Asa Briggs, The Age of Improvement 1783-1867 (1952), chs. 4-10
Gordon Wright, France in Modern Times, 5th ed. (1985), part II plus ch. 18

In the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, Britain and France experienced the most rapid social change and "modernization" in Europe, but these changes were accompanied by strikingly different styles of politics: gradualism and continuity in Britain, recurrent revolution and abrupt change in France. How far would you explain this contrast by differences in historical experience and traditions between the two countries? How far would you draw on other kinds of explanations, such as differences in their social structures or their economies?

Throughout the decades from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 up to the 1870’s, Britain and France were the leading countries of Europe -- the freest, most modern, wealthiest, and most powerful of the large European countries. Though historically they were rivals, to other Europeans they looked much alike in important ways. But their politics were very different. Here you have a case study of contrasting political systems, and your job is to identify major factors behind the divergence.

Starting at the end of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic years in 1815, France went through two different forms of constitutional monarchy, then a republic, and finally a Napoleonic-style imperial regime before ending up again as a republic -- the Third Republic, which lasted until 1940. The transitions consisted of a revolution in 1830, another revolution in 1848, a coup d’état in 1851, and a lost war along with a quasi-revolution (the Paris Commune) in 1870-71. In contrast, by 1815 Britain had been a constitutional monarchy for roughly a century, and she still had the same constitutional monarchy in 1875 (and in fact still today). Quite a few reforms took place in the British system, sometimes spurred on by threats of disorder or even episodes of outright social violence, but there were no revolutions or changes of regime.

Of course we are dealing not with "Britain" and "France" so much as with the governing classes of those countries. Neither country was a democracy, though they were getting close in some ways by 1875. The two countries differed (sometimes sharply) in who governed, and in what spirit they governed, and with what expectations. There were also differences in the relations of the rulers with other classes and groups in society. These relations, in turn, were influenced by how the lower classes of society thought of themselves and how they organized. These are the elements of what we call the "political culture" of a country.

A primary emphasis on the mentality and traditions of the French and British is controversial. Other historians prefer to explain the differences by contrasts in economic development and in class structures. What are your thoughts?