In this article I want to present the case that even though we resist change, the change comes and transforms the societies and that’s why social scientists argue that change is the necessity of human society. As Britain is the great exapmple of this change when they attempt to resist the reforms coming after the French revolution. The Britain took practical, legal and scholarly steps to resist that even though they succeed to suppress reformers but Britain in the course of society reformed a lot.
The French revolution took aspirations from the American War of Independence. Since this happened in the heart of Europe it further influenced the movements in other Empires. Likely, the most affected is the neighboring Britain Empire. Dr. Richard Price, a Welsh moral philosopher, started the debate; He was who earlier supported the American Independence campaign; wrote many pamphlets for supporting the cause. Thus, He went excited when he saw the revolution in the neighborhood’s France in 1789. Price believed and advocated the philosophy of universal "rights of men". Price argued that love of our country "does not imply any conviction of the superior value of it to other countries, or any particular preference of its laws and constitution of government". Instead, Englishmen should see themselves "more as citizens of the world than as members of any particular community" His pamphlet known as “Revolution Controversy” ignited one of the great political debates in British history.
Edmund Burke, an Irish statesman, political theorist and philosopher, on the other hand resist the change. He was a supporter of British nationalism and status quo of the society. He considered that Britain society is in evolution for last 100 years, and during that period we developed the constitution and inherited many good principles from our forefathers and argued that these principles are not based on the abstract principle of “rights of man”, but as the rights of Englishmen. He insisted this on his landmark address in Britain House of Lords;
"We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected"
While on ground, the government forcefully stopped the path towards change and immediately rushed in the 'Two Acts' or 'Gagging Acts' to tighten the treason statute and to ban large political meetings. A huge petitioning campaign followed, with loyalists (with the king) expressing support and reformers protesting against the restriction, but the Bills were passed. Meanwhile, following further prosecutions and harassment, the popular movement was driven underground and into more conspiratorial activity.
Since, Reformers' attempts to bring the 'debate' to the people from 1791, were mirrored in the reaction of loyalists with king. It was further intensified following war with France after February 1793. At the height of the invasion threat in 1803 the mass dissemination of loyalist on the ground had become a hugely efficient part of government strategy – so much so that, during this period loyalism became completely ascendant. But the practical struggle for the hearts and minds of the British people meant that popular awareness of the national political agenda expanded dramatically. The reformers may have failed, but British political culture changed fundamentally in the course of resisting their efforts. Limited electoral reform was conceded in 1832, universal suffrage in 1928. This slow but steady evolution of reforms fundamentally transforms the British political culture in the course of resisting the reformers efforts.
