British immigrants set up responsible governments in the colonies? What's going on here?

With the opening of the era of great navigation, many European countries began to compete for overseas colonies, among which Britain established many colonial bases in the American continent, Indian Peninsula and Australia. By the middle of the19th century, with the increasing demand for overseas trade, many British immigrants arrived in colonies all over the world one after another, and started the mode of autonomy or local management, that is, the so-called colonial responsible government appeared. In essence, the early British suzerain's control over the colonies was called local governor, which later evolved into representative system and then developed into local responsible government. There is no doubt that this management method doomed the colony under the responsible government to embark on the road of independence, so why didn't Britain stop this from happening? Or is this the end of British laissez-faire policy?

Different colonial models have different management paths.

1600 65438+February 3 1, King Elizabeth I approved the British East India Company to take charge of the eastern trade. The first ships arrived in India on 1608 and entered surat Port in Gujarat, thus opening the door to India. Four years later, they signed a trade treaty with Mughal, which allowed the East India Company to establish a trade base in India as a reward for transporting goods from Europe. This Britain seems to be aimed at trade and commerce. In fact, the original intention of drunkards is not wine, but colonialism in India. With 16 12, the East India Company set up its first office in surat, and then Britain colonized the subcontinent by relying on the army formed by the East India Company.

This trade-based colony is managed by a governor, and most of the people under his control belong to indigenous Indians. At present, there are relatively few white immigrants in Britain. In order to safeguard Britain's interests in India, the local administrative organization established around the governor is regarded as? Corporate colony? The British royal family issued a charter to colonial companies, allowing them to conduct colonial production and trade here.

This means that a large number of British whites came here for colonial trade and long-term life, which opened the gap between the population structure and the number of Indian colonies. India is a colony dominated by conquest, while the United States and Australia are colonies dominated by European immigrants. Compare India's? Corporate colony? Which one does it belong to? Master colony? Similarly, the king of England authorized private individuals to establish colonies overseas.

But in order to be loyal to the suzerain, they must imitate the local system of the suzerain Britain and establish a colonial local government. This is the so-called old representative system.

The governors, committees and legislatures of the colonies are equivalent to the king, the Privy Council and the British Parliament. As the highest local governor, the governor has the greatest power and holds the nature, judicial power and military command of the colony. However, the Governor is an overseas official of Britain. He is not only responsible to the sovereign state, but also carries out its policies at any time. The Committee is composed of colonial officials appointed by the Governor to assist the Governor in daily work management.

It can be said that the representative government of the immigrant colony is a miniature version of the British political organs. On the one hand, it was influenced by the traditional British political system, and at the same time, it also referred to the local customs and habits and the management rules of medieval guilds and commercial companies. This does not mean that all systems come from the British Constitution.

New pattern and new synthesis: from royal colonial government to colonial representative government

1775 When the War of Independence started, it was really a very strange war, and neither the British nor the colonists were very keen on it. Britain is in an ambivalent mood, trying to teach North Americans a lesson but not to drag them down. They never invested enough troops, and the scale of military operations by the North American colonists also showed that they were not fully committed to the cause of independence. 1775 The colonial population reached 3 million. Theoretically, the colonial army could choose volunteers from about 300,000 young people. But in fact, there have never been more than 25,000 people on the mainland. The vast majority of colonial men either participated in the war temporarily or did not participate in the patriotic movement at all. Why is there such an embarrassing scene?

Forcing the royal colonial government

As we said before, the colonial nature of the American continent belongs to? Master colony? Almost all the early immigrants were born in a country where land is very scarce. On this continent with extremely rich arable land, their obsession with the land and their obsession with wandering firmly grasped it. So after a long time, the distribution of their interests here tends to be stereotyped, and they simply don't want to act according to the wishes of the suzerain Britain. In particular, the number of white residents in immigrant areas has gradually increased. They either hold groups or take care of each other. More interestingly, colonial officials deliberately embarked on the road of going it alone. Pandora's box? Then came North America 13 colonies, which became independent one after another, but at this time, British overseas forces were still brilliant and still did not want to give up colonial interests.

In this case, Britain has to start? Second Reich? By constantly adding other colonies to expand their power, a large number of colonies will be more than a one-way existence model. In order to strengthen control over these colonies, Britain had to put the so-called? Corporate colony? And then what? Master colony? Confuse and become a royal colony. 1774 The Quebec Act declared that the royal colonial government would become a form of British colonial rule.

The royal colonial government changed into a representative government only because the suzerain country and colonial regime changed.

The royal colonial government system is actually a variant of the governor's autocratic system, and its legislative norms are subordinate to the administrative and local governments, all of which depend on the imperial government. The only change is the abolition of the original local legislative assembly. When it is transformed into the centralized power of the governor, the governor holds the highest local administrative power and also holds the legislative power. With the development of colonial politics, both the Executive Council and the Legislative Council under the Governor have emerged as advisory bodies to the Governor. In short, the governor is the head of the colony and belongs to the local government? Is it just me? However, this person must be appointed by the British Secretary of State under the authority of the king. He is the personal agent of the British king in the local colony and has absolute leadership in the local area.

So it can also be said that the governor under the royal colonial government system belongs to the British king in the global colonial network? Local agent? It is not surprising that its local colonial government has gradually transformed into a representative government.

For example, in 179 1 year, Canada achieved the establishment of a representative government in the British colony through internal struggle. Followed by the demands of other places, the echo of this big scene forced the suzerain to agree to re-establish the legislative assembly in the colony and implement a representative system. In the representative system, the rights represented by the governor should not only safeguard the interests of the suzerain country, but also safeguard the interests of the immigrants themselves. Nature is a person as the leader of the two camps.

A foregone conclusion of colonial government: from representative system to responsible government

The contradiction of governor's responsibility in representative government can't be self-consistent, but with the deepening of internal contradictions in immigrant colonies, the suzerain Britain had to make concessions when it could not be eliminated. Therefore, since the first half of the19th century, these white immigrants have been fighting for more colonial rights and interests, pointing to the issue of internal autonomy. From the North American continent to Australia, immigrant colonies, including New Zealand and South Africa, have been fighting for autonomy. Therefore, the representative government is untenable and directly becomes a responsible government. By the time the first colonial conference was held in 1887, 17 colonies had embarked on the model of responsible government management.

What is the so-called responsible government? Generally speaking, the Legislative Assembly is elected and the Executive Council is organized and convened by the Legislative Assembly. At the same time, the Executive Council has a strict responsibility system for the Legislative Assembly. From the perspective of white immigrants who have lived in colonies for a long time, this is the beginning of their independent control of the local society now and in the future. However, limited by the fact that British overseas power was not declining, the power of the governor still existed, and Britain's interests in the colonies still existed. However, in the process of changing from the royal colonial government to the representative government and then to the responsible government, the power of the governor has been greatly reduced, and the transfer of local legislative power from being subordinate to the governor to the local legislative assembly and executive Council is also a key to decentralization.

Kick off a bridge or something? Separation? ? Why should a colony be controlled by a responsible government?

The accountable government in British immigrant colonies is not an accountable government in the modern sense in essence (in the modern sense, government actions can be responsible to the people). After the establishment of accountable governments in most colonies, it does not mean that the colonies have gained real autonomy, but only calls for weakening the power of the governor. So why should these immigrants implement responsible government?

Changes in the political system of suzerain Britain

As early as the Middle Ages, parliamentary politics was carried out in Britain, which restricted the implementation of kingship from all aspects. Later, with the outbreak of the British bourgeois revolution, parliament occupied the main position of the political system and became the power center of the whole Britain. From the implementation of the Bill of Rights in 1688 to the implementation of the Office Act in 1707, the power of the king gradually withdrew from the political center, and the cabinet was gradually influenced by the parliament. Especially after the first parliamentary reform in Britain, the decline of kingship led to the rise of Britain for decades? Virtual monarch politics? Phenomenon. Internal changes will inevitably affect the governance model of external colonies, so immigrant colonies have followed the parliamentary politics of the suzerain country and chose responsible government control.

A surge in the number of immigrants

1749, Britain established Halifax in Nova Scotia on the North American continent, and recruited 3000 people from Britain to settle here. 14 years later, more than 6,000 people immigrated to coastal colonies, and a large number of Europeans yearned for the overseas world and set foot on colonial land. Immigrants still live according to their traditional way of life in the new residential area, which makes the colony have a strong atmosphere of suzerain. Naturally, they were dissatisfied with the autocratic rule of the local governor, hoping that the colony would be like the political governance model of the home country, so they began to participate in the local colonial management system and began to fight against the original local officials. With the increasing number of white immigrants, the background strength has gradually increased, forcing the representative government of local governors to change its governance model and gradually move towards a responsible government.

Free trade replaced the influence of mercantilism.

In the early days of navigation, mercantilism swept across Europe, and the colonies at that time were regarded as the places with the greatest economic benefits. Spain, the Netherlands and Britain all passed customs and navigation laws to encourage colonies to become raw materials producing areas, so colonization is prohibited? Owner? Trading without permission, because all colonies trade with countries other than the suzerain, will be punished by the navigation law.

However, in the19th century, Britain experienced the industrial revolution reform, the economic situation changed, and free trade came into being, replacing the original trade barriers. Therefore, the economic development of the colonies also developed rapidly with the opening of free trade. Colonies in this period have lost their original meaning and value and gained the power of self-development. Therefore, the economic base determines the law of superstructure, which makes colonial immigrants more eager to get rid of the control of the sovereign state. Choosing a responsible government is the best way to fight it.

Britain agrees with the gains and losses of colonial responsible government

As a sovereign country, in order to ease the contradiction with the colonies, it agreed to establish this governance model by itself, but the emergence of the colonial responsible government was tantamount to greatly disintegrating the British control over the colonies.

This stimulated the political development of the colony. The independence of North America 13 states was caused by the greatest degree of decentralization, and then other white immigrants began to unite to promote regional independence. From this perspective, the emergence of colonial responsible government is not a single individual. After Canada became the first local responsible government in Britain, it will inevitably have an impact on the southern part of the American continent. Under the influence of American independence movement, the change of British policy to control the Canadian government also led to British power in Australia. This trend makes all immigrant colonies yearn for the governance model of responsible government.

In the later period, with the development of economy and the demand of politics, the colony engaged in the independence movement and jumped to the same status as Britain, becoming a member of the British Federation, either as a trading partner or completely? Separation? .