Cps Vs. Writs Of AssistanceEssay Preview: Cps Vs. Writs Of AssistanceReport this essayThe Committee of Public Safety (CPS) was established in 1793 during the French Revolution. The CPS gained complete control of the state of France during the revolution, and soon began persecuting the counter-revolutionaries. The astounding fact about the CPS is that they were a group of twelve men, headed by Maximilien Robespierre, who were able to impose a reign of terror that ultimately killed roughly seventeen thousand people.
First introduced in 1761, the Writs of Assistance were passed to give British customs officials the ability to conduct searches of any place in the colonies suspected of housing smuggled goods. Most of the time, there was no specific item to be searched for, and the premises chosen was done so because someone just “thought” there may be smuggled goods there – there was no need for probable cause in these searches.
The CPS and the Writs of Assistance are similar in the sense that both brought fear into the eyes of their people. While the people in the British colonies were afraid that they would be caught smuggling goods, any counter-revolutionists living in France was afraid of the guillotine. Another similarity is that the people who carried out the work of the CPS and the Writs were minorities in the areas they lived in. The number of colonists greatly outnumbered the British Custom Officials and the twelve men who headed the CPS were clearly insignificant in number compared to the seventeen thousand they ordered to be killed. Both the CPS and Writs helped slow the economic gain for the people they affected. Under the CPS, there were maximum wage and price limit that was not to be passed, and the Writs slowed down the rate of smuggling in the colonies. These economic limitations, along with other factors, led to the overthrow of both the British in the colonies and the CPS in France.
The CPS:
The first issue to be decided between the government of England and the CPS was whether the British Government was required to provide a government of public benefit to the citizens of the colonies: This was, among other problems, a question which could not be answered. While various governments that followed the British Crown had the power to set up an independent government, there were no independent citizens in France until after the Revolution. The First Amendment of the Constitution allowed the government of public benefit, thus establishing the Constitution of the United States for public benefit to public bodies. A more comprehensive and extensive discussion would have to be found of the relationship between public benefit and public authority. To begin with, the First Amendment does not give rise to power to “authorize” private power to take away the rights of the people. Article I of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “No State … shall, by Constitution or law … enact, in any State, any law raising taxes, imposing fees, or other tax … except a law passed for the Government of the United States.
To understand this new relationship we must understand the role that social organization played into how the British government was to operate in the colonies. We will discuss these connections in our next section.
Social Organization of Society
Although the colonial state did much to facilitate and advance the development of social organization among the people, it did not do so without the participation of the people. We will explain below what the role enjoyed by society in the 1789 Revolution and the social relationships developed between both states.
• The “Government”
The British government used the “government” to further and deepen the economic expansion and economic development of the colonies. The general attitude toward the people was one of approval. This included the acceptance of the economic and social development of the colonies. [18] These relationships were built up in response to the social reform movements that had been instigated within the colonies. This was exemplified by this fact:
The British Colonial Government did not have any political interest in the economic policies of its colonies. While there were numerous laws enacted concerning the production of produce, most of them were not designed to promote market-based economic practices. By creating a wide range of political, economic, and social relations according to class and class interests, the British government was able not only to encourage both individual and social development but also to create a wide area of opportunity for working people, so the colony governments were able to create as much and as many opportunities as possible for the colonies.
The colonial government also relied in part on the assistance of France. These economic reforms provided for the creation of an equitable distribution of income between the colonies. These social ties formed the basis for establishing the State of Versailles, founded by the colonial leaders in 1789.
Both the government and the colony governments responded to economic problems by improving the distribution of income for the colonies. When the British government provided for the development of public works by employing labor and producing fruits and vegetables, it created economic opportunities for working people.
• Social Organizations
Social Organizations established in the government and colony governments by the same act of government, that is, by granting a tax exemption to certain kinds of people, also supported people in these organizations who could benefit from a subsidy. The government acted as an agent responsible for the administration of the social structures.
By establishing social organizations they provided a means of maintaining a stable and fair and cooperative situation in the colonies. The social organization of the colonies was responsible for the development of social problems within each of the colonies in order to solve them on a national level. Â Political movements developed a sense of this in the colonies in order to counteract the social divisions. (See our discussion of the “British colonies as a nation” in Chapter 4 of the British Colonial Policy Handbook, Volume 3,