer he won the Battle of Salamanca, clearing the north of Spain and capturing Madrid. Next year he gained the more memorable Battle of Vitoria in northeastern Spain, by which French hold on the peninsula was broken. Napoleon's power was now everywhere falling to pieces. Accordingly, Wellington forced the passes of the Pyrenees, and carried the war into southern France.
While Great Britain was straining her resources to accomplish Napoleon's defeat, she was involved in her second and last war with the United States. In the latter stages of their struggle the French emperor and the British government had endeavored to crush each other by economic strangulation and blockade. In the course of this contest the rights of neutrals were often infringed. During this time the Americans had been able vastly to extend their carrying trade, and make great profits by selling to both of the parties. Through control of the sea, the restrictions of the British bore more heavily on the Americans and other neutral traders than did the decrees of the French, at the same time that Napoleon had much more desire than the British to buy. The British carried on rigid search, and took from American vessels as deserters not a few sailors, whom nevertheless the government of the United States considered to be citizens of its country. Conflict with the United States
In 1807 the United States proclaimed an embargo, forbidding all commerce with Europe. For this two years later was substituted the Non-Intercourse Act, prohibiting trade with Great Britain and with Napoleon's jurisdiction. In 1812 the United States declared war on Great Britain.
In the contest that followed the Americans, with superior vessels admirably handled, won a series of striking successes in single combat at sea. These victories had no decisive result, but they lowered British naval prestige, and enormously enhanced American national pride. On land the American armies were poorly managed, and after large preparations for the conquest of Canada, nothing was achieved. The principal American success was the striking victory of Commodore Perry on Lake Erie ( 1813). On the fall of Napoleon the British were able to make greater efforts. All of the American warships were now captured or contained and the coast of the United States subjected to stringent blockade. American privateers did enormous damage to British commerce at the same time that American trade was temporarily ruined. A British army of veteran troops was despatched, and Washington captured and burned. Early in 1815--news of the peace having not yet arrived--another British army was decisively defeated at New Orleans. Both sides had already become weary of the contest, it being realized now that the war should not have been fought. By the Treaty of Ghent ( 1814) the issues that had led to the war were passed over in silence, conquests were mutually restored, and provision made for settlement of other disputes outstanding.
The War of 1812
Meanwhile Napoleon had been overwhelmed by Europe united against him. In 1814 he surrendered and was exiled to Elba. Louis XVIII was placed upon the throne of France, and with him Great Britain along with her allies made peace. She was beginning to participate in the Congress of Vienna ( 1814-15) for settlement of European
Napoleon finally overthrown
affairs, when Napoleon returned to France, and made a last desperate effort to recover his power. From all over Europe armies were at once moved against him, but the host that he led into Belgium was resisted first by an army of British and mercenaries under Wellington and by an army of Prussians. In 1815 his power was finally destroyed at the Battle of Waterloo. Another peace was made with France, Britain using her influence for moderation; the Congress of Vienna presently, concluded its labors; and Great Britain joined Austria, Prussia, and Russia in the Quadruple Alliance ( 1815) to guarantee the settlement in Europe.
During the long period of this struggle liberalism had fallen into abeyance. Reaction grew apace, and for the most part all ideas of reform were abandoned. During the struggle with Revolutionary France they in Great Britain who advocated alterations like those being made in Paris came to be regarded as enemies and dangerous traitors; while the Reign of Terror and the extreme consequences of the French Revolution soon rendered all thought of reform and revolution hateful to most British people. First conservatism increased, then intolerance and fear.
Liberalism thwarted by conservative reaction
A whole series of repressive laws was passed. Those who spoke or printed what the government considered to be harmful were sternly prosecuted, and in 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. Failures in the war and bad harvests in England brought much discontent; and radical reformers, urged on by the example of Frenchmen and by the suffering at home, asked for peace and for parliaments elected every year by the votes of all the men. Then two measures were passed which made it treason to speak or write against the government, and practically took away the right to hold political meetings except under government supervision. Peace came after a while, but soon the giant struggle with Napoleon was resumed, and for long years Britain held out against most
Reaction in England of Europe. During these years there were not only the hardship and exhaustion and waste which always bring much discontent, but the changes of the Industrial Revolution were proceeding with a great deal of misery, unrest, and agitation. There were not wanting men who thought more of altering conditions which they disliked at home than of standing together against the enemy abroad. For the most part, however, the British people understood that the first of all tasks was that of saving their country; and so they turned away from reform for the time. Thee government kept sternly on at its task, until finally Napoleon was crushed and the Revolutionary period ended.
The war engrosses attention
Britain in 1815 confronted conditions in many respects like those of 1918, after Germany had been overthrown. The war had been very expensive. It had been necessary to purchase huge quantities of provisions and obtain supplies at a time when labor was scarce and prices were high, while large sums had been loaned to Britain's allies on the Continent; so that the end of the struggle found the national debt amounting to £40,000,000 with annual interest of £32,000,000--sums which formerly would have been regarded as ruinous. There had been inevitable dislocation of business, with heavy losses. Prices had been high and there was much inflation. Now prices began to fall; business slackened; trade with other countries was poor; and many who had served in the army or the navy were dismissed and found it difficult to get other employment. Added to this was the general spirit of unrest and agitation which inevitably comes after long war. It was not only a time of slackened industry, but the new labor-saving machines made it harder for all to have work. Agitators found it easy to draw men and women to hearken to new doctrines which often people failed to understand but which they hoped would bring better conditions. There were much misery and distress; hence men were eager for changes. All sorts of doctrines
Difficulties after the war
Unrest and discontent
were taught. Some thought that parliaments should be elected each year; some demanded universal suffrage; some would have repudiated the national debt. In 1816 men were calling for the destruction of British commerce and the putting of workmen back on to the land, as a hundred years later socialists and labor unions wanted capitalism ended, and the mines and factories given to those who toiled in them.
Alarmed at these radical demands, the government and the upper classes, guided by conservative and reactionary leaders, carried through repressive measures. In 1817 another law was passed to prevent seditious meetings, and the Habeas Corpus Act again was suspended. Bad harvests caused distress and increased unrest. There was some disturbance, but the government sternly prosecuted those who took part. In 1819, in the midst of industrial depression and scanty harvest, a great crowd at Manchester--then unrepresented in parliament --assembled in St. Peter's Fields. Their banners were inscribed "Equal Representation or Death." If they had part in parliament, they thought, their unhappy condition would be bettered. Mounted soldiers charged the crowd; some were killed, others wounded. As the "Peterloo Massacre" this affair was long remembered and mourned. That year the so-called "Six Acts" were passed. By the first two, magistrates were instructed to seize arms and prevent unlawful drilling; the third provided that those who offended were to be tried at once; by the fourth those who published seditious libels were to be punished; the fifth put a prohibitive tax upon the cheap pamphlets which circulated among the masses; by the sixth meetings, in town or in country, were prohibited unless summoned by the local official. These laws, though at the time they seemed justified by prevailing and dangerous conditions, seriously infringed upon Englishmen's rights. But they were only of temporary duration. The unrest of the years after
The Six Acts of 1819
the war largely disappeared. Economic conditions had been bad. As soon as conditions improved, popular discontent and repressive measures both passed away.
The men who were guiding the destinies of England considered things from the point of view of their class, and often, perhaps, of their own selfish interests; but it must also be remembered that they were facing difficult problems in the most difficult times that men had known for generations. In a brief span of years one of the mightiest of all revolutions had risen across the Channel, overturning old systems and kingdoms, and going like a storm over Europe. Then came the greatest of military commanders, and Europe was tormented with fire and with sword, with the march of armies and rush of events, year after year, until at last the disturbers were cast down and a mighty reaction began. In Britain, as in other countries, there was much unhappiness and justifiable discontent, and reforms were sought which ought to have been made. But many of the things that brought discontent were inevitable results of the war, and could only be cured slowly by operation of time. To the rulers and the upper classes, and generally to conservative people, the principal task seemed to be preserving the institutions just fought for; and they were determined to oppose the reformers and agitators who clamored for radical change. Actually at this time Britain was more liberal than any of the other countries near by.
The task of the rulers
Time needed for amendment
This was best shown--along with efforts to maintain the balance of power and conserve British interests--in foreign relations. England soon withdrew from alliance with the powers who were trying to undo as completely as possible the reforms made by the French Revolution. In 1822 she disapproved of intervention to restore absolutism in Spain, though she did not resist French occupation. A British fleet prevented complete triumph of the reactionary party in Portugal. Meanwhile, Britain
had seen the Continental nations, urged on by France, consider undertaking the reconquest of Spain's revolted colonies in America. The British government was determined to prevent this. George Canning, then secretary for foreign affairs--prime minister somewhat later--strove to arouse as much opposition to the scheme as he could. In 1823 he proposed that the United States and Great Britain should issue a joint declaration asserting that they could not see with indifference any part of the Americas transferred to another power. The American government refused to act jointly with Britain, but proclaimed by itself the "Monroe Doctrine" ( 1823), which announced that intervention by a European power against an independent American state would be regarded as an unfriendly act. " I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old," Canning afterward declared. Actually, there was little that the, United States could have done to prevent any European action. Far more effectual was the opposition of Great Britain, because she had complete command of the sea. In reality, the independence of the Spanish-American countries was maintained by the sea power of Britain.
The Spanish America countries
Changing times were now marked by the passing of statesmen and rulers identified with the old order. George III died in 1820. Sixty years before he had come to the throne a young man of much promise. He was brave, of good appearance, dignified, simple, and excellent in family life. But he had neither a large mind nor any of the qualities of a statesman; he was obstinate, often sullen, narrow-minded, not able to change with the changing times; and he was determined to maintain that which existed and win back the lost powers of the crown. Death of George III
His failures and even his success had both cost his country dear. He had striven to make the American colonies more subservient, and in the end the most important were lost. A little later, in 1800, his minister, Pitt, had brought
about the union of Ireland and Great Britain. Had the Irish acquiesced in this union it would have been the best thing for the people of both islands, and it seems now that they might have acquiesced had the Roman Catholics, three fourths of the Irish population, received the civil and political rights denied them because of their religion. Pitt, the prime minister, favored enfranchisement of these Catholics, and perhaps promised it to the Irish leaders; but George III opposed such inflexible rev sistance that at last the minister yielded. More than a quarter of a century then elapsed before the Irish Catholics received what they wanted, and then it was too late to make them loyal and grateful. Afterward Irishmen so often opposed the Union that men have sometimes thought George III lost Ireland to the British crown almost as completely as he lost the United States. A great many other factors, however, combined to drive Ireland and England apart. In the later years of his reign the old king was insane, but so long as he had influence it was thrown against reform or any change, and reformers saw clearly that little was to be expected as long as he lived.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
George IV ( 1820-1830) had neither character nor attainments to inspire respect or assist any constructive effort; but during the decade of his reign there was constant movement of great forces tending toward a change, and presently the difficult beginning of a series of great reforms. The movement was more rapid in the years of the next king, the simple, democratic, and rather foolish William IV ( 1830-1837). Indeed the electoral reform law passed in 1832 was to mark the beginning of a new era in British political life; and the first years of the reign of the next monarch, Victoria ( 1837-1901), may be taken definitely as the beginning of the new age. George IV, William IV, Victoria
Great forces had been operating for some time to bring about change. The existing political system had come down from a time when nobles, great landowners, and political leaders had taken away the power of the king; but now the wealth of the nation was held not only by aristocratic landlords but by manufacturers and merchants also, and they--as had been the case half a century before with the French bourgeoisie--insisted upon a share in the government. Parliamentary representation also was based on conditions largely passed away. Once the people of England had been mostly engaged in agriculture, with the best farming lands in the east and the south. Then it had been very proper for political power and representation to be in those districts. But the Industrial Revolution altered the situation. The coal was in south Wales, or the west or the north, and the chief iron deposits not far away from them. Therefore, as the British population grew now most rapidly in connection with industrial development, people went to the west or the midlands or the north, and by 1820 the larger part of the population was in these districts.
Forces tending toward
There had been a powerful and growing movement in Britain for parliamentary and political reform before the time of the French Revolution, but the excesses in France, the wars, and the violence of some leaders in England caused most people to look upon any project of reform with suspicion and dislike. At last now this time was gone. By 1820 the generation that remembered the Revolution was passing, and by 1830 men were coming to power who thought less about Napoleon than problems of the present, and who no longer had to think of change and reform as things dangerous or even helpful to the foe. Therefore, the reform movement which had been left to violent writers and agitators of lowly station, was now taken up by people of higher position, and became rather a movement of the middle class than of the lower classes as it had been.
Desire for parliamentary reform
Some of this change was owing to the writings of a group of celebrated men, of whom the most important was Jeremy Bentham. He had expounded the idea that the end for which men should strive was always the "greatest happiness of the greatest number"; and declaring that the British political system mostly served the interests of the upper class who controlled it, he advocated extension of political power to the people. The influence of his teaching was spread abroad by friends and disciples, and presently had great influence with statesmen like Durham and Peel; and with radicals like Francis Burdett--who was zealous for parliamentary reform; Francis Place--the radical tailor and astute political manager; and William Cobbett--eloquent agitator, editor of the Political Register, and writer of radical pamphlets. Reforms are usually thus brought about by leaders who carry them forward, not by urging from the mass of the people.
Several important changes were now made while the government was still controlled by conservatives and "Tories." First came the reform of the criminal law. In the Middle Ages, in England as elsewhere, suppression of crime had been a difficult matter. There were many rude and lawless people, to whom might meant right; there was no effective system of police; and there were not enough jails and prisons. To offset this, great severity was used and numerous offences were punished with death. This system, like many other things, had lingered on down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and while to some liberal reformers it seemed barbarous and absurd, to a great many it seemed right because it had so long been in existence. As late as 1819 there were about 200 felonies punished by hanging. Death was the penalty for picking a pocket of twelve pence; it was also the penalty for murder. It should be said that the savage harshness of this code was somewhat mitigated by a practice which had gradually come into being. In the Middle Ages, ecclesiastics had had the right to be tried in church courts, where they were punished less severely than they
Reform of the criminal law
would have been in civil courts, since the church was not willing to put criminals to death. This right was known as "benefit of clergy." It was greatly desired by criminals, and when tried they were apt to assert that they were clergymen. It early came to be a custom to allow this claim to all who could read; and by a statute of 1705 the privilege was granted, in the case of a great many crimes, to any one who wished to have it, on the occasion of his first offence. That is to say, while the criminal code ordained death for numerous crimes, actually the delinquent might in many instances escape severe punishment by asking for benefit of clergy. Even so, however, the existence of such ferocious laws was a grievous thing and brought about much suffering and debasement of character; so that reform of the criminal law was sought by many liberal spirits of the time. The work taken up, especially by Sir Samuel Romilly, was carried forward by Sir Robert Peel. In 1823 a law was passed which abolished one hundred capital offences; by 1837 the number of crimes punished by death had been reduced to six. Benefit of clergy was abolished in 1827, and a modern police force established in London ten years later. Meanwhile, other improvements were made. In 1815 punishment of offenders by putting them in the pillory was done away with, and the whipping of women a few years later. A more humane spirit was evident also in 1824 in the founding of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Ten years later the baiting of bulls and cock-fighting were forbidden.
Benefit of clergy
Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Robert Peel
At this time also religious discriminations were removed. In England the majority of the people were of the Church of England. After 1600 the triumph of the Anglican Church had been complete, and a code of laws was passed against all who dissented from it. The Toleration Act of 1689 had in effect given freedom of worship to Protestant dissenters, but there continued to hang over them
Discriminations against Dissenters removed, 1828 the Corporation Act of 1661 and the Test Act of 1673, by which they were debarred from holding political office, since this was conditional on taking the sacrament according to the Church of England. These laws were not stringently enforced and were indeed made ineffectual through frequent acts of indemnity; yet they remained on the books. Now, at last, in 1828 they were repealed, and all Protestants given equality in the state.
This brought no relief to the Catholics. Roman Catholics were not numerous in England, but they constituted most of the population of Ireland, and there for a hundred years religious disabilities had kept them in a degraded and inferior station. Irish Catholics had been allowed to vote in elections since 1793, but they were not permitted to hold office. Complete enfranchisement had been hoped for and expected at the time of the union with Great Britain, but nothing had been accomplished. Now the movement was taken up by the Irish leader, Daniel O'Connell, who founded the Catholic Association in 1823 and soon caused such vast excitement among the Irish that the British ministry thought it best to yield. In 1829 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill was passed, by the terms of which the oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supremacy, as well as denial of belief in transubstantiation--by which Catholics had been kept from office--were done away with, and civil and political equality given to Catholics for the first time in the British Isles since the sixteenth century. These great changes marked the formal ending of an old era of religious prejudice and lingering political discrimination.
Catholic Emancipation, 1826
In spite of these reforms, however, most of the inhabitants were still debarred from political rights; and parliament, which controlled the government, very poorly represented the people. The next great amendment, therefore, seemed to lie in reforming parliament and extending the franchise. This was only gradually accomplished in the
Reform of parliament
course of the nineteenth century, but the beginning made in 1832 seemed so momentous a thing as to mark a turning point in the history of England.
In the house of commons there were 658 members. Those returned from the counties were generally dependent upon the great landed proprietors there. By far the greater number came from the parliamentary boroughs, and in them the old system was particularly bad. Originally, perhaps, there had been some idea of making the system roughly representative by having those places return members which were best able to give money to the king; though always, it would seem, some places were given representation not because of population and importance but since it was believed that their numbers would vote as the sovereign desired. In course of time the inequalities more striking, as places which sent members to the commons stood still or declined in population, while other places, rapidly growing, had no representation whatever. Neither Leeds nor Birmingham nor Manchester nor Sheffield returned any members, though they were coming to be the very center of England; but there continued to be representation for Old Sarum, which had almost no people, for Gatton, a gentleman's park, and for Dunwich almost completely under the waters of the North Sea. The southern counties of England, with a fourth of the total population, returned almost as many members to the house of commons as three times as many counties in the midlands and the north with population three times as great. Cornwall sent eighteen members; Lancashire, with eight times as many inhabitants, nineteen. The majority of the house of commons, it was said, was elected by less than 15,000 persons. In most of the boroughs there were only a few voters, entirely under the influence of some great man near by, or else very willing to be purchased. In some of the larger places there were spirited elec-
The unreformed house of Commons
tion contests, but usually candidates were regularly chosen at the order of the magnate who owned the borough or controlled it. It was well known that electors could be bribed, and on one occasion a borough advertised itself for sale to the highest bidder. In 1793, it was said that 309 members were returned by private patrons, 163 of them by members of the house of lords; and just before the reform, that 487 came into the house through the influence of 144 peers and 123 powerful commoners. That is to say, the house of commons was controlled by members of the house of lords or other wealthy men who desired influence and power. And much power could be secured thus, since the government of the realm now rested upon the house of commons. Great men who controlled votes in the commons could not only help to pass measures which they wished, but were apt to get bribes, pensions, lucrative offices, contracts, and shares in government loans on very favorable terms. Altogether, it was a system under which most of the people had no vote, in which the representation was not apportioned according to the population and in which the great aristocrats and political managers controlled the government of England and Scotland.
Control of the house
In the first half of the eighteenth century a certain politician had proposed parliamentary reform. Later on the earl of Chatham advocated disfranchising corrupt boroughs and adding their representation to that of the counties. Still later his son, William Pitt, proposed reform on three several occasions. In 1792 the Society of the Friends of the People had been constituted for advancing this movement. It was also advocated by Charles, afterward Early Grey. But during the years of the struggle with Revolutionary France all reform fell under suspicion.
Earlier efforts for parliamentary reform
In course of time a more normal period returned, and meanwhile the long effort for amendment of parliament was receiving greater impetus as it obtained the support of the powerful middle classes, whom the Industrial Revolution had made important, but who remained with almost no part in government affairs. The movement was led by Lord John Russell, of one of the great Whig houses; and under his wise and moderate leadership it gained strength year after year. The Tories, under the duke of Wellington, resisted; but in the general election of 1830, at the beginning of the reign of William IV, the Whigs were triumphant.
Stronger movement for reform
Immediately parliamentary reform was undertaken. In 1831 a bill to extend the suffrage and to redistribute seats in the house of commons was brought into the commons, but defeated there. The ministers then had the king dissolve parliament. In the general election that followed there was enormous popular excitement. The Whigs again won a majority, and immediately a second bill very similar to the first was brought in. It passed the commons by a handsome majority; whereupon the lords threw it out. Then there were riots in the cities and violence by mobs, and such an outburst of popular feeling that the peers was terrified at it. When in the spring of 1832 a third bill was passed in the commons, the lords dared not openly reject it but tried to destroy it by amendments. Excitement now became furious, and people refused to pay taxes. England, indeed, was at the brink of revolution. After a period of great confusion the king agreed that a sufficient number of new peers should be created to pass the bill in the lords, an old device, which had been used before and was to be threatened again. But this was not needed, for some of the lords abstained from voting, and in 1832 the bill was made law.
Passing of the Reform Law
The Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832 re-apportioned representation and extended the suffrage. It disfranchised 56 "rotten" or "pocket" boroughs, each having less than 2,000 inhabitants, but which had returned 111 members to the house of commons; 30 boroughs with
The Reform Law of 1832
population of less than 4,000 each were deprived of a member apiece, and a double borough had representation reduced from four to two. Thus 143 seats were obtained for redistribution. From them the county membership was increased from 94 to 159, while 22 large towns received two members each, and 21 smaller towns one each. Thirteen members were left for Scotland and for Ireland, in which, it may be said, the reform was effected by two separate bills. Other provisions concerned extension of the franchise. In the counties the old forty-shilling freehold qualification, established in 1430, was retained for freeholders who occupied their estates or who had acquired this franchise by inheritance or by marriage. In addition the right of voting was given to other £10 freeholders, to copyholders--who held not in full, free ownership, but subject to certain obligations embodied in a contract of which a copy was kept--and also to leaseholders holding for the long term of sixty years. For leaseholders of shorter terms a £50 qualification was fixed. As the result of a motion originally made by the marquis of Chandos in connection with the second reform bill, and designed to give the vote to tenants controlled by the landlords, a £50 qualification was also allowed to tenants at will. In the boroughs the various old franchises were almost all abolished, and the vote in parliamentary elections given to all householders paying a rental of £10 a year. Previously in the British Isles one person out of forty-eight might vote, and the franchise was controlled by the upper class. Now the electorate was doubled--from 500,000 to 1,000,000--and the franchise was controlled by the middle class as well as the upper.
Extension of the franchise
This legislation constitutes one of the great landmarks in English constitutional history. It altered a system that had been little changed for four hundred years, and ended the old political arrangement. But it seems a less complete change now than then. By no means did the Importance of the reform leaders believe in manhood or universal suffrage, nor did they design to make representation strictly proportional to numbers. These things were not brought about until another half century had passed. The significance of the change is not that it made Britain a democracy--no large country in the world was one at this time, except the United States of America, which had just been greatly extending the franchise--but that it began a process, which, after many years, was to establish democracy in the British Isles also. During this era new names came into use for the two principal political parties in Great Britain. Since their definite organization in the latter part of the seventeenth century they had kept the terms then applied to them: Tories and Whigs--the Tories originally supporters of the crown, the Whigs opponents. About the time of the struggle for the First Electoral Reform Law the old names yielded to new ones. The Whigs now came to be known as Liberals; Tories were called Conservatives. These appellations were thenceforth retained.
Whigs and Tories
Liberals and Conservatives
THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867
I consider the reform bill a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question--a settlement which no friend to the peace and welfare of this country would attempt to disturb. . . . Address of SIR ROBERT PEEL to his constituents at Tamworth, 1834: Annual Register, 1834 (Chronicle). p. 341.
That any form of Government which fails to effect the purposes for which it was designed, and does not fully and completely represent the whole people, who are compelled to pay taxes to its support and obey the laws resolved upon by it, is unconstitutional, tyrannical, and ought to be amended or resisted.
Chartist Petition, 1842, Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser. lxii, 1373.
IN THE winter of 1833 the first reformed parliament assembled, and at once proceeded to memorable tasks. For a long time leaders like William Wilberforce and Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian, had denounced slavery in lands subject to Great Britain and had striven to have it done away with. In 1807 the slave trade had been stopped, but slavery continued to exist in the West Indies. Now it was brought to an end. The planters were compensated with £20,000,000 of public money. The negroes were no longer to be slaves, but they were to remain bound as apprentices for seven more years. It was only where slavery was violently overthrown, as it was in the American South by the Civil War, that servitude was abolished completely at once.
Abolition of slavery in the colonies, 1833
In earlier times there had always been a great deal of labor by children, but while manufacturing was done in the home, this had seemed to many people proper enough. Now as workers were brought into factories, the condition of the children employed there attracted more attention. Children as young as six years were made to work for long hours under conditions ruinous to health and not allowing development of body and mind. Protest against this had been made in Manchester fifty years before, and factory legislation in 1802 and 1819 had done a little to remedy the evils. It was difficult to accomplish anything that would really better conditions, for the powerful body of capitalist manufacturers were against any interference, and it was a cardinal policy of the Whigs themselves that the government should let such things alone. But not only were people now coming to be less willing to disregard suffering and wrong, but there was more feeling that the state should not permit things which were harmful to some of its people. Increasing agitation, led by Sir Robert Peel and by Lord Ashley, afterward earl of Shaftesbury, resulted in the Factory Act of 1833, which for the textile industry prohibited the employment of children under nine years of age, and limited and regulated the hours for older children. This was the first instance of general state interference in economic conditions since the Industrial Revolution, and while it accomplished little enough, for it applied only to one kind of labor and still permitted a child of ten to be worked sixty-nine hours a week, it was the forerunner of many other laws, and the real beginning of factory legislation in Great Britain.
The policy of laissezfaire
In the next year another sweeping reform dealt with the problem of poor relief. In days of old and in the Middle Ages alms were given to the needy by the charitable or the religious. After the dissolution of the monasteries in England ( 1536-9), much of this kind of poor relief came to an end. But the need for assistance was so great that shortly after, in the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, a series of laws had been passed by which contribu-
The Poor Law of 1834
tions for the needy were levied upon property-owners in the parishes where the poor were to be supported. The sick and the aged were to be kept in poorhouses and the able-bodied idlers put to work. As time went on this legislation had been badly enforced. Idlers were not compelled to work, and almshouses for the needy were insufficient. The changes of the Industrial Revolution had brought great hardship to many who could not adapt themselves to the times, and there seemed to be greater need for assistance. About the end of the eighteenth century began the practice of giving money allowances to those whose wages were not enough. The intention was good, but employers who paid as low wages as they could now made them lower, expecting the state to help, while the idle and the shiftless, feeling sure of some support, were more willing than before to be paupers. This created an intolerable situation; one out of every seven persons in Great Britain came to be dependent on state support, and the contributions or "poor rates" which had to be levied increased in amount until thrifty people moved away to avoid having to pay them. Now as a result of the Poor Law of 1834 the amount paid in poor relief was diminished. The act provided that all outdoor relief, except medical aid, should be abolished--that is to say, wages would be supplemented no longer; that women should support their own illegitimate children; and that able-bodied paupers should be put to labor in the workhouse--dread of which shortly drove many to work. The organization of poor relief was also improved: a central authority was created for better supervision and control; parishes were to be grouped in poor-law unions, so that the more prosperous might help the poorer; and greater freedom of movement was allowed the destitute and unemployed so that they might better go to other places where work was to be had.
Earlier relief by the state
Increase of pauperism
Reform of poor relief
Next year the system of town government was reformed. A long time before the government of the cities and the towns had been established by charters. In most of these places only a small number of people might vote, the franchise being confined either to persons descended from those originally allowed to vote, or to those who owned certain property. By the time of the parliamentary reform there were many populous places with a few voters each, and they often poor and lowly men, quite dependent on political managers. In effect, the government of these places was often in the hands of bodies of men who elected themselves to offices and to the town council. Now by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 most of the boroughs and cities were to have a government vested in a council elected by the taxpayers, and a mayor and aldermen chosen by the councillors from their own number.
Reform of town government, 1835
In this period of changes began the reign of Queen Victoria, granddaughter of George III, and daughter of his fourth son, the duke of Kent. In her nineteenth year she was awakened early one morning, in June, 1837, to meet the great officials who came to say that she was sovereign of Britain. She was not beautiful, and she was entirely without the dominating and brilliant qualities of an Elizabeth of England or a Catherine of Russia; but she was a sweet simple girl who had been well brought up by her mother; and afterward her personal qualities as a woman and a mother and a good if not a forceful character, were to endear her to her subjects beyond almost any other sovereign who ever ruled England. Her reign of sixty-four years, the longest in the annals of the country, was to see such enormous changes, such mighty extension of empire and power, such greatness and prosperity, that long before it was over the Victorian Age would seem one of the most important of all epochs in the history of England. Victoria was to take comparatively little part in the government of the realm--though the British sovereign was not yet completely deprived of
Accession of Queen Victoria
power, partly because the monarch was no longer the real executive, partly because she lacked aptitude and the higher ability for such work. In 1840 she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who thus became the Prince Consort. It was a love match, and their marriage was exceedingly happy. The prince had an excellent influence upon his wife, and because of his wisdom and ability he was often able to assist and even guide the ministers of the cabinet without ever intruding his advice or assistance upon them.
The Prince Consort
Reforms and improvements continued to be made. Of large importance was the beginning of "penny postage." in 1840, which did more to revolutionize communication between persons than anything before the invention of the telephone. Long before, a system of post had been developed by the kings for sending their own communications, and later on some men made a business of carrying letters and parcels. In the seventeenth century a monopoly of carrying letters in England was granted first to private individuals, but presently taken over by the government itself; and then the post office became a department of the central government. In those days of poor communications, bad roads, and comparatively small business, the charges varied according to the size and weight of the package and the distance it was to be carried. Generally the service was poor, the charges high, and letters were apt to be opened or lost on the way. In 1840, following the work of Rowland Hill, it was decreed that any letter not more than half an ounce in weight having on it an adhesive postage stamp costing a penny might be sent anywhere in the United Kingdom. Opponents had declared the scheme to be impracticable, and that it would overwhelm the post office with too many letters. Business did increase enormously, but the officials were always able to handle it; and seldom has anything brought greater assistance to business or more happiness and consolation to people.
Penney postage, 1840
But the tendency of the times was such that discontent continued to increase. There were many bad harvests, a succession of them in the early years of Victoria's reign, with the hunger and misery, the political and social unrest always attendant. People were crowding to the factories in a movement that gradually transferred most of the population from the farms to the towns, a movement that was proceeding too rapidly and resulted now in bringing together great numbers of men and women in competition which lowered their wages. The poor law reform was an excellent thing, but scarcely any reform of an evil can be made without causing some temporary distress, which comes not from the reform but the evil before it. The old poor relief had indeed pauperized some of the people and encouraged them not to work; but now many found themselves with nothing at all unless they went to the poorhouse. Excellent reforms had been made, but they were not sufficient, and they had not yet had time to produce such betterment as they would later on. To many people, poor and discontented, the government seemed selfish and corrupt, the queen under the influence of evil ministers, and the reforms just obtained mostly made for the upper classes. The Reform Law of 1832 had only extended political power to masters of business and the middle class, and given nothing to most of the people. It was in these years that Chartism began.
Misery among the lower class
In 1836 was founded in London a Workingman's Association to better the conditions of the employed. The socialists who were beginning their work at this time did not believe that much good could come from the existing system of government, but the Workingman's Association immediately began to strive for political reform. In 1837 they formulated a petition--which was by some called a Charter, after which they were known as Chartists--which concerned six things that they sought for. They demanded that property qualifications for
members of parliament should be abolished; that the members should be paid; that all men should be allowed to vote; that the voting should be by ballot; that the parliament should be composed of members elected from equal electoral districts; and that there should be a new parliament each year. Thus they proposed to make it possible for representatives of the people to be chosen from among the mass of the people, and to give to the people some effective control of the government which they obeyed. These things had already been demanded in England by radical reformers for some years; they were to be sought during many more years to come; and as times changed most of the proposals would no longer seem to be radical. By 1918 Great Britain was, in effect, to have all these things with the exception of annual parliaments, which still seemed unwise. But at the beginning of Victoria's reign, when there was almost no democracy in Europe, the idea of putting the government into the control of representatives of all the inhabitants seemed to conservative people dangerous and absurd. Moreover, when the movement was halted by obstacles encountered, it came under the guidance of extremists who preached violent action. In 1839 a great convention was held, from which the moderate leaders withdrew. Riots soon broke out, and then certain small insurrections. The government dealt severely with the leaders, and for a while the movement collapsed.
Demands of the Chartists
This was partly because things were made better. In 1842 appeared the famous report of the parliamentary commission appointed to investigate the mines. Children four years old were working in the mines. Children of six or seven had to carry great loads of coal up steep steps many times a day. The mines were often dripping with wet and stifling with heat. Young men and young women, naked to the waist, worked with "girdle and chain" in long passages two or three feet high--that is, they dragged
Further industrial legislation
long heavy cars by a chain passing between their legs and attached to a girdle about the waist. Hours were long; the toil was brutal and debasing; there was no thought of morals or health. This "awful document," as Lord Ashley called it, aroused widespread terror, shame, and indignation. The result was a law which forbade women to work in the mines and excluded children under ten save for three days a week. This law resulted largely from the efforts of Ashley. In 1844 in act was passed which limited the hours of employment for factory women to twelve and regulated the hours of children. Six years later hours for women and children were reduced to ten.
Conditions in the mines
Far more important at the time was the repeal of the Corn Laws--in the British Islescorn is the generic term for grain, and most often means wheat. In England, as in other countries, there had long been many tariffs and customs duties. With respect to grain there had in the period from 1436 to 1842 been many laws prohibiting or restricting importation of foreign grain, or giving encouragement by bounty to English exporters. These enactments, generally speaking, effected a tariff for the protection of native agricultural interests and the landowners who so long controlled parliament which passed the acts. In 1815 a law had been made prohibiting the importation of wheat into the British Isles until the price at home had risen to eighty shillings a quarter (eight bushels). This was partly in order that British agriculture might not be crushed out by foreign competition. In that far the purpose was excellent, but as the industrial population was increasing it worked greatly for the interests of the landed proprietors, assuring them high prices without competition at the same time that it imposed on the industrial population a tax of high prices. Repeal of the laws had often been urged, but the agricultural interests were always sufficiently strong in parliament to prevent anything being done.
The Corn Laws
Protection of British agriculture
As time went on reformers, who desired to help the poor, and the manufacturing interest, which desired cheap food to make possible low wages, strongly supported the movement, and agitation became greater each year. The principal leaders were Richard Cobden--advocate of peace, free trade, and industrial (development, and John Bright, both of them important industrial masters, and, like other factory owners, interested in cheaper food and living for the workmen. In 1838 the Anti-Corn Law League was established to work for repeal of the Corn Laws and free importation of wheat. For the work of this league manufacturers made extensive and increasing contributions; pamphlets were circulated broadcast; Cobden argued with convincing persuasion; and Bright became the most powerful orator of his time.
The Anti-Corn Law League: Cobden and Bright
Meanwhile, many who took part in the movement had gone further, advocating removal of duties on other commodities and the institution of a policy of free trade. Gradually the Liberal Party accepted the free trade doctrines, but the general election of 1841 went against them. Sir Robert Peel, Conservative leader, and now prime minister, had been slowly convinced, however. In his budget of 1842 he reduced the tariff on 750 out of 1,200 dutiable articles, reviving the income tax--established by Pitt in 1799 but abolished on the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars--to make good any deficit. Next year he renounced certain duties altogether. He was still an avowed protectionist, but his followers were becoming alarmed. None the less, in 184.5 he did away with more duties and reduced others further. The protectionists drew themselves up to resist any further changes, when a great catastrophe carried the movement on further.
Protection and free trade: Sir Robert Peel
In 1845 in Ireland the potato crop, the principal food of the inhabitants, was almost a total failure. Further failures in the following years brought a terrible famine and then a pestilence that swept away a considerable part
Abolition of the Corn Laws; free trade
of the Irish population ( 1846-9). At first during the awful time of the famine was seen the spectacle of food being kept out by a tariff. Despite furious outcry that he was betraying the Conservative Party, Peel resolved to sweep away the Corn Laws, and in 1846 was able to secure their repeal. At the same time other customs were largely reduced, and thereafter, though some duties were retained --some still remain in existence--Great Britain became the principal free trade country in the world. Immediately after his achievement the ministry of Peel was overthrown. Repeal of the Corn Laws, 1846
This episode marked the completion of the triumph which the British industrial and commercial class was obtaining over the old upper class. Political equality or supremacy had been obtained by the Parliamentary Reform Law of 1832. By the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 the industrial and commercial leaders secured control of the cities, which had been controlled by the older bourgeoisie in the Middle Ages. Now by the repeal of the Corn Laws they had forced their economic policy upon the unwilling aristocrats and landowners. Profound changes and larger consequences followed. Cheap food now greatly stimulated industrial development, and Great Britain continued to be the most marvellous workshop in the world. Much distress was removed, and there was a greater amount of material prosperity for all classes than there had been before. Nevertheless, English agriculture, now brought into competition with the grain fields of America, passed partly away. As time went on farming was largely abandoned, and Britain with constantly increasing population became ever less able to feed her people. The island was a vast industrial hive and at the same time a place of gentlemen's estates and great parks. When, during the Great War, long afterward, the submarines nearly cut England's sea-routes over which the imported food came, for a moment England was in danger
Triumph of the middle class
Decline of British agriculture
of complete destruction. When the Great War was over it seemed to many that Britain during the nineteenth century had been able to produce a population too large for the island.
In 1848 Chartism appeared for the last time. It was the year of revolutions, in Austria, in Italy. in France, and in Germany, when governments were falling or being threatened with destruction. In Britain the Chartists circulated a petition upon which they got an enormous number of signatures--many fictitious--and planned a procession to carry the petition to parliament. The government made elaborate arrangements to prevent insurrection or outbreak, the middle class rallied to its support, and a great number of special constables were sworn in to help to keep) order. The petition was presented to parliament, but no action was taken upon it. The whole affair ended in ridicule and contempt, and the Chartist movement now finally collapsed.
Last effort of the Chartists
For some time the movement for reform and amendment died down. The public became indifferent and the attention of the ruling classes was absorbed in economic development or in foreign affairs--the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, and the American Civil War. The next great step was taken after an interval when a second great parliamentary reform law was passed. Ever since 1832 there had been demand for extension of the franchise and it new arrangement of electoral districts. Again population had stood still or diminished in some places and grown amazingly in others; small boroughs returned as many members as great new industrial cities; while out of all the men of voting age only one in six had the franchise. The demands for further reform, which had slowly been gathering force, became stronger by 1865, when the American Civil War ended with the triumph of the North and the feeling that democracy had gained dignity and strength. Accordingly, in 1866, the Liberals introduced
Further parliamentary reform
a reform bill, which would have added 400,000 voters to the existing electorate; but this was defeated, and the Conservatives soon came into power.
But now suddenly there was a great arousing of the workingmen and others disfranchised, and some violence which made a profound impression. At this point Benjamin Disraeli, afterward earl of Beaconsfield, the brilliant and versatile leader of the Conservatives in the house of commons, and later on the Conservative prime minister, concluding that extension of the franchise was inevitable, resolved that it should be the work of his party, even though they had just come into power opposed to such a measure. Once beginning, he soon went further than the Liberals themselves, and the result was a veritable revolution in the government of Great Britain. It is true that all men were not enfranchised, and the famous proposal of John Stuart Mill that women be allowed to vote was ignored and almost forgotten until many years later; but the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1867 not only made a new and better distribution of representation, but the franchise, far more widely extended than in 1832, was granted to part of the lower class, especially the artisans of the towns. By the terms of the act the franchise was given: in the boroughs to all householders who paid the poor rates and all lodgers of one year's residence whose yearly rent was £10; in the counties to all £5 freeholders and to all occupying tenants who paid an annual rent of £12. Altogether, 1,000,000 new voters were added, so that the franchise was now possessed by 2,500,000 people, or one out of every twelve of the entire population. This was the greatest step toward democracy that had ever been taken--with any lasting success--in Britain or in Europe. That same year the constitution of the North German Confederation, which later became the basis of the constitution of the German Empire, provided for an assembly, the reichstag, to be elected by universal man-
The Reform Law of 1867
Wide extension of franchise
hood suffrage. But it was afterward seen that the reichstag had little real power, while the government of the United Kingdom was now almost entirely controlled by the house of commons.
Meanwhile momentous changes were begun in the character and organization of the British Empire. For the first time in the history of the world self-government and equal privileges were extended to outlying and subordinate dominions over the sea. Previously colonies had been allowed to drift away when they pleased, as was often the case with the Greeks, or else kept in strict subordination for the benefit of the country that ruled them. It was the glory of Great Britain in the nineteenth century to begin the reorganization of her empire into a commonwealth of self-governing communities with such privileges as they cared to have, and united with her at last only by common interests and affection.
The British Empire
Just before the French Revolution Britain's possessions on the mainland of North America were almost all lost. A sixth of the English-speaking people separated from the homelands, and it almost seemed that the end of British imperial greatness had come. It also seemed to the people of England in those days that the lost colonies had been ungrateful, unwilling to bear their just share of the burdens of the empire, and eager to depart as soon as they could. Far from taking to heart, therefore, the lesson which some proclaimed--that the American colonists might have been held in loyal connection if what they considered their rights as English freemen had not been infringe--people in their bitterness believed that colonies would in any event try to break away, and that meanwhile they should be ruled for the benefit of the colonizing power.
Beginnings of the Empire
After the establishment of the United States, Canada, which had been held in spite of the American Revolutionary War, remained Britain's largest possession peopled by Canada Europeans. In 1791 a constitution had been granted and the country divided into Upper Canada, later Ontario, containing English-speaking colonists, and Lower Canada, or Quebec, with French people. In each province the government was actually in the hands of officials not responsible to the people, who managed affairs as they pleased. In the French portion discontent became so great that in 1832 the legislature refused to appropriate money, and continued this refusal for five years, until a rebellion broke out led by Joseph Papineau. The disaffection spread to Upper Canada, where the discontented felt that the government was very different from that in the American commonwealths south of the Lakes. Actually the rebellion of 1837 was easily put down, but a crisis had arisen much like that in Massachusetts in 1775.
This was a turning-point in the history of the British Empire. In 1838 the Liberals sent out as high commissioner Lord Durham, a man of advanced ideas and great energy and courage; and full power was given him to deal with the situation. His high-handed, energetic measures aroused much opposition and presently brought about his recall. But in the following year he delivered his famous Report. He did not believe that self-government would cause the inhabitants to wish to abandon connection with Great Britain. Rather the tie would become "more durable and advantageous, by having more of equality, of freedom, and of local independence." And he added, with much nobility, that if in the future Canada was not to be part of the British Empire, none the less it was not to be part of the British Empire, none the less it was Britain's first duty to secure the well being of the Canadian people. He advised that, except for relations between Canada and the mother country and foreign affairs, matters affecting the colonists should be left altogether to themselves; with the exception of the governor and his secretary, all the officials should be responsible to an elected legislature; and that Upper and Lower
Lord Durham's mission
Canada should be joined in union. The British govern ment soon adopted his suggestions and they were embodied in the Canada Government Act of 1840.
The Canadians now settled down in content and began working out the destiny before them. In 1867 another proposal in the Durham Report--that with the consent of Upper and of Lower Canada the other neighboring British North American colonies should be joined with these two in larger union--was brought to pass. The British North America Act now united Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia into the Dominion of Canada, to which in after years were added all the territories in the northern part of the continent, with the exception of Newfoundland, which still remains a separate commonwealth, and Alaska. The government of this federation was entirely in the hands of the people, except that the nominal executive, the governor general, was appointed from London; but he had in Canada much the same position as that of the king in England. In course of time, as Canada increased in population and resources, the tie between the Dominion and the United Kingdom was little more than the security which the mother country gave to the colony and the loyalty and affection which the colonists felt for the old land. But the policy of Lord Durham was seen to be abundantly justified. Despite the fact that commercial and economic forces seemed to draw the Dominion ever closer to the United States, with the possibility that at last the two would be joined together, yet in 1911 the Canadians rejected a reciprocity treaty which might have begun this; and during the Great War against Germany the Canadian people showed their love for the Empire by sacrifices and magnificent efforts when the government at London never could have compelled them. Furthermore, the system established in Canada was later on to be worked out in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, and elsewhere, the parts mostly inhabited by white people,
Success of the new policy
Loyalty and affection
until at last an Englishman could boast that the Empire was a "living home of divine freedom" in which the ends of the earth were united "in the name and the hope of selfgovernment."
In the midst of this success there was one great failure. Close beside England lies Ireland. Since 1800 it had been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but it had usually had the position of a colony or subordinate possession. Ireland had for a long time been the most perplexing problem in British administration, and in the nineteenth century it was more and more evident that here England had not succeeded.
Failure with Ireland
A long time before Ireland had been overrun by a branch of the Celtic race, the people who continued to live also in the Scottish Highlands and in Wales. A fine culture and literature had arisen among the Irish, but the country remained divided among warring tribes who failed to unite and make an Irish nation. Accordingly, they did not prevent Normans and Englishmen from conquering the east coast, establishing themselves in Dublin, and harassing the rest of the country all through the Middle Ages. Had Irishmen been able to free their country they might have become a prosperous, united nation. But they could not do this, nor could England make her domination complete until it was too late for it ever to be successful and effective. The conquest was accomplished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during the Reformation and the period of colonial expansion. After several vain rebellions the Catholic Irish were completely subdued. From part of the northeast country the Celtic Catholics were largely driven out and Protestants brought over to make the Plantation of Ulster. In the rest of the island most of the Catholics were deprived of their land, they were left with no means of livelihood but working on the estates of the conquerors, forbidden to enter the learned professions, forbidden to worship under
Origin of the Irish Question
Conquest of Ireland by the English
their own priests, taxed to support the Church of England, and practically reduced to serfdom. They were treated immeasurably worse than the American colonists ever were, and had they been far away from England they would undoubtedly have risked their all to win independence. But they were close at hand, and resistance was hopeless. Therefore the eighteenth century was passed in despair, with many of the best young men leaving the country. It was an age of religious discrimination or persecution, when everywhere conquerors harsh will on the conquered. Most Englishmen then were in inferior and lowly position, and had no control over their government and little knowledge of the condition of the Irish.
Subjection and despair
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Ireland had been entirely subordinate to the government of England. During the period 1782-1800, partly because of Britain's perplexity and trouble during the American Revolutionary War, Ireland was allowed to have an independent parliament. Notwithstanding some prosperity, there was presently such confusion in the island and such danger during the struggle with Napoleon that in 1800 an Act of Union was passed joining Ireland with Great Britain. Wales had long been united with England, and Scotland had joined in an Act of Union passed in 1707. In both instances the union had been of great advantage to all. But in the case of Ireland there were obstacles which would have to be removed before any union could be a success, and unfortunately the defects were not for some time amended. The Catholics had expected to see the discriminations against them removed, but this was not done until 1829. The land had once been taken away from the Irish proprietors, and the Irish population, constantly increasing, lived on little patches of ground rented at high price, even in best years scarcely sufficient for support.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
During the years when in Great Britain evil conditions were being slowly removed by the legislation of reformers, the Irish people continued to live on in ignorance, misery, hunger, and filth. The climax of their sufferings came in 1846-9. The main support of the peasants, their potato crop, failed, and, despite some attempts at relief and despite the hurried repeal of the Corn Laws, there was a terrible famine followed by a plague. These frightful years left an abiding mark upon Ireland. The best of the people left the stricken land, coming to America in a great migration. For a long time this continued. During the nineteenth century the population of England rose from 8,500,000 to 32,000,000, but that of Ireland, which increased from less than 5,000,000 to more than 8,000,000 by 1846, declined during the remainder of the century to about 4,000,000. During this time most of the Irish were discontented, and the country could only be ruled under coercion acts and by force, while there was a great deal of lawlessness and brutal crime. Many Irishmen wished to separate completely from Britain, and about 1865 the Fenians, a revolutionary organization, tried to bring this about by creating a reign of terror. It was not until the later years of the nineteenth century that a series of great and liberal reforms for a time brought quietness and better conditions.
Continued misery and unrest
Some Irishmen desire separation
Britain did not attempt to extend self-government to possessions not peopled by white men. Of these the most important was India, which during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had been won for the English East India Company by a succession of great captains and merchants. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the company had acquired various trading stations along the coast and built up a lucrative trade. At first the Dutch and afterward the French were zealous and successful rivals. Gradually the Dutch were driven away, but a long and doubtful struggle was waged with the
French. This contest was decided during the Seven Years' War ( 1756-63), in which the British triumphed all over the world. One result was that France was compelled to give over her ambition to found an empire in India. The success of the English there had been due partly to the genius of Robert, afterward lord, Clive, who conquered Bengal--a territory on the northeastern coast stretching back from Calcutta ( 1757). Two years later the Carnatic--in the southeast--was virtually acquired. The work was carried further by Warren Hastings ( 1732-1818), who extended the dominion and ruled with high-handed vigor. Great profits were made by the East India Company and its servants. The "nabobs" who returned to Britain astonished their countrymen by ostentation and wealth. There were many complaints and many accusations of bribery, corruption, and oppression. Hastings himself was impeached and put on trial when he returned ( 1788), but finally acquitted ( 1795), justly, it seems now. Meanwhile, in 1784, William Pitt had secured the passage of the India Act. By this law the Company was left to its commercial activities and in control of its patronage or appointing to positions-though the more important officials were to be subject to the approval of the crown--while a board of control, appointed by the king, was set up over the civil and military administration, so that the governing of India was to a considerable extent put under the control of the British government.
Robert Clive 1725-74
The India Act of 1784
During his struggle with the English Napoleon strove to wrest India from them. He was unable to reach the Far East, but he succeeded in stirring up many of the Indian princes against England. The result presently was a further extension of British rule. Under the administration of the governor-general, Richard, afterward marquis of, Wellesley--elder brother of the duke of Wellington--British dominion was greatly enlarged ( 1798-
Growth of the British in Empire in India
1805). He strongly established the company's power in the south, overawing Mysore and the Deccan. In the years following this extension continued, as native states asked to be put under British protection or as further conquests were made to assure the security of what had formerly been obtained. Important among the further annexations were Lower Burma ( 1826, 1852)--on the eastern coast of the Bay of Bengal; Sind ( 1843)--in the northwest, adjoining Baluchistan; the Punjab ( 1849)--to the northeast of Sind; Oudh ( 1856)--in the north. The British now held all of the eastern coast of the great peninsula and the opposite coast of Burma, most of the western coast of India, a great district in the center, and most of the north. Virtually all of the rest of India was divided among states subservient or under British protection. So, under the East India Company a huge Indian empire had been gradually acquired. It was ruled in such manner that the natives were in some ways better off than ever before, but entirely subject to Englishmen and Scotchmen, who amassed great fortunes among them. India, while ruled partly by the company, was yet controlled by the British government, which regarded her as the greatest possession in the empire, and one of the foundations of the empire's commercial importance.
Further acquisition of Indian states
Suddenly in 1857 a terrible mutiny broke out among the Sepoys, or native troops, who made the largest part of the company's army. The causes were many--reforms recently had been made which ran counter to native prejudice or custom, hatred of the aliens who ruled India, belief that religious prejudices were being violated by the British. there were terrible massacres at Cawnpore and other places, for which the English afterwards took sternest vengeance. The few English soldiers in India were able to do little at first, but they behaved with great bravery, and, soon reinforced, they crushed the mutiny completely. The principal result was that English domination was
The Indian Mutiny
more firmly established than before. In 1858, since it was felt that the administration of so vast a domain was beyond the real power of any corporation, the remaining powers of the East India Company were transferred to the British government which now added directly to its dominions 800,000 square miles of land and 200,000,000 people. Somewhat later, by the Royal Titles Act ( 1876), Victoria, queen of England, was declared empress of India.
Generally speaking, during this period Britain sought to be aloof from European affairs, taking little part in them, but meanwhile developing her commerce, her industry, and her empire. She had a small army, and wished to avoid being drawn into great wars. She was, moreover, paying off part of her gigantic national debt. Her navy was by far the greatest in the world, and after Trafalgar her command of the seas was at no time disputed
With the United States relations slowly improved after the Treaty of Ghent ( 1814), which brought to an end the War of 1812. Seen in larger perspective since then this war is a landmark in the history of the English-speaking peoples, for it was the last struggle between the two great branches. Later on there were often disputes between the United States and Great Britain--about the boundary of Maine, about Texas, about Oregon, about Venezuela-but always they were settled by diplomatic negotiation and agreement, until at the end of a hundred years it was found that most people in the two countries regarded the very idea of war between the two as utterly criminal and absurd, and not to be thought of.
Relations with the United States
The relations between the governments improved sooner than those between the peoples. The Americans were a new nations proud and sensitive, convinced of superiority over any other people, yet sensitive about their crudeness and defects. Englishmen, with more narrowness of spirit and insular pride then than
The British and the American peoples
now, looked down upon them as rough settlers in a distant land; and travelers, such as Charles Dickens, wrote about them with a contempt which was bitterly resented. Moreover, there were the memories of the Revolutionary period: the British recalled that the colonists broken away; the Americans believed they had been abused by a tyrant and had escaped from subjection to become freemen. Important also was the fact that for a long time Americans advanced more rapidly to democratic control of their government than the British. Down to 1867 the government of the United Kingdom was still controlled by the upper class and the middle class, and there was always an aristocratic character about it. The American Civil War ( 1861-5) marked an epoch. During that contest the British government would have been pleased to recognize the Southern Confederacy. Some of the governing classes sympathized with the Southern aristocrats notwithstanding that they held slaves. Others rejoiced at the disruption of the United States and the prospect of a permanent diminution of its power. On the other hand, great numbers of the plain people in England, most of them not yet enfranchised, admired Lincoln, hoped that he would be able to abolish slavery, and believed that in the end the North would triumph. They continued to maintain this attitude, with magnificent patience, though some of them, the Lancashire weavers, nearly starved when the Northern blockade cut off the export of cotton from the South. In 1865 the North was completely victorious. Two years later a great extension of the franchise made Britain far more democratic than ever before; and in the following years, with continued extension of democracy, the foundation was laid for real fellowship between these parts of the English-speaking people. On both sides of the water some continued to oppose better understanding, especially Irish-Americans in the United States, but after the Spanish-American War ( 1898), in which Britain
Old ill-feeling slowly abates
The two democracies friendly
showed unmistakable friendship for the American people, good accord rapidly developed. Then at last came the Great War to complete the work. In the dread hour when England seemed in mortal danger with all that England represented, many of the American people realized as never before how much the two nations stood for the same civilization and ideals; and this realization was one of the important factors in bringing America to the aid of the Allies against the German Empire.
With Continental peoples the relations of England were generally good. There was some rivalry with France over colonial projects and position in the Mediterranean. The establishment of the Italian nation was watched with sympathy, as was the progress of the Germanies toward union. Englishmen had helped the Greeks to win independence; but they maintained their friendship with Turkey. Often during this period there was fear that Russia, expanding steadily through Asia, might strike south against India, and also that she might destroy the sultan's power and take Constantinople for herself. In 1853 a dispute arose between France and Russia and between Russia and Turkey. Into this dispute England was drawn, though the government was most anxious not to go to war. None the less, when Russian troops attacked Turkey there was great popular feeling in England, and with a light heart the country went quickly into the contest unprepared. In the earlier part of the war the British fleet failed to accomplish what had been expected of it in the Baltic; but English and French armies, after a siege in which there were horrible privation and suffering, captured the fortress of Sevastopol in the Crimea. In 1856 the Crimean War came to an end with the Treaty of Paris, which guaranteed the independence and integrity of Turkey.
Relations with European powers
The Crimean war, 1854-6
During this period the British government had been conducted in turn by various ministries deriving their power from one or other o the two great political parties which divided the United Kingdom: Liberals and Conservatives. The Whig or Liberal ministry of Lord Grey ( 18304) was succeeded by the ministry of his colleague, Lord Melbourne ( 1834). The Conservatives then came into power under Sir Robert Peel ( 1834-5), and after an interval during which the Liberals again had control--the second ministry of Melbourne ( 1835-41)--Peel was premier once more ( 1841-6). Under Lord John Russell ( 1846-52) the Liberals were in power, partly because the Conservatives, who still had the larger number of supporters, were divided among themselves with respect to protection and free trade. It was in this ministry of Lord John Russell that the irrepressible foreign secretary, Viscount Palmerston, reached the height of his able and meddling policy. Later on he himself was prime minister ( 1855-8), and, after an interval, for a second time ( 1859-65). Meanwhile the Conservatives had been in power for a moment under the earl of Derby ( 1852) to be followed by the coalition of Liberals and adherents of the teachings of Peel under the earl of Aberdeen ( 1852-5). The Liberals returned to the ascendant with the second ministry of Lord John Russell ( 1865-6). Lord Derby, who had presided over a second brief ministry ( 1858-9), headed the Conservatives for a third time ( 1866-8).
Ministries and prime ministers
Lord John Russell
FRANCE BEFORE 1870
Quand je considère cette nation en elle-même, je la trouve plus extraordinaire qu'aucun des événements de son histoire ... la plus brillante et la plus dangereuse des nations de l'Europe, et la mieux faite poure y devenir tour à tour un objet d'admiration, de haine, de pitié, de terreur, mais jamais d'indifférence.
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, L'aNCIEN Régime et la Révolution ( 1856), Chapter XX.
THE position of France in 1815 was in some respects like that of Germany in 1918. After long and exhausting wars France had been overwhelmed, and the memories of the struggle had left much bitterness and fear. Some, especially the Germans, believed that the French people ought to be placed under such restraint that it would be out of their power to make another aggression upon Europe, that they should be forced to make good the damage they had done, and surrender provinces which would leave them weak for the future. But apparently there was then less belief that outrages, atrocities, and violations of the law of war had been committed. Moreover, it was widely felt that a considerable section of the French people had not supported Napoleon, and that at worst they had been misled and compelled to obey him. There were French exiles who had always sought help from the Allies to return and restore whatever could be reestablishd; and after the abdication of Napoleon, the Bourbon heir was brought back and put upon the throne as Louis XVIII ( 18141824). So there was much disposition, especially on the part of the British, to deal with France mildly, and even France after Napoleon I
Restoration of the Bourbons after the Hundred Days of the Waterloo Campaign, though a heavy indemnity was imposed and some territory taken away, yet lenient terms were still granted.
The Congress of Vienna, which disposed things after Napoleon's fall, proceeded to put an end to his arrangements. The incomparable skill of Talleyrand, the French plenipotentiary, who well represented the best aspects of his people at the same time that he quickly took advantage of divisions among the conquerors of Napoleon, was able to effect much in reëstablishing his country's position. Nevertheless, what Frenchmen had been doing in Europe for a score of years was now largely undone, and the settlement of Vienna was made by the conquerors of France. To a proud, warlike, high-spirited people like the French, who had just passed through such wonderful experiences and glory, this was an intolerable situation, and they would long chafe at that which the Allies had decreed. For a long while also the other powers would continue on guard against them. Hence for many years it would be difficult for any French government, which desired to keep peace and restore the prosperity of the country, to adopt such a foreign policy as would please foreign powers and yet please the people of France; while on more than one occasion weak or unscrupulous leaders would find it easy to divert attention from troublesome domestic questions by engaging in war or bold policy abroad.
The settlement of Vienna
Moreover, it was a long time before the government of France could be settled on a solid foundation. In 1789 the intellectuals and the middle class of France, knowing that the country was bankrupt and that the government was slowly breaking down, and looking with disfavor upon the oppressive remains of the feudal system in France, had been able to abolish serfdom and feudal privileges, secure equality in matters of justice and taxation, and make the government a limited monarchy. This was is far as the great mass of the people cared to go. Most Frenchmen
The work of the Revolution unfinished
strongly desired that a king should continue to rule them. In July, 1789, almost accidentally, the Revolution entered upon a more radical phase, and all sorts of changes followed in swift succession. It was not long before the church, which in spite of its faults was still dear to a great many people, was attacked and its property taken. The king was deprived of his power, presently he was put to death, and a republic established. These changes were wrought by a well-organized body of bold, able radicals, who were only a small part of the entire population, and who soon had to maintain themselves by military despotism and a reign of terror. Shortly after there was so much confusion and discontent, that presently what the people most wanted was the strong rule of some capable man, and Napoleon Bonaparte easily got supreme power ten years after the Revolution began. He did not become king, but as First Consul and emperor he wielded far greater power than Louis XVI ever had. Very wisely he restored as much of the old system of government and religion as the people desired; and yet he maintained the great reforms of the beginning of the Revolution and the best work of the Convention, which had the sanction of the majority of the population. The radicals in the French Revolution
In 1814 the Allies brought back to Paris the younger brother of Louis XVI and put him on the throne as Louis XVIII. The new king was not popular, and for a short time Napoleon easily dispossessed him; but supported as he was by the Allies, the people of France were willing to accept him, provided he did not try to undo the Revolutionary changes which the people approved. He was sagacious enough to understand this; but he was accompanied by supporters, who, as a contemporary said, had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They wanted vengeance and restoration of nobles and church to the privileges and the position which had formerly been theirs. In a little while their policy prevailed; then they were
The work of 1789 maintained in 1830
overthrown; and the results of the French Revolution were maintained by the Revolution of 1830; after which other reaction and revolution followed.
When Louis XVIII came to the throne he assumed that he held his title by divine right, but he granted to the French people a Charter. According to this Charter, the government was to be carried on by the king, but there was also to be a legislative assembly, consisting of two chambers, one composed of peers, hereditary or named for life by the crown, the other chosen by a small number of the people, the franchise being restricted to men, thirty years of age, who paid 300 francs a year in direct taxes, while only those who paid 1,000 francs taxes might be elected as members. In this way, out of a population of 29,000,000 there were less than 100,000 voters, and not more than 12,000 eligible to be elected to the chamber. Only the executive could initiate legislation, but the lower, representative chamber had control of taxation. Such a system was not greatly unlike the government of Great Britain at this time. It was approved by a considerable body of the nation. The Charte (Charter) of 1814
The reactionaries and the returned U+00E9migrés were by no means content with this. They hoped to bring back the old order completely. Their plan was first to restore the church, and give it great power, especially over education, and thus pave the way for a return of other things, which the church would advocate and teach. In the beginning the reactionaries could not get the approbation of Louis, guided first by the Duc de Richelieu and then by the Duc de Decazes, his premiers, who leaned upon moderate and liberal support. Altogether the years from 1816 to 1820 were marked by wise management and sound progress. Much greater freedom of the press was given; the confidence of the country was gained, if not its enthusiasm; and loans were easily floated. Meanwhile, the Duc de Richelieu gained the confidence of the Allies, and in
1818 the great powers decided at the Congress of Aix-laChapelle to withdraw the soldiers still occupying parts of France.
This period came to an end when in 1820 a fanatic assassinated the nephew of the king. The great indignation aroused by this deed enabled the reactionaries to restore censorship of the press and suspend the safeguards of personal liberty which had been guaranteed by the Charter. A new electoral law was passed to give them control of the legislature. It did away with the secret ballot, which conduced so greatly to the elector's freedom of choice, narrowed the franchise, and gave a double vote to citizens who paid 1,000 francs in taxes--substantially the landed interest. In the election held now the extreme conservatives got control of the chamber, and the Comte de Villèle was put at the head of the ministry. Villèle, thoroughly reactionary, was yet patient, subtle, and very able. He went about the work of restoring the Old Régime with great skill. He remained in power for six years ( 1822-7), to the death of Louis XVIII in 1824, and after the accession of Louis's brother, Charles X. In the end he had nearly complete success.
His plan was to proceed slowly, meanwhile curbing the headstrong zeal of his companions who would have tried to restore old conditions at once. He believed that if he had on his side the vast influence of the church strengthened and restored, he might be able with the assistance thus given to go on a great deal further. And he believed that the middle classes and people of substance and importance would make little opposition to political and constitutional changes if business were good and if their wealth increased. In the meantime, stage by stage, the power and privileges of the nobles could be won back again.
Plans of Villèle
Therefore in 1822 the censorship of the press was tightened, and education was put almost entirely under the control of the church. At the same time high protective tariffs were levied on imports, to the great satisfaction of manufacturers and owners of land. To strengthen his hold on the legislative assembly, reactionary peers were added to the upper chamber, and, the lower chamber being already filled with his supporters, the duration of parliament was extended to seven years--parliament amending the Charter of 1814 to allow this. Secure of the body that made the laws, Villèle proceeded to bring forward the measures toward which he had been working. He had now the added support of the new king, Charles X ( 1824-1830), who had from the first been the leader of the reactionaries, and who was at the head of the noblemen and the churchmen who hoped to secure restoration to former owners of the property confiscated during the Revolution. For the present it was evidently impossible to take away lands that were in possession of proprietors who had bought them. This was recognized by all, and the charter had explicitly promised that where confiscated lands had been purchased the titles should not be disturbed. It was now said, however, that for the great injustice done to the émigrés there should be signal though tardy reparation. The émigrés must be satisfied; at the same time the present owners should be made completely secure for the future. Such a settlement would bring reconciliation and harmony throughout the kingdom. Accordingly, it was proposed not to restore the confiscated lands, but to compensate the former owners with money appropriated by the state. The value of the property lost by the émigrés was estimated at 1,000,000,000 francs. Such a capital sum for compensation could not be raised, but Villèle and his associates proposed to pay the claimants 30,000,000 francs at year--interest on the capital at three per cent. The sum required was mostly to be obtained by the government arbitrarily lowering the rate of interest on the public debt from five to four
The work of reaction under way
Compensation for confiscated lands
Public creditors pay the émigrés
per cent. These schemes for compensation of the royalists were put into effect by a law passed in 1825. Then religious bodies were established again, the Jesuits allowed to return, and a "law of sacrilege" passed imposing severe penalties, even death, for profanation and crimes against churches. It was then proposed to alter the law of succession, ordained by the Code Napoléon--that property must be equally divided among the children--so that now a primogeniture should be established, and the eldest son receive the largest portion. In addition there was to be the right of entail to make possible the perpetuation of large estates. These proposals Villèle found it impossible to carry through the chamber of peers. In 1827 he was suddenly overthrown by a combination of the more extreme reactionaries, who thought he was doing too little, and the liberals, who were thoroughly alarmed at what he had done.
Primogeniture and entail proposed
A more bitter struggle ensued. By 1829 the issues were clearly drawn. A decisive contest was developing between the liberals, who feared that the work of the Revolution would be largely undone, and those who were bent on restoring as much as they could of the Old Régime in France. The royalists attempted to divert the attention of the people to foreign affairs. In 1823 an army had been sent into Spain, to overthrow the Spanish liberals in revolt against their king; and the French people rejoiced, for once more it seemed they were taking an important part in Europe's affairs. There were some who spoke of again trying to obtain the Rhine frontier, but wiser counsels prevailed. In 1830 the conquest of Algeria was begun, to avenge the insult given by the bey or ruler of Algeria to the French ambassador, and to arouse the national pride and ambition of the people. This conquest, not completed until 1847, finally put an end to the depredations of the Barbary pirates and also made the beginning of a new great French colonial empire.
In 1829, despite the opposition of the chambers, Charles appointed a ministry made up of ultra-royalists headed by the Prince de Polignac. This minister announced that the government would soon restore aristocracy and give the clergy their old position and power. The chamber of deputies made strong opposition. Then elections were held which returned and assembly still more hostile to the policy of the minister and the king. In July, 1830, Charles proclaimed four ordinances by which the press was shackled, the franchise narrowed, the newly elected chamber of deputies dissolved before it met, and the recent elections being set aside as invalid new elections were proclaimed for September. Immediately an insurrection broke out in Paris. The printers and publishers urged on the others; the workingmen threw up barricades in the streets; all classes fell away from the king; and Charles, having sought in vain to appease his subjects by revoking the ordinances, fled into exile to England.
Revolution of 1830
The July Ordinances
The French Revolution of 1830, the July Revolution, carried forward the work of the French Revolution. Like the English Revolution of 1688 it involved no radical changes. In neither case were parliamentary or economic reforms brought about. In both instances a dynasty was changed, but little alteration was made in the system of government or the life of the people. In each case the great achievement was that reaction was prevented and the way left open for progress in the future. In France now the government was put into the hands of another king, Louis Philippe, of the younger, the Orléans branch of the House of Bourbon. The insurrection had been made by men who wanted a republic, but the French people understood that the European powers were not willing yet to tolerate another republic in France, so monarchy was preserved for a time. A new constitution was made by revising the Charter of 1814. It took away the power of the king to proclaim ordinances for the good of
The new constitution
the state, which was one of the provisions of the charter, and had been the warrant for the July Ordinances of Charles X. The Catholic religion was no longer to be the state religion, though it was described as the religion of the majority of the people. Censorship of the press was abolished. And, above all, the theory of divine right, expressed in the preamble of the charter, was now omitted. A law passed in 1831, which remained in force until 1848, regulated the franchise. The double vote was abolished. The franchise was now extended to those who paid 200 francs a year in direct taxes, and to professional men who paid 100 francs. As a result of this there were about two hundred thousand voters in a population of thirty-two millions.
"Divine right" overthrown
The important results of the revolution were that the French people had now firmly established the great principles of the generation preceding--civil equality of individuals and constitutional liberty. They had established them firmly because their king was no longer one imposed by the Allies and ruling, as he said, by divine right but a monarch who had received his throne from the people whose power rested on the will of the nation.
Results of the Revolution
Louis Philippe ( 1830-48) was now a middle-aged man. In his youth he had taken part in the liberal movements of the French Revolution, and had served in the Revolutionary armies. After the Restoration he had lived in Paris as a simple gentleman, winning the regard of workmen and bourgeoisie. After the flight of Charles X, when some wanted a republic and others a limited monarchy, he had been invited to be king by that chamber of deputies which his predecessor attempted to dissolve just before the outbreak. Frenchmen accepted him, and so long as he pleased them he might reign; but when he was seen to be essentially autocratic in his nature, and when in the course of time he could no longer please most of the people, then he would be overthrown as easily as he now was set up.
In the years that followed the Revolution of 1830 there was no longer a struggle between reactionaries who would restore the old régime and liberals who would preserve what the Revolution had given. Politics were complicated and confused; there were several parties and numerous leaders. Generally speaking, the conservatives, led after awhile by Francois Guizot, eminent both its historian and statesman, and the liberals, presently led by Louis Adolphe Thiers, also eminent as statesman and historical writer, both accepted the government established by the July Revolution. The difference was that the conservatives believed enough had been accomplished by the settlement of 1830, while the liberals wished to go on with reforms which they thought had only been begun. For the most part, the period was one in which economic rather than political considerations absorbed men's attention. The bourgeoisie were in control. It was upon support of the middle class that the power of the king was founded.
There was much unrest and confusion at first. Advocates of a republic continued troublesome, and although the government had declared that censorship of the press should never be renewed, there were repeated prosecutions of republican newspapers for attacking the government. There were several small republican insurrections. Moreover, the Legitimists, who supported the heir of Charles X, regarded Louis Philippe as a usurper, and tried to create disaffection. The government took measures against its enemies sufficient to make many believe that liberty was in danger, yet not drastic enough to quell the spirit of its opponents. Six times attempts were made to assassinate Louis Philippe, the most notable being the Fieschi Plot of 1835, in which a Corsican tried to kill the king with an infernal machine. But in the reaction and horror that followed, the government was able to pass the September Laws of 1835, by whicli special courts were established to try conspirators against the state, and a
Troubles under the July Monarchy
Attempts to kill Louis Philippe
system of penalties provided which practically established again censorship of the press. For a while the government appeared stronger than ever, but these laws really weakened it by alienating liberal and moderate people.
Actually the king's position was never very strong. He had been put upon the throne not because he was popular, like Napoleon, nor because he had the best title to the crown, but because, in a difficult time, when opposing factions were compelled to make a compromise, he seemed the most available candidate. At no time was he widely admired, nor was his bearing or appearance such as ever to inspire reverence and admiration. Men called him Le Roi Citoyen (The Citizen King). He had rather the mien of a popular magistrate than of a monarch. Caricaturists loved to display his corpulency--rounding out at the waist like pear, his umbrella, his bourgeois manners. He could and lie did give France a stable government for many years. During that time his foreign policy was such that the enmity and suspicion of other countries were generally avoided, and France enjoyed long years of peace in which to recover her strength. It was during this time that the Industrial Revolution, which had for more than half a century been developing so mightily across the Channel, began also a great development in France. The new industrialism was managed by the middle class, whose interests the king specially cared for, and who acquired great prosperity and wealth. But the temper of most of the French people then was such that no mere material success, no career merely prosperous and quiet, would be enough. There was still an older generation that could remember glorious days when Napoleon dominated Europe and when France was indisputably leader of the world. Great battles had been won, great triumphs achieved, with resplendent glory and renown. Now this was past: France was ruled by a king who never seemed kingly; his policy led to nothing spectacular or
Position of the king
showy. Furthermore, although manufactures and wealth were rapidly increasing, yet there were now in France the same disquieting problems--the miserable condition of some of the workmen, the widening gap between employers and employees, great factories with machines and numerous workers largely at the mercy of capitalist masters--that had long troubled England. Hence, even though the king's policy pleased the middle class and kept for him their steady support, it seemed to do little for other classes. Therefore socialist and revolutionary agitation constantly increased.
It was afterward thought that Louis Philippe might have won the support and enthusiasm of most of his people had he embarked with success in adventurous foreign relations. There was much sentiment in the country that France should intervene to assist oppressed peoples in Europe, as--it was said--once she had done. There was continuance of desire to undo the settlement of 1815 and get for France her old position again. At the very beginning of his reign France along with Great Britain did take a stand against Russia and Prussia who proposed to force the revolted Belgians back under the rule of Holland ( 1830-1); but Louis Philippe declined the Belgian crown for his son, and he did nothing to assist the Italian and the Polish people when they also rose against their masters ( 1830-1). Steadily he refused to become entangled in war, or act in such manner that the eastern and central powers would combine against France. More and more the king himself guided foreign policy, along with his most trusted minister, Guizot. Foreign affairs were managed safely with skill and finesse, but never so as to bring the dazzling splendor or excitement which so many Frenchmen wished for. So, as Lamartine said, La France s'ennuyait ( France was bored). The king's popularity did not increase. There was no glory won to render his throne secure.
Peace but no dazzling success
In course of time the management of internal affairs pleased the majority of the people no better. The government was completely in the hands of the king and the bourgeoisie. The July Revolution had made no sweeping reforms and had not extended greatly democracy or control of the government by the people. The middle class supported the king; he and they directed policy; and measures were passed in their interests. Louis Philippe and the leaders whom he most trusted believed that sufficient reform had been made in 1830; they took their stand firmly by the arrangement made then and resolved to resist further change. Only those who paid 500 francs taxes might be elected to the chamber, and substantially the franchise was confined to those who paid 200 francs. During the period 1840-8 the government of France was constitutional and parliamentary, the ministry depending on a majority of the chamber; but since, as in England in the eighteenth century, the government could give appointments or rewards to members who supported it, the king and his ministers usually found it not difficult to control about half the assembly. Since the franchise was confined to the middle and upper classes, and the electorate contained only about two hundred thousand voters, it was easy by means of bribery, or manipulation of elections to secure all the additional votes that were needed. Accordingly, it was no more possible for the French people to control their government at this time than it was for the people of the United Kingdom to control theirs before the electoral reform laws.
Discontent with the government system
Legislative controlled by the king
In western Europe at this time economic development and the continued influence of the French Revolution were stirring up greater numbers of people to demand an industrial reform and such change in the government that the people could control their rulers. Socialism was rising and radical reforms were being preached in Great Britain, in France, and in the German lands. All the time French
Discontent of the masses
republicans were hoping that a republic might be reëstablished, and an ever-larger number of discontented liberals were demanding that office-holders should be excluded from the chamber of deputies and that the franchise should be considerably widened. But Louis Philippe and Guizot were resolute against any such changes. Laws continued to be passed in the interest of the bourgeoisie.
Unrest grew among the masses.
By 1847 the situation in France was much like that in England in 1831: a system too strong to be changed by ordinary means; popular opposition ever ominously increasing. Liberals desired extension of the franchise and reform of the governmental system. Socialists, disciples of Saint-Simon and Louis Blanc, wanted sweeping economic alteration. Clericals, who after the Restoration had been ardent supporters of the throne, looked upon the Huguenot minister, Guizot, with increasing suspicion and dislike. Alphonse Lamartine, whose eloquent but inaccurate Histoire des Girondins ( 1847) glorified the Girondists of the French Revolution, now predicted the fall of the monarchy. Many public political banquets were held by opponents of the government to arouse or sustain opposition. In England the controlling class had given way and constitutional change was made in the Parliamentary Reform Law of 1832. In France the government would not yield and a violent outbreak now followed. The crisis came in February, 1848, after the government had forbidden political meetings, when it resolved to prevent the opposition leaders from holding a banquet in Paris. Great crowds collected; barricades were thrown up in the streets; the National Guard refused to put down the insurgents. The king would now have made great concessions, but the republicans were determined to destroy the monarchy completely. It was easy to do this, for the king had long since lost the support of the nation, and now in his hour of need only a few rallied to support him. He, at once
The Revolution of 1848
The "February Days"
perceiving that all was lost, abdicated, and fleeing, took refuge in England.
Some would have chosen Louis's grandson as king, but the mob of socialists and republicans would have none of it, and presently the Second French Republic was proclaimed. This republic, which came so suddenly, and at first with so little bloodshed, lasted nominally until December, 1852. But all this period is extraordinary and confused. First, for a month a provisional government managed affairs; then the Constituent Assembly during the remainder of the year 1848, while a constitution was being drawn up; thereafter, the president and the assembly which the new constitution provided.
The Second Republic, 1848-52
At the start the provisional government was composed of two parties: republicans--followers of Lamartine and others, who believed a republic the best system of government for France--and socialists, led by Louis Blanc and his comrades, who favored a republic, but only because they believed that with such government they could more easily bring about the social reforms that they favored. Their principal purpose was to effect changes that would improve the lot of the great mass of the people. "The revolution made by the people ought to be made for them," it was said. Louis Blanc maintained that for all there should be the right to work, that private property must be replaced by public, and that industry should be organized not under capitalists but in coöperative societies, under control of the workmen themselves, who should share the profits among themselves--as was urged by the French syndicalists half a century later. The great majority of the people of France then, as afterward, were opposed to such schemes.
By the provisional government some great changes were made at once. Universal suffrage was established, so that the electorate was increased to nine millions. Freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to form associations were proclaimed, and all citizens had the right to enroll in the National Guard, the military force of the state. Thus democracy was vastly extended, newspapers and cheap pamphlets multiplied, political clubs were formed, and some of the activity seen during the first years of the French Revolution was now seen again. The government would not adopt the red flag of the socialists for the state, as the workingmen demanded, but a commission was established under Blanc to sit apart and consider the reforms which socialists desired to have made.
Reforms following the French Revolution of 1848
Louis Blanc and his fellows had advocated coöperative workshops, for which at the beginning the necessary capital was to be advanced by the state, and in which the enterprise would be controlled by the workmen. But while the socialist leaders were planning the changes which they wished, the provisional government itself set up national workshops, in which the state was the employer. Such workshops were not favored by Blanc, and it was at once apparent that their management was in the hands of men opposed to socialist doctrines. Actually, the government had established a poor-relief system, putting men to work, irrespective of their training, at digging and similar tasks, and paying them the uniform wage of two francs a day. The disturbed times had brought much unemployment, and great throngs applied for the work, until there was not enough to go around. Among those left idle high dissatisfaction arose, and meanwhile the entire scheme, with which the authorities associated Blanc's name, was brought into disrepute. In April, elections were held by universal suffrage and the following month the National Assembly met to draw up a constitution. The socialists were in a hopeless minority in this body.
Ateliers nationaux (national workshops)
Not cooperative workshops
Immediately the assembly proceeded to oppose the socialist efforts, whereupon the Paris workingmen rose and tried to dissolve the assembly. But the National Guard upheld the assembly, which then abolished the
The June uprising in Paris
national workshops. The socialist workingmen, seeing the things they had hoped for about to be set aside entirely, rose in furious insurrection. A military dictator was appointed, and for four days in June, 1848, there was terrible street fighting in Paris. Many thousands were killed or wounded; but the socialists were completely defeated, and eleven thousand prisoners who were taken were at once condemned to be deported. In 1848, as during the first French Revolution, the radicals were crushed by the bourgeoisie.
The "June Days"
It is this episode of the aspirations of Louis Blanc, the ateliers nationaux, the disappointment of the socialists, and the death-struggle that followed in Paris, which now give greatest interest to this revolution in France. A generation later historians looked back upon 1848 as a year in which revolutions, beginning in Paris, spread to all central Europe, overturning established governments in Italy, Austria, Prussia, and various German states. Very properly it seemed that the Year of Revolutions broke the system of Metternich, and continued the French Revolution. But when another generation had passed-during the period of the Great War--when an extreme socialist system was established in Russia by force, and when such forcible establishment everywhere was preached as desirable by advocates all over the world, then the Commune of Paris in 1871, the June revolt of the workingmen in Paris in 1848, the more remote and half-forgotten efforts of certain radicals in Paris in 1796, were all seen as distinct steps in a movement that aimed to overthrow capitalist organization and existing governmental systems.
Significance of the insurrection in Paris
It was difficult for the National Assembly to begin its work. It was forced to increase taxation very greatly, thus alienating the propertied classes and the peasants as it had just alienated the socialists whom it suppressed. A republic was proclaimed, and a constitution drafted in which the government was to be exercised by a legislative
The National or Constituent Assembly of 1848
assembly of one chamber elected by universal suffrage, and a president elected in like manner, with extensive powers similar to those of a president of the United States.
When the election for president was held in December, 1848, the great majority of the people voted for Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the great Napoleon, and now head of the Bonaparte house. He received 5,400,000 votes, nearly three times as many as were given to all his competitors combined. When, the following May, elections were held for the assembly, monarchists were two thirds of the entire number chosen. Apparently there was not yet firm basis on which to erect a republic in France.
A Bonaparte elected president
Louis Napoleon, who had long cherished ambition to revive the glories of his house, had respectable abilities and attainments, but his principal fortune was the name that his uncle had made great. The misery of France during the later period of the Napoleonic Wars, and the humiliation of 1814-15 had been passing from recollection, and almost all classes of Frenchmen now remembered with pride the glory and splendor of the empire. The kings who came after the Restoration seemed little creatures beside the legendary figure looming each year now vaster and more grand. A new literature arose concerning the emperor. Ideas, based originally upon some of the great Napoleon's own writings done while he was an exile in St. Helena, had become increasingly current. He had loved France well, it was said; he had fought victoriously against a world in arms; he had meant to bring justice to all; he had been the guardian of the French Revolution; and he had died at last an exile far front France. No one believed in the Napoleonic legend more implicitly than Louis Napoleon. His own publication, Les Idées Napoléoniennes ( Ideas of Napoleon, 1839) had contributed to increase the tradition. No one profited by it so greatly. Twice he had attempted to seize power, but each
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte
The Napoleonic legend
time he was easily overthrown. He spent some time as an exile in America and six years imprisoned in a fortress in France. He had escaped to England, and then returned when the Revolution of 1848 began. Now suddenly by the gift of fortune he was head of the French Republic.
Neither president nor assembly was prepared to support loyally the republic which they served. In the summer of 1849 a republican uprising against the government was followed by repressive measures. Next year the assembly passed a law restoring indirectly the property qualification for the franchise, thus debarring a third of the electorate from voting. But the president now went beyond the assembly. According to the constitution he might not be reëlected at the end of his four-year term. Napoleon secretly prepared a bold stroke. December 2, 1851, he arrested many important leaders and dissolved the assembly. Then he appealed to the people to judge between himself and the legislature, and asked them to sanction a government in which he would be president for ten years. The opposition was without leaders and in confusion, and resistance was sternly repressed. Three weeks later the people of France approved what he asked for by an enormous majority, and in November of the year following, when the question was put before the people whether the empire should be reëstablished, he again obtained overwhelming assent. Shortly after the Second Empire was proclaimed with Napoleon III as ruler. These elections, or plébiscites, had been skilfully manipulated and controlled by the government; yet it is probable that most Frenchmen were quite willing to have an empire ruled by a Napoleon again.
Louis Napoleon overthrows the Assembly
The coup d'etat of 1851
Napoleon III, 18521870
The Second Empire lasted from 1852 to 1870. At first the government was much like what had existed under the Consulate at the beginning of the century in France. Universal suffrage was indeed restored--as it was kept in Germany when the German Empire was established some
The Second Empire
years later ( 1871); but Napoleon III so arranged things that the people of France had as slight influence with their government as was left by Bismarck to the people in imperial Germany. The voters were to elect a legislative assembly, but it was to have little control over legislation and not much control of taxation. The power of the state was almost entirely concentrated in the hands of the emperor and the officials whom he appointed, as was largely the case in the German Empire before the Great War. Furthermore, the emperor could easily control the elections through his numerous officials and through the army; and he completely shackled the press.
Slight conrol by the electorate
In the midst of annihilation of freedom and the political repression that Napoleon III had brought, he strove to govern France well. His court in Paris became the center of a gay and splendid life. In 1855 a great international exposition was held in the city, and throughout his reign a vast scheme of improvement was carried forward which made Paris the most beautiful city in the world. Railroads were rapidly extended, canals constructed, and shipping increased. In all ways he strove to enhance the material prosperity of the country, and since it happened to be a period of economic success and expansion, his efforts seemed to achieve great success. Furthermore, he tried to assist and conciliate all classes of the people. Many things were done by the government to aid the poor and the needy, and the right of laborers to strike was conceded in 1864. All this was at first followed by much satisfaction. Business flourished, the finances were put on sound footing, the army was made strong, and Napoleon's government was presently recognized by all the other governments of Europe.
Success at first
None the less Napoleon III, like Napoleon I, held his position without a good title. So, as the years went on, he understood that his position was not secure, and that after he had given prosperity and order, he could remain in
His position not secure
power only by gratifying the people with glory, and by diverting their attention from domestic problems to matters abroad. Thus he was driven on not only to take a leading part in European affairs, but to try to give France a commanding and magnificent position in Europe.
For a while he was greatly successful, and France again became the leading Continental power. To please the Catholics he had, while still president, laid claim to the holy places in Jerusalem. In 1740, by treaty with the Porte, France had acquired the right of protection and custody of certain places in or near Jerusalem to which Christian pilgrims were wont to go. Since then France had done little or nothing with respect to these places, and they had come more and more under care of the Greek Catholic Church. After the disasters of the Revolutionary period the Roman Catholic Church had entered on a period of vigorous expansion and militant assertion. Roman Catholics now desired to be guardians of the holy places. Under such leaders as the Vicomte de Châteaubriand and the Comte Joseph de Maistre the Catholic revival had been strong in France. The July Monarchy had fallen at last partly because of Catholic displeasure, and Catholic support had been largely responsible for the rise of Napoleon III. French Catholics were now eager to have the French government champion the Church of Rome against the Greek Catholics whom Russia supported. Because of this Napoleon III came into conflict with Russia, since the tsar resolutely upheld the claims of the Greek Catholic Church. This altercation dragged on obscure and involved from 1850 to 1854. By that time Napoleon was able to get the coöperation of England, since British statesmen were alarmed at the prospect of the destruction of Turkey by Russia. Presently, as a result of the various disputes, the Crimean War was begun. French soldiers took the leading part in capturing Sevastopol in the Crimea, and when Russia yielded it was at
The Crimean War, 1854-6
Dispute about custody of the holy places
Paris that the conference assembled which made the treaty of peace. The Treaty of Paris was the first great European settlement made since the arrangements completed at Vienna. It was concerned mostly with Russia, whom it thwarted and checked, and with Turkey, whom it protected and admitted to the concert of European Powers. But it also seemed to mark the end of an era which had begun with the downfall of France in 1814 and the treaties that followed. Now in a new era France was the leader of Europe.
Treaty of Paris, 1856
L'Empire, c'est la paix, Napoleon had said, but the Crimean War was the first great struggle in Europe since 1815. England as well as France, and also Piedmont, which had joined them, gained satisfaction and prestige from the conflict; but the terms of the treaty were soon set at naught, and England and France were both of them afterward to regret the part they had taken. "The empire means peace"
This success strengthened Napoleon's position and also awakened the French people to a desire for further glory and greatness. The emperor now began to cherish a magnificent foreign policy. Grandly but not clearly he seems to have conceived the idea of extending France again to her "natural frontier" of the Rhine, and also aiding the oppressed and submerged nationalities of Europe to obtain their freedom. Soon he awakened such uneasiness and suspicion in Europe that in the end he was left without a friend; and his policy after a while involved him in perplexities from which his moderate ability as a statesman could never extricate him entirely.
Schemes of Napoleon III
Encouraged by Napoleon, the inhabitants of the two Danubian Principalities elected the same ruler in 1859, thus paving the way for the establishment of the Rumanian state. In the same year he intervened to assist Piedmont (the Kingdom of Sardinia), the north Italian state, against Austria which then ruled Lombardy and Venetia, controlled neighboring Italian districts, and dominated
Assists the Rumanians and the Italians in nationalist movements
the Italian peninsula. The Austrians were defeated in great battles at Magenta and Solferino, and all Lombardy taken from them. Much to the disappointment of the Italians, Napoleon then ended the war with the Truce of Villafranca, which was followed by the Treaty of Zürich. However, the Italians of Piedmont gained Lombardy, and thus achieved the first great stage in the unification of Italy. In return for the services rendered, France got the Italian provinces of Nice and Savoy on her extreme southeastern frontier. But all too successfully Napoleon had carried forward this nationalist movement. In a short time all Italy except for Rome had been brought into a great new state, and Rome was saved for the pope only because Napoleon occupied it with his troops. This he did to conciliate the French Catholics; but by doing it he lost the friendship of Italians despite the great services just rendered them by him.
Austria defeated by France
After 1859 Napoleon's foreign policy resulted in a series of failures. In 1863, when the Poles rose against their Russian masters and appealed to the western peoples for help, there was immense sympathy for them in France, but the emperor could do no more than make a diplomatic protest, which helped the Poles not at all, while it alienated the government of Russia. From this occurrence came disastrous results later on at the time of the war with Prussia; but the misfortune lay hidden in the future. Two years before, in 1861, France, Great Britain, and Spain had sent an expedition to Mexico to protect their citizens and ensure the payment of debts. But Napoleon had greater designs, and when, the next year, Spain and Great Britain withdrew, his forces remained and overran the country. By 1864 he had established an empire in Mexico, maintained by French troops and ruled by Maximilian, brother of the emperor of Austria, to whom he had offered the crown. This proceeding violated the Monroe Doctrine of the United States. At first the government
at Washington could do nothing, for the American Civil War was then raging. In 1866, however, after the Southern Confederacy had collapsed and the Union was completely restored, the American government protested, and France was compelled to yield. The French army was withdrawn, and Maximilian, who would not desert his followers, was left to his fate. He was soon captured and shot, dying with chivalrous bravery in a land far away from his home. His wife, who had gone to Europe to plead for assistance, went mad when the news was brought to her; and Napoleon's government, which had sent Maximilian to his throne and his death, never recovered from the disgrace of the occurrence.
France Yields to the United States
A far more terrible disaster was approaching. Prussia under Bismarck was strengthening her army so that she might soon thrust Austria outside of German affairs and herself bring the German peoples together in the strong union which they had so long desired. Unification of Germany would be in accord with Napoleon's ideas concerning nationality, but it was no more to his liking that a strong Germany should be created under Prussia than it had been that a united Italy should be established under Piedmont. In either case the rise of a new strong power near by would make France relatively less great in Europe. Napoleon had no desire to see a Prussia too strong, yet he was willing to see a strong Prussia balance Austria's power. Bismarck, who was directing Prussian affairs, could never hope to carry through his greater designs if Napoleon gave Austria assistance against him. Accordingly, he played a game of unscrupulous diplomacy and crafty intrigue, in which Napoleon was completely outwitted. He held out to the emperor hope that France might obtain compensations along the Rhine if France remained neutral in the war that was approaching between Austria and Prussia. In the Austro-Prussian War (1866) Napoleon would nevertheless have intervened, but the conflict which lasted only
Relations with Prussia
Bismarck and Napoleon III
seven weeks was over before he could move. When he tried to get German land by the Rhine, Bismarck resisted, and was able to arouse German sentiment strongly against French aggression. Napoleon was then led to propose that he be allowed to take Belgium, but Bismarck was able afterward to use the document containing this proposal as a means of inflaming England against France. Accordingly, when later France declared war on Prussia, Napoleon's statecraft had brought it about that every power of any importance was alienated from France, and when presently France was overthrown and dismembered, not a government would come to her assistance. The Franco-German War began July 19, 1870. In the early part of the conflict, the French armies attempting to invade Germany were at once driven back; great German hosts came pouring into the frontier provinces, Alsace and Lorraine; and the French forces were everywhere defeated. September 2, Napoleon III with the principal remaining French army was captured at Sedan by the Germans. When the news of this terrible disaster came to Paris the enraged people cast down his empire and proclaimed another republic.
Napoleon thwarted by Bismarck
During the latter part of his reign, the power of Napoleon had much diminished, and he strove to support it not only by more adventurous policy abroad, but also by making concessions at home. He put into practice the ideas which he had earlier proclaimed: that after order and security were established the people should be admitted to greater share in the government of the state. Year by year larger powers were given to the legislature, and in 1868 freedom of the press was restored. In 1870 the government was completely transformed, the legislature being given such power as parliament had in England, and the ministry being made responsible to it. In May of that year these changes were approved by a great majority of the people, and it seemed that at last France had
The Liberal Empire
in the "Liberal Empire" a government strong yet resting on the people. A few months afterward this was all swept away the disasters of the Franco-German War.
The "Liberal Empire"
For additional general introductory reading: Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Power, 1715-1789 ( 1896); A. H. Johnson, The Age of the Enlightened Despots, 1660-1789 ( 1910). Great Britain: C. G. Robertson, England under the Hanoverians ( 1911); W. E. H. Lecky, A Hisrtory of England in the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols. ( 1878-90), the best for this period; the best of the general histories of England is the coöperative work, The Political History of England, ed. by the Rev. William Hunt , R. L. Poole, 12 vols. ( 1905-10). France: A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, 1483-1789, 2 vols. ( 1900); J. B. Perkins, France under Louis XV, 2 vols. ( 1897). The best and most important history of France is the great coöperative work edited by E. Lavisse, Histoire de France depuis les Origines jusqu'à la Révolution, 9 vols. in 18 ( 1900-10). Spain: G. D. du Dezert, L'Espagne de l'Ancien Régime, 3 vols. ( 1897- 1904); M. A. S. Hume, Spain: Its Greatness and Decay (1479-1788) ( 1898). Austria: Archdeacon William Coxe, History of the House of Austria from 1218 to 1792 (many editions); Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs. 5 vols. ( 1876-9); Henry Marczali , Hungary in the Eighteenth Century ( 1910). The Germanies: G. M. Priest, Germany since 1740 ( 1915); Karl Biedermann, Deutschland im Achtzehnten ahrhundert, 2 vols. ( 1867-80); Norwood Young, The Life of Frederick the Great ( 1919), hostile and critical; Reinhold Koser, Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen, 4 vols. ( 19112-14), the authoritative work. Russia: Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les Origines jusqu'à Nos Jours ( 6th ed. 1914), an English translation by Leonora B. Lang, 2 vols. ( 1879); V. O. Kliuchevsky, abridged and trans. by C. J. Hogarth, A History of Russia, 3 vols. ( 1911-13), to the end of the seventeenth century, best account of the early period; E. A. B. Hodgetts, The Life of Catherine the Great of Russia ( 1914). For the Slavs generally: R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe ( 1912). The Ottoman Dominions: Stanley Lane-Poole, The Story of Turkey ( 1897); Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, 5 vols. ( 1908-13), the best.
The causes of the Revolution: E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution ( 1892); Arthur Young, Travels in France and Italy during the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789 (numerous editions). For more extended study: Henri Carré, La Noblesse de France et l' Opinion Publique au XVIIIe Siècle ( 1920); Aimé Cherest, La Chute de l'Ancien Régime, 1787-1789, 3 vols. (188-46); Charles Gomel , Les Causes Financières de la Révolution Française, 2 vols. ( 1892-3); Maxime Kovalevksy, La France Économique et Sociale à la Veille de la Révolution, 2 vols. ( 1909-11), excellent; T. F. Rocquain, L'Esprit Révolutionnaire avant la Révolution, 1715-1789 ( 1878), trans. by J. D. Hunting ( 1891); Henri Sée, Les Idées Politiques en France au XVIIIe Siècle ( 1920); Merrick Whitcomb , Typical Cahiers of 1789 (Translations and Reprints of the University of Pennsylvania, 1898). For the great writers who assisted and interpreted the changes: John (Viscount) Morley , Diderot and the Encyclopdists, 2 vols. ( 1891), Voltaire ( 1903), Critical Miscellanies, 4 vols. ( 1892- 1908); Arthur Chuquet , J. J. Rousseau ( 1901). Also Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des Lois ( 1718), Rousseau, Contrat Social ( 1762), Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique ( 1764). The Revolution: the best of the shorter works is Louis Madelin , La Révolution ( 1911), trans. The French Revolution ( 1916); H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe (1763-1815) ( 1914); J. H. Rose, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 17891815 ( 1898); H. M. Stephens, A History of the French Revolution, 2 vols. ( 1886--91 ). Of longer works the best is Alphonse Aulard, Histoire Politique de la Révolution Française, 1789-1804, ( 3d ed. 1905), trans. by Bernard Miall, 4 vols. ( 1910); Albert Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, 8 vols. ( 1885- 1904); Heinrich von Sybel , Geschichte der Revolutionzeit von 1789, 5 vols. ( 3d ed. 1865-79), trans. by W. C. Perry, 4 vols. ( 1867-9). For laws and constitutions: L. G. W. Legg, Select DocumentsIllustrative of the French Revolution Illustrative of the French Revolution, 2 vols. ( 1905); R. W. Postgate , ed., Revolution from 1789 to 1906 ( 1921), contains documents illustrating this and later European revolutions; Henri Monnier , Les Constitutions et les Principales Lois Politiques de la France depuis 1789 ( 1898); Léon Cahen and Raymond Guyot, L'uvre Législative de la Révolution ( 1913), best on the subject. Of the sources there are two great collections: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860: Recueil Complet des Débats Législatifs et Politiques des Chambres Françaises, 127 vols. ( 2d ed. 18791913), covering the period 1787 to 1839; and P. J. B. Buchez and P. C. Roux-Lavergne, Histoire Parlementaire de la Révolution Française, 1789-1815, 40 vols. ( 1834-8), containing extracts from debates, newspapers, and pamphlets of the time; also Le Moniteur, 32 vols. (reprint of the most important newspaper). For the Jacobins: A. Aulard, La Société des Jacobins, 6 vols. ( 1889-97), a collection of documents. The Reign of Terror: H. A. Wallon, La Terreur, 2 vols. ( 1881), Les Représentants du Peuple en Mission, 5 vols. ( 188990), Le Tribunal Révolutionaire, 2 vols. ( 1900). Contemporary accounts: the memoirs of Bailly, Madame Campan, Ferrières, Comte de Fersen, Lafayette, Mallet du Pan, and Malouet; Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France ( 1790), conservative but wise, and still an excellent commentary on the work of the National Assembly; Thomas Paine, The Rights of Matt ( 1791-2); Gouverneur Morris, Diary and Letters, 2 vols. ( 1888). Biographies: E. B. Bax, Babeuf ( 1911); J. F. E. Robinet, Condorcet ( 1893); L. Madelin, Danton ( 1914); Jules Claretie, Camille Desmoulins ( 1875), trans.; A. Chuquet, Dumouriez ( 1914); Bernard Malley, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution ( 1902); F. M. Fling, The Youth of Mirabeau ( 1908); Louis Barthou , Mirabeau ( 1913); H. Belloc, Robespierre ( 1901). The wars of the Revolution: A. Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Révolution, 11 vols. ( 1886-96), to 1793; A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812, 2 vols. ( 2d ed. 1893). The church: A. Debidour, Histoire des Rapports de l'Église et de l'État en France de 1789 à 1870 ( 1898); Pierre de la Gorce, Histoire Religieuse de la Révolution Française, vols. I-IV ( 190921); Paul Pisani, L'Église de Paris et la Révolution, 4 vols. ( 1908-11).
The life of Napoleon Bonaparte: H. A. L. Fisher, Napoleon ( 1912), the best brief study in English; R. M. Johnston, Napoleon, a Short Biography ( 1910). Of longer works: August Fournier , Napoleon I: eine Biographic, 3 vols. ( 3d ed. 1914), trans, by A. E. Adams ( 1912), is the best. F. M. Kircheisen, Napoleon I: Sein Leben und Seine Zeit, vols. I-IV ( 1912-22): Arthur Lévy, Napoléon Intime ( 7th ed. 1893), trans. The Private Life of Napoleon, 2 vols. ( 1894), Napoléon et la Paix ( 1902); Frédéric Masson, Napoléon et Sa Famille, 12 vols. ( 5th ed. 1897- 1915), Napoléon à Sainte-Hélène ( 1912); J. C. Ropes, The First Napoleon ( 1900); J. H. Rose, The Life of Napoleon I (ed. 1907), The Personality of Napoleon ( 1912); W. M. Sloane, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, 4 vols. (ed. 1910). For particular periods or subjects: Édouard Driault, La Politique Extérieure du Premier Consul,, 1800-1803 ( 1910), La Politique Orientale de Napoléon ( 1904); L. de Laborie , Paris sous Napoléon, 8 vols. ( 1905-13); L. Sciout, Le Directoire, 2 vols. ( 1895-6); L. A. Thiers, Histoire du Consular et de l'Empire, 20 vols. ( 1844-62), laudatory; Albert Vandal, Napoléon et Alexandre Ier, 3vols. ( 3d ed. 1893-6), L'Avènement de Bonaparte, 2. vols. (ed. 1911). There are several collections of the letters of Napoleon, the most important being: Correspondance de Napoléon Ier (pubished by order of Napoleon III), 32 vols. ( 1858-70); Correspondance Inédite de Napoléon Ier (from the War Archives, ed. by E. Picard and L. Tuety), 4 vols. ( 1912-13). Contemporary accounts: the memoirs of Bourrienne (trans.) Chaptal, Gourgaud (trans.), Miot de Melito (trans.), Madame de Rémusat (trans.), Roederer, Ségur (trans.), TalleyrandPérigord (trans.), Thibaudeau, Thiébault (trans.), Villemain. F. J. Maccunn, The Contemporary English View of Napoleon ( 1914) contains much rare and curious contemporary information. Wars: A. Chuquet, La Guerre de Russie ( 1912); J. S. Corbett, The Campaign of Trafalgar ( 1913); T. A. Dodge, Napoleon: a History of the Art of War, 4 vols. ( 1904-7); A. T. Mahan, TheLife of Nelson Life of Nelson, 2 vols. ( 1897), best; Sea Power in Its Relation to the War of 1812, 2 vols. ( 1905); F. W. O. Maycock, The Invasion of France, 1814 ( 1915); F. L. Petre, Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807 ( 1906), Napoleon's Conqnest of Prussia, 1806 ( 1907), Napoleon and the Archduke Charles ( 1908), Napoleon's Last Campaign in Germany, 1813 ( 1912), Napoleon at Bay ( 1914); Charles Oman, History of the Peninsular War, 5 vols. ( 1902-19), Wellington's Army, 1809-1814 ( 1912); J. C. Ropes, The Campaign of Waterloo ( 2d ed. 1893). The Continental System: E. F. Heckscher, The Continental System, ed. by H. Westergaard ( 1922). The best extended history of France for the period since 1789 is the coöperative work edited by E. Lavisse, Histoire tie France Contemporaine, vols. I-IX ( 1920-2). For the history of France in this and subsequent periods the student should also have in mind for further reference Histoire Socialiste, 1789-1900, ed. by Jean Jaurès, 12 vols. ( 1901-9), the respective volumes written by prominent French socialists.
C. K. Webster, The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815 ( 1918), excellent, also (editor of) British Diplomacy, 1813-1815: Select Documents Dealing with the Reconstruction of Europe ( 1921); Three Peace Congresses of the Nineteenth Century ( 1917), in which the Congresses of Vienna, Paris, and Berlin are described respectively by ( C. D. Hazen, W. R. Thayer, and R. H. Lord. Acten des Wiener Kongresses (ed. by J. L. Klüber), 8 vols. ( 2d ed. 1817-35); W. A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe ( 2d ed. 1919); G. B. Malleson, Life of Prince, Metternich ( 1895); Prince Metternich-Winneburg, Mémoires, 8 vols. ( 1880-4), also in English, Memoirs of Prince Clemens Metternich (ed. by Prince R. Metternich , trans. by Mrs. A. Napier), 5 vols. ( 1881-2); C. M. de Talleyrand-Périgord, Mémoires, 5 vols. ( 1891-2), also translation of; Correspondance Inédite de Talleyrand et de Roi Louis XVIII pendant le Congrès de Vienne (ed. by G. Pallain, 3d ed. 1881); Friedrich von Gentz, Tagebücher, 4 vols. ( 1873-4); Lord Castlereagh, Memoirs and Correspondence, 12 vols. ( 184853); Duke of Wellington, Despatche. 12 vols. ( 1837-9); A. Sorel, Essais d'Histoire et de Critique, 12th ed. ( 1884) contains accounts of Metternich and Talleyrand; W. P. Cresson, The Holy Alliance: the European Background of the Monroe Doctrine ( 1922).
General: Johannes Conrad, Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft 8 vols. ( 3d ed. 1909-11); R. H. I. Palgrave, Dictionary of Political Economy, 3 vols. ( 1910-13); Benjamin Rand, Selection. Illustrating Economic History since the Seven Years' War ( 5th ed. 1911). The new system: J. A. Hobson, The Evolution of Modern Capitalism: a Study of Machine Production (ed. 1912) excellent; Charles Gide and Charles Rist, Histoire des Doctrine Économiques depuis les Physiocrates jusqu' à Nos Jours ( 1919), trans. A History of Economic Doctrines ( 1915), for the doctrine of laissez faire; Warner Sombart, Der Moderne Capitalismus, 2 vol. ( 1902). The great changes: D. H. Macgregor, The Evolution of Industry ( 1912); H. de B. Gibbins, Economic and Industrial Progress of the Century ( 1903), best; Paul Mantoux, La Révolution Industrielle au XVIIIe Siècle ( 1906), best account of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution in England: W. W. Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Time, 3 vols. ( 5th ed. 1910-12), volume III covers the period 17761850; G. H. Perris, The Industrial History of Modern England ( 1914); Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in England ( 1884), the classic exposition in English; A. P. Usher, An Introduction to the Industrial History of England ( 1920); G. T. Warner, Landmarks in English Industrial History ( 11th ed. 1912). Trade Unions: L. T. Hobhouse, The Labour Movement ( 3d ed. 1912); Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism (ed. 1920), Industrial Democracy ( 1902). Socialism: R. C. K. Ensor, Modern Socialism, as Set Forth by Socialists in Their Speeches, Writings, and Programmers ( 3d ed. 1910), a convenient collection of sources, Alfred Fouillée, Le Socialisme et la Sociologie Réformiste ( 1909); Morris Hillquit, Socialism in Theory and Practice ( 1909); Thomas Kirkup, A History of Socialism ( 5th. ed. 1913); J. R. Macdonald, Socialism and Government, 2. vols. ( 1909), The Socialist Movement ( 1911); W. H. Mallock, A Critical Examination of Socialism ( 1907); O. D. Skelton, Socialism: a Critical Analysis ( 1911), excellent criticism of; John Spargo, Socialism: a Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles (ed. 1909); and Encyclopédie Socialiste (ed. by Compère-Morel), 8 vols. ( 1912- 1913). In France: W. D. Guthrie, Socialism before the French Revolution ( 1907); Gaston Isambert, Les Idées Socialistes en France de 1815 à 1848 ( 1905); E. Levasseur, Histoire des Ouvrières et del' Industrie en France de 1789 à 1870, 2 vols. ( 1903); Georges Weill , Histoire du Mouvement Social en France, 1852-1910 ( 2d ed. 1911). In Germany: Franz Mehring, Geschichte der Deutschen Sozialdemokratie ( 1904), best, by a socialist; Edgard Milhaud, La Démocratie Socialiste Allemande ( 1903). In Great Britain: M. Beer, Geschichte des Sozialismus in England ( 1913), A History of British Socialism. 2, vols. ( 1919-20), an improved English version by the author; C. W. Stubbs, Charles Kingsley and the Christian Social Movement ( 1900). Socialist leaders: J. Tchernoff, Louis Blanc ( 1904); Ferdinand Lasalle , Reden and Schriften, 3 vols. ( 1892-5); John Spargo, Karl Marx, His Life and Work ( 1910); Karl Marx, Das Kapital ( 1867), trans. by S. Moore, E. B. Aveling, and E. Untermann, Capital, a Critique of Political Economy, 3 vols. ( 1907-9); Frank Podmore , Robert Owen, a Biography, 2 vols. ( 1906).
General histories: A. L. Cross, A History of England and Greater Britain ( 1914), the best short history for reference, A Shorter History of England and Greater Britain ( 1920), containing additional excellent chapters down to 1920; G. M. Trevelyan , British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782-1901) ( 1922); and more particularly about this period: J. A. R. Marriott , England Since Waterloo ( 1913); The Political History of England, volume X: 1760 to 1801, by the Rev. W. Hunt ( 1905), volume XI: 1801 to 1837, by G. C. Brodrick and J. Fotheringham ( 1906); J. F. Bright, History of England, 5 vols. ( 1884- 1904); and best of all, Sir Spencer Walpole, History of England Since 1815, 6 vols. ( revised ed. 1902-5), based on thorough study of contemporary accounts. Biographies: A. G. Stapleton, The Political Life of George Canning, 3 vols. ( 1831); J. F. Bagot (editor), George Canning andHis Friends His Friends, 2 vols. ( 1909); G. M. Trevelyan, Lord Grey of the Reform Bill ( 1920); Sir G. O. Trevelyan, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, 2 vols. ( 1876), most fascinating and instructive; J. H. Rose, William Pitt and National Revival ( 1911), William Pitt and the Great War ( 1911); Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. ( 1879); Sir Herbert Maxwell, The Life of Wellington, 2 vols. ( 3d ed. 1900). Political conditions and parliamentary reform: Sir T. E. May , Constitutional History of England Since the Accession of George III (edited and continued by Francis Holland), 3 vols. ( 1912); E. and A. G. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, 2 vols. (ed. 1909); J.R . M. Butler, The Passing of the Great Reform Bill ( 1914), best study of the subject. The government of the United Kingdom: A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (ed. 1912), best; Sir William Anson , The Law and Custom of the Constitution, 3 vols. (ed. 19079); Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (ed. 1911); A. V. Dicey , Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution ( 8th ed. 1915); Sidney Low, The Governance of England (ed. 1914); Sir Courtney Ilbert, Parliament ( 1911). Conservatism and change: W. L. Blease, A Short History of English Liberalism ( 1913), very informing; T. E. Kebbel, History of Toryism ( 1886), for the period 1783- 1881. Liberal and radical thinkers: P. A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History ( 1918); W. L. Davidson, Political Thought in England: the Utilitarians from Bentham to J. S. Mill ( 1915); Sir Leslie Stephen, The English Utilitarians ( 1900); C. M. Atkinson, Life of Jeremy Bentham ( 1905); E. I. Carlyle, William Cobbett ( 1904); Graham Wallas, The Life of Francis Place ( 1898). Catholic Emancipation: Bernard Ward, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival, 1781-1803 ( 1909), The Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 1803-1829, 3 vols. ( 1912), The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 1830-1850, 2 vols. ( 1915); W. E. H. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 2 vols. (ed. 1903). The law: Edward Jenks, A Short History of the English Law ( 1912), excellent; Sir J. F. Stephens, History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. ( 1883).
General accounts: in addition to the works previously cited, The Political History of England, volume XII: 1837 to 1901, by Sidney Low and L. C. Sanders ( 1907). Bibliographies: Lytton Strachey, Queen, Victoria ( 1921), a brilliant biography; Sir Sidney Lee, Queen Victoria: a Biography ( 1903); The Letters of Queen Victoria, edited by A. C. Benson and Viscount Esher, 3 vols. ( 1907), for the period 1837-61; Sir T. Martin, Life, of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, 5 vols. ( 1875-80); G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright ( 1913); John Morley, Life of Richard Cobden ( 1881); W. F. Monypenny, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, 2 vols. ( 1910-12), continued by G. E. Buckle, 4 vols. ( 191420); the earl of Rosebery, Sir Robert Peel ( 1899). Local government: Sidney and Beatrice Webb, English Local Government, 1688-1835, 3 vols. ( 1906); Sir George Nicholls, A History of the English Poor Law, 2 vols. (ed. 1898), to 1834, continued in a third volume by Thomas Mackay ( 1904), carrying the subject down to 1899. Social reform: H. de B. Gibbins, English Social Reformers ( 1902); Edwin Hodder, Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, 3 vols. ( 1888). The Corn Laws: J. S. Nicholson, The History of the English Corn Laws ( 1904); B. H. Holland, The Fall of Protection, 18401850 ( 1913), best for the free-trade movement in England. Parliamentary Reform: J. H. Park, The English Reform Bill of 1867 ( 1920). Industry and commerce: Leone Levi, History of British Commerce and of the Economic Progress of the British Nation, 17631870 ( 1872); G. H. Perris, The Industrial History of Modern England ( 1914). Chartism: Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (ed. 1892); Thomas Carlyle, Chartism ( 1839); Édouard Dolléans, Le Chartisme, 2 vols. ( 1912-13); R. G. Gammage, History of Chartism ( 1854, new ed. 1894), the author was a leader in the movement; Mark Hovell, The Chartist Movement ( 1918), the best account. Canada and Greater Britain: Sir J. G. Bourinot, Canada under British Rule, 1760-1900 ( 1900); William Kingsford, History of Canada, 10 vols. ( 1887-97), the fullest account, to 1841; S. J. Reid, Life and Letters of the First Earl of Durham, 2 vols. ( 1906); Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America, edited by Sir C. P. Lucas, 3 vols. ( 1912); Selected Speeches and Documents on British Colonial Policy, 1763-1917, edited by A. G. Keith, 2. vols. ( 1918). The British Empire: Howard Robinson, The Development of the British Empire ( 1922). The British Empire and the United States: G. L. Beer, The English-Speaking Peoples: Their Future Relations and Joint International Obligations ( 1917).
The constitutions: F. M. Anderson, Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 17891901 (ed. 1909). The Restoration: Henry Houssaye, 1815, 3 vols. ( 18961905); L. Michon, Le Gouvernement Parlementaire sous la Restauration ( 1905); Pierre Rain, L'Europe et la Restauration des Bourbons ( 1908). The July Monarchy: Paul Thureau-Dangin, Histoire de la Monarchie de Juillet, 7 vols. ( 2d ed. 1888-92), Roman Catholic and conservative, the principal work on the subject; Louis Blanc , Histoire des Dix Ans, 1830-1840, translated, History of Ten Years, 1830-1840, 2 vols. ( 1844-5); Georges Weill, Histoire du Parti Républicain en France de 1814 à 1870 ( 1900), La France sous la Monarchie Constitutionelle, 1814-1848 ( 1912). The Revolution of 1848: Albert Crémieux, La Révolution de Février ( 1912), the best account of; J. A. R. Marriott, editor, The French Revolution in 1848 in Its Economic Aspects, 2 vols. ( 1913); H. R. Whitehouse, The Life of Lamartine, 2 vols. ( 1918). The Second Republic: Pierre de la Gorce, Histoire de la Seconde République Française, 2 vols. ( 7th ed., 1914). The Second Empire: P. de la Gorce, Histoire du Second Empire, 7 vols. ( 4th ed., 1896- 1905), the best account, clerical sympathies; Albert Thomas, Le Second Empire ( 1907); Henri Berton , L'Evolution Constitutionelle du Second Empire ( 1900); Maurice (Comte) Fleury, La Société du Second Empire, 3 vols. ( 1911); Blanchard Jerrold, The Life of Napoleon III, 4 vols. ( 1874-82), favorable; F. A. Simpson, The Rise of Louis Napoleon ( 1909), Louis Napoleon and the Recovery of France, 1848-1856 ( 1923); É Ollivier, L'Empire Libéral, 17 vols. ( 1895- 1914). The Crimean War: Diplomatic Study on the Crimean War, 2 vols. ( 1882), Russian official publication; A. W. Kinglake, Invasion of the Crimea, 9 vols. ( 1863- 1901). The Congress of Paris: E. Gourdon, Histoire du Congrès de Paris ( 1857); Sir Francis Piggott, The Declaration of Paris ( 1919).
[ Previous | Next ]