This was one of my textbooks from University and surprise, surprise, it was written by a lecturer that took a couple of my classes. Sometimes I wonder if lecturers write textbooks specifically for their classes (normally because none of the other text books around either cover the topics that they wish to cover, or reach the conclusions that they wish us to reach). This textbook deals with the rise of the British Empire between 1660 and 1815, that is between the restoration of the monarchy after the republican period led by Oliver Cromwell, and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Our course, however, dealt with the period between 1789 (the Glorious Revolution) and 1900 (the death of Queen Victoria).
It is difficult to really pinpoint when Great Britain began to develop into the empire that would end up dominating the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some point to the Act of Union between England and Scotland that laid the foundations of Great Britain, while others point to the Norman Conquest of 1066 which began to move England from a backward island off the coast to a central player in European politics. However, there a number of important events that occurred after the conquest, which include the signing of the Magna Carta, which established parliament and a rule of law, and the rise of Henry VIII, who broke England away from the rule of Rome.
However, this particular book looks at the period from the end of the Civil War and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell to the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The civil war strengthened the rule of parliament and began to put restraints on the power of the king, however despite the failure of the Republic, when the Stuart dynasty returned to the throne, it was clear that they had learned nothing from the failure of their predecessors. This lead to the Glorious Revolution (a very important event in the history of the British Empire), a bloodless revolution which resulted in the removal of the Stuart dynasty and the establishment of William of Orange as king of England. By this time, the powers of the king had been defined, and a system of government involving three arms (the Executive, being the King; the legislature, being parliament; and the judiciary, being the courts). It was said that this system worked quite effectively during the 18th century, and in this time we begin to see the agricultural revolution, and then the economic revolution, which thrust England towards the industrial revolution in the 19th century.
However everything wasn't as wonderful as it seemed because the modern democratic state that we have arriving at was still in development through this period and into the 19th century. The struggle between parliament and the king had a lot to do with the struggle that began back in the days of King John, and that being the development of the idea that the king does not hold all power, and that there is also the recognition of a basic set of human rights (such as the right to a lawyer, and the right not to be imprisoned without any charges being laid). However much of these rights, at this time, had more to do with economic rights, that being the right to develop one's business and one's wealth. However, during this period much of this was still restricted to the aristocratic class. The members of parliament were still required to be property owners, and there was a qualification of the value of the property as well. Further, a number of electorates were unevenly distributed, enabling certain people to always sit in parliament. However, while England was slowly moving towards liberalism at this time, France was heading in the opposite direction - towards absolutism.
The American Revolution occurred during this period. Despite criticism of this historical event (as I do) we must remember that this was a decisive shock to the European World. The rebellion effectively destroyed the class structure that was dominant in Europe, and the end result of the revolution would have a significant effect upon the direction of politics in Europe. While the US was fighting against absolutism, the French foolishly chose to send troops to help the Americans, simply because they were fighting the British. However, the unexpected consequence of this was that the ideas of freedom and democracy were taken back to France, and within a decade, the French government had collapsed into revolution. England wasn't immune from this as well for despite being on the losing side of the rebellion, the ideas from the rebellion flowed back into England, and with France in revolt on their doorstep, it was not going to be long before England was going to be facing the threat of revolt (which it did in 1795). However, unlike the French, the English had a very effective parliamentary system, and was able to slowly introduce reforms to cool the population.
That was not to mean that this was going to be the end of any reforms. The push for reform continued into the 19th and even the 20th century, however it was during the 19th century that the modern state would develop into the form that we know now. However, the book ends in 1815, which once again, is a significant date as it heralds the end of the Napoleonic Wars, from which Britain emerged victorious. Despite defeat in the United States, the English emerged victorious from what could be considered the First World War. The end of the war heralded a period of 100 years of peace known as the Pax Brittania. However, despite there technically being no wars, it did not mean that the British were not involved in conflict. What differed was that most of these battles occurred on the fringes of the empire. However, while there has not been another 'world war' since the Second World War, many commentators consider that the United States is still mired in some form of perpetual war. It is as if the empire itself cannot exist unless it is at war. This, I propose, was the same with England. ( )