CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive

CSS | Past Paper | Group 4 | 2025 | Part 2 | Descriptive

Below is the solution to PART-II (COMPULSORY) of the CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive (Part 2).

Question 2

Discuss the significance of Queen Anne’s reign in shaping the course of the War of Spanish Succession and its impact on the balance of power in Europe.

Introduction

Queen Anne ruled from 1702 to 1714. Her reign was short but very important, especially because of the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714). This war wasn’t just about Spain—it was a big power game between Europe’s strongest countries. Queen Anne’s leadership and her government’s actions during the war changed the political map of Europe.

Background of the War

The war started when Charles II of Spain died without an heir. He gave his throne to Philip of Anjou, a French prince. Other countries like England, Austria, and the Dutch Republic feared that France and Spain would join together and become too powerful. So, they went to war to stop that.

Queen Anne’s Role

Even though Queen Anne didn’t directly fight or lead armies, her role was still huge. Here’s how:

Strong Government Leadership:
- She chose powerful ministers like Duke of Marlborough (military commander) and Lord Godolphin (finance).
- These leaders helped organize England’s war effort very effectively.
Parliament and War Support:
- Anne worked with Parliament to get money and troops for the war.
- The war had public support, and that helped the government stay stable.
Military Victories:
- Under Anne’s reign, England won major battles like Blenheim (1704), Ramillies (1706), Oudenarde (1708), and Malplaquet (1709).
- These victories made England a respected power in Europe.
Alliances:
- Queen Anne’s government was good at keeping the Grand Alliance (England, Austria, Dutch Republic, etc.) strong against France.

Treaty of Utrecht (1713)

The war ended with the Treaty of Utrecht. This treaty was signed during Queen Anne’s reign and had many important outcomes:

Philip V stayed King of Spain, but France and Spain could never unite.
Britain gained territories like Gibraltar and parts of Canada.
France lost influence, and Britain rose as a world power.

Impact on Balance of Power in Europe

End of French Dominance:
- France, under Louis XIV, had been the strongest in Europe. But after the war, their power weakened.
Rise of Britain:
- Britain gained land and trade routes. It became a global empire later on.
Balance Maintained:
- No single country could dominate Europe now. Power was balanced between Britain, France, Austria, and others.
Change in Diplomacy:
- Wars were now more about balance and alliances, not just personal rivalries of kings.

Conclusion

Queen Anne’s reign played a very important part in the War of Spanish Succession. With smart leadership, military success, and smart diplomacy, her government helped shape a new Europe. The Treaty of Utrecht made Britain powerful and kept Europe balanced. So, even though Queen Anne ruled for just 12 years, her time on the throne had a long-lasting effect on both British and European history.

Question 3

Analyze the controversies surrounding the Act of Union 1801, focusing on the differing perspectives of Irish and British politicians. Assess its impact on Irish nationalism and the stability of the United Kingdom.

Introduction

The Act of Union 1801 was a law that joined Ireland with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was passed after the failed Irish Rebellion of 1798. The Act was very controversial, especially in Ireland, and it had both short-term and long-term effects on British-Irish relations.

Background

Ireland had its own Parliament in Dublin before 1801.
The 1798 Rebellion, influenced by the French Revolution, showed how unstable Ireland was.
The British government believed union would stop future rebellions and bring peace.

Controversies Surrounding the Act

1. Method of Passing the Act:

Many Irish MPs were bribed or given titles to vote in favour of the Act.
This created anger in Ireland because people saw it as corruption.
There was no referendum, and most ordinary Irish people had no say.

2. Catholic Emancipation Promise Broken:

Catholics were told they would get equal rights (emancipation) after union.
But King George III opposed it, and Catholic Emancipation was delayed until 1829.
This betrayal increased Catholic resentment.

3. Loss of Irish Parliament:

The Irish Parliament in Dublin was abolished, and Ireland was now ruled from Westminster.
Many Irish politicians, especially nationalists, saw this as a loss of independence.

British Politicians’ Perspective

British leaders like Pitt the Younger supported the Union.
They believed it would:
- Strengthen the British Isles.
- Prevent Irish rebellions.
- Protect against French influence.
They saw Ireland as a weak point in Britain’s defence and wanted tighter control.

Irish Politicians’ Perspective

Pro-Union Irish politicians, often Protestants, supported the Act for their own benefits—like titles or positions.
But many Irish nationalists strongly opposed it:
- They felt it destroyed Irish identity.
- Believed it was passed by bribery, not public will.
- Saw it as domination by England, not equal union.

Impact on Irish Nationalism

1. Rise in Nationalist Feeling:

The Act caused anger among Irish Catholics and nationalists.
People like Daniel O’Connell campaigned for Repeal of the Union.

2. Long-term Political Movements:

The Home Rule movement started in the late 19th century.
Later, Irish leaders demanded full independence, leading to:
- Easter Rising (1916)
- Irish War of Independence (1919–1921)

3. Division of Ireland:

In 1921, Ireland was divided:
- Irish Free State became independent.
- Northern Ireland stayed in the UK.

Impact on UK Stability

The Act brought short-term control but long-term instability.
Irish anger, religious divisions, and political resistance kept growing.
Britain had to use force many times to keep control over Ireland.

Conclusion

The Act of Union 1801 was meant to bring unity, but instead, it created more division. The British thought it would make the UK stronger, but for many Irish people, it felt like conquest, not union. The broken promises, political tricks, and loss of Irish Parliament caused deep resentment. This Act played a big role in the rise of Irish nationalism and eventually led to the breakup of the union over a century later.

Question 4

Examine the evolution of party politics in Britain during the 19th century, focusing on the rise of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and the changing relationship between government, parliament, and the electorate.

Introduction

The 19th century was a time of big political changes in Britain. The two main political parties — Conservatives and Liberals — grew stronger during this period. The way the government, parliament, and voters interacted also changed a lot. Reforms gave more people the right to vote, and politics became more democratic.

Early 19th Century Politics

In the early 1800s, British politics was dominated by two main groups:
- Tories (later became Conservatives)
- Whigs (later became Liberals)
These weren’t full political parties yet, just loose groups in Parliament.

Reform Acts and Electoral Changes

Reform Act 1832:

Gave more middle-class men the right to vote.
Ended many corrupt “rotten boroughs”.
Made Parliament more fair and representative.

Reform Act 1867:

Passed by Conservatives under Disraeli.
Gave the vote to many working-class men in towns.

Reform Act 1884:

Passed by Liberals under Gladstone.
Gave voting rights to farm workers and people in the countryside.

These reforms made politicians care more about the opinions of ordinary people, not just the rich.

Rise of the Conservative Party

Came from the old Tory party.
Key leader: Benjamin Disraeli
Believed in tradition, monarchy, empire, and reforms to help the poor.
Gained support from the working class and landowners.
Focused on keeping order and strong national identity.

Rise of the Liberal Party

Came from the Whigs, along with Radicals and Peelites.
Key leader: William Gladstone
Supported free trade, individual rights, and reducing the power of the monarchy and the Church.
Popular with middle-class voters, businessmen, and reformers.
Focused on education, justice, and Irish Home Rule.

Role of Political Leaders

Gladstone vs Disraeli became a famous political rivalry.
Both were skilled speakers and had different visions of Britain.
Their debates shaped how the two parties grew.

Changing Relationship Between Government, Parliament, and the Electorate

Before the 19th century, Parliament mostly served the rich.
By the end of the century, more people could vote, and politicians had to listen to the public.
Cabinet government became more powerful than the monarch.
Political parties began making manifestos and campaigning for votes.
Local party organizations were created to connect with voters.

Birth of Modern Democracy

The 19th century set the stage for modern democracy in Britain.
Elections became more competitive and meaningful.
Parties became more organized and professional.
Voters became more involved and informed.

Conclusion

In the 19th century, British politics changed from elite control to more public participation. The Conservative and Liberal parties rose as powerful forces, offering different ideas about Britain’s future. Parliament became more connected to the people, and elections started to reflect public opinion. This evolution made Britain a more democratic country and shaped the politics we see today.

Question 5

Compare and contrast the ideologies of Socialism and Liberalism in Britain during the 19th century, examining their differing approaches to issues such as economic inequality, social justice, and the role of the state.

Introduction

In 19th century Britain, two major political ideologies — Socialism and Liberalism — grew in response to the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution. Both wanted a better society but had different views on how to achieve that. Their ideas about economic inequality, social justice, and state involvement were quite different.

Origins and Background

Liberalism:

Came from Enlightenment ideas of freedom, individual rights, and limited government.
Supported mostly by middle class, businessmen, and educated people.
Believed in capitalism, free markets, and private property.

Socialism:

Grew from working-class struggles and bad factory conditions.
Supported by workers, trade unions, and some intellectuals.
Believed that capitalism was unfair and created rich vs poor divisions.

Economic Inequality

Liberalism:

Accepted that inequality was natural in a free economy.
Believed competition would improve society.
Focused more on equal opportunity, not equal results.

Socialism:

Believed inequality was unjust and caused by capitalism.
Wanted to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Supported ideas like redistribution of wealth, minimum wages, and state-owned industries.

Social Justice

Liberals:

Wanted basic rights like freedom of speech, press, and religion.
Pushed for legal equality, but were slower on economic reforms.
Believed the law should protect property and personal freedom.

Socialists:

Focused more on economic and social rights.
Demanded better working conditions, education, and healthcare.
Believed real justice needed economic fairness, not just legal rights.

Role of the State

Liberalism:

Believed in a limited government.
The state should protect rights but not interfere too much in the economy.
Trusted the market to manage itself.

Socialism:

Believed the state must play an active role in society.
Wanted government to control key industries, regulate businesses, and support the poor.
Saw the state as a tool to bring equality and justice.

Key Thinkers and Movements

Liberals: John Stuart Mill supported individual freedom but later also talked about social reforms.
Socialists: Thinkers like Robert Owen and Karl Marx criticized capitalism and pushed for collective ownership.
Trade Unions and Labour movements also carried socialist ideas into politics.

Practical Outcomes in Britain

Liberals pushed for reforms like the 1832 Reform Act, free trade, and civil liberties.
Socialists helped build support for labour laws, trade unions, and later the Labour Party in early 20th century.
By late 1800s, New Liberalism emerged, accepting more state help to reduce poverty — kind of a mix between both ideologies.

Conclusion

In 19th century Britain, Liberalism and Socialism offered different paths for progress. Liberals trusted in individual freedom and free markets, while Socialists focused on fairness and support for the working class. Both ideologies shaped British politics — sometimes in conflict, sometimes overlapping — and together helped build the foundation of modern democracy and welfare state in Britain.

Question 6

How did the policies of New Labour under Tony Blair differ from those of previous Labour governments? Was it a continuation of Thatcherism by other means, or did it represent a distinct political project?

Introduction

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, he introduced a new political direction called “New Labour.” It was very different from older Labour governments that focused on socialism, nationalisation, and strong trade unions. Many people believed Blair’s policies were closer to Thatcherism, while others saw New Labour as a fresh mix of social justice and free markets.

Old Labour vs. New Labour Ideology

Old Labour:

Focused on socialism, public ownership, and strong welfare state.
Close ties with trade unions.
Believed in class politics and state intervention.

New Labour (under Blair):

Dropped many old socialist ideas.
Focused on “Third Way” – a mix of free market and social justice.
Promoted individual responsibility, modernisation, and economic growth.
Less influence from unions, more focus on middle-class voters.

Economic Policies

Blair kept many of Margaret Thatcher’s economic reforms:
- Did not reverse privatisations.
- Supported free markets and low taxes.
- Gave independence to Bank of England (1997) to control interest rates — a big shift from old Labour thinking.
But New Labour also invested more in health and education.

So economically, New Labour was closer to Thatcherism than old Labour.

Welfare and Social Policies

Focus on “welfare to work” – encouraging people to work instead of living on benefits.
Introduced Working Families Tax Credit, minimum wage, and Sure Start (early child support).
These were new ideas, mixing support for the poor with market logic.

Blair tried to reform welfare, not just expand it.

Public Services

Increased spending on NHS and schools.
But also brought private companies into public services through PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives).
Promoted choice and competition within public sector — again similar to Thatcherite ideas.

Constitutional Reforms

New Labour brought real changes:
- Devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
- Human Rights Act 1998.
- Reform of House of Lords.

These were not part of Thatcher’s agenda, so this part was a distinct project.

Foreign Policy

Blair strongly supported US foreign policy.
Took UK into Iraq War (2003) — highly controversial and seen as a mistake by many.
Old Labour was more anti-war and anti-imperialist.

Blair’s foreign policy was very different from past Labour leaders.

Trade Unions and Labour Party Structure

Blair reduced the power of trade unions in party decision-making.
Changed Clause IV of Labour’s constitution (which talked about public ownership) in 1995.
Focused more on media, PR, and centralised leadership.

This was a big shift from traditional Labour politics.

Conclusion

New Labour under Tony Blair was a clear break from traditional Labour policies. It kept many elements of Thatcherism, especially in economy and public sector management, but also added new reforms in welfare, human rights, and devolution. While some say it was “Thatcherism with a human face,” others argue it was a new centrist path — not fully left, not fully right. In the end, it was a mix of both, making New Labour a unique political project in modern British history.

Question 7

How did the global financial crisis of 2008 impact British politics and society? How did the responses of the Labour and Conservative governments differ, and what were their long-term effects?

Introduction

The 2008 global financial crisis started in the US but quickly spread to the UK and other countries. It caused bank failures, rising unemployment, and public debt. In Britain, the crisis affected both politics and society. The response of the Labour government (under Gordon Brown) was different from the Conservative-led coalition (from 2010 onwards). These responses had long-term effects on the economy, public services, and public trust in politics.

Causes of the Crisis (Briefly)

Banking collapse, especially after Lehman Brothers in the US.
UK banks like RBS and Northern Rock were exposed to bad loans.
Housing bubble burst, credit froze, and panic spread in financial markets.
Result: Economic slowdown, job losses, and falling incomes.

Impact on British Politics and Society

Economic Effects:

Britain went into recession (2008–09).
Unemployment rose, especially among youth.
House prices fell, and people lost savings.
Public sector borrowing reached record highs.

Social Effects:

More people needed benefits and welfare support.
Inequality increased, especially in poor areas.
Anger towards bankers and politicians grew — people blamed elites.
Rise in mental health issues, job insecurity, and low living standards.

Labour Government’s Response (2008–2010)

PM Gordon Brown led major actions:
- Bailed out banks like RBS and Lloyds — part-nationalised them.
- Introduced a stimulus package — government spent money to keep economy running.
- Cut VAT temporarily to boost spending.
- Tried to protect public services from cuts.

Labour followed a Keynesian approach — using government spending to stop economic collapse.

Conservative-Led Coalition’s Response (2010–2015)

In 2010, David Cameron and George Osborne (Chancellor) came to power.
They focused on austerity — cutting government spending to reduce debt.
- Cut welfare, public sector jobs, and local council budgets.
- Froze public sector pay.
Argued that Labour had spent too much and caused the crisis (even though the global crash started elsewhere).

Conservatives followed a neoliberal, pro-market approach.

Differences in Responses

Aspect	Labour (2008–10)	Conservatives (2010–15)
Policy	Stimulus spending	Spending cuts (Austerity)
Goal	Save economy and jobs	Reduce deficit and debt
Approach	Interventionist (Keynesian)	Market-led, budget control
Result	Short-term recovery	Long-term cuts in public services

Long-Term Effects

On Economy:

Economy slowly recovered but wage growth stayed low.
Many public services faced long-term damage due to cuts.
Debt reduced but at the cost-of-living standards.

On Society:

Rise in food banks, homelessness, and poverty.
Public distrust in politics increased.
Young people felt left behind.
Class divide widened.

On Politics:

Austerity caused anger, which later helped movements like:
- Brexit vote (2016)
- Rise of Jeremy Corbyn (Labour’s left-wing leader)
- Decline of trust in traditional parties

Conclusion

The 2008 financial crisis changed British politics and society in deep ways. Labour tried to save the economy through spending, while Conservatives focused on cutting the budget. Both approaches had their pros and cons, but the long-term result was economic recovery with rising inequality. The crisis also changed how people viewed politicians, banks, and global capitalism, leading to major shifts in British politics in the years that followed.

Question 8

Write short notes on any TWO of the following:

a. Impact of French Revolution on British economy and society
b. Methodist movement
c. Reforms under Cameron Government

a. Impact of French Revolution on British Economy and Society

The French Revolution (1789) had a strong effect on Britain, even though it happened in another country. It made British leaders and society worried, hopeful, and divided.

Political Fear

The revolution scared the British ruling class.
They feared similar uprisings in Britain, especially from the working class.
Government passed strict laws to control radicals and freedom of speech.

Rise of Radical Ideas

Some British thinkers like Thomas Paine supported the revolution.
His book, The Rights of Man, became popular among working-class people.
Radical clubs started, but many were banned by the government.

Economic Effects

War with France (1793–1815) hurt the British economy at first.
Trade was disturbed, prices went up, and taxes increased to fund the war.
Later, war boosted industries like weapons, textiles, and shipbuilding.

Social Division

The upper class became more conservative.
The working class started to think about rights, justice, and fair treatment.
It widened the class gap in British society.

Long-Term Influence

Inspired future reformers and political movements.
Pushed Britain to slowly introduce reforms like the Reform Act 1832.

In short, the French Revolution shook British society. It created fear among elites, inspired the poor, and left a deep mark on Britain’s politics and economy.

b. Methodist Movement

The Methodist movement started in the 18th century as a religious revival led by John Wesley and his brother Charles Wesley. It became very popular, especially among the poor and working class.

Origins

John Wesley was an Anglican priest.
He started preaching in open spaces to reach people ignored by the Church of England.

Message and Beliefs

Stressed personal faith, discipline, and hard work.
Focused on moral living, avoiding alcohol, gambling, and sin.
Believed religion should change society, not just be about rituals.

Social Impact

Gave hope to the working class during the Industrial Revolution.
Helped reduce crime, alcoholism, and violence in poor areas.
Created schools, charity work, and community support.

Political Effects

Methodist values supported the idea of equality and human dignity.
Some early social reformers and labour leaders were Methodists.
Played a role in building early labour rights and anti-slavery campaigns.

Separation from Anglican Church

Though it started inside the Church of England, Methodism became its own denomination later.
Today, it remains one of the major churches in Britain.

In short, the Methodist movement brought spiritual and moral change. It gave strength to the working class and helped shape the values of modern British society.

c. Reforms under Cameron Government

David Cameron became UK Prime Minister in 2010, leading a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. His government introduced many reforms in economy, politics, and society.

Economic Reforms (Austerity)

Main focus was cutting government spending to reduce debt after 2008 crisis.
Public services, welfare, and local councils faced heavy budget cuts.
Austerity was controversial – supporters said it fixed the economy, critics said it hurt the poor.

Welfare Reforms

Introduced Universal Credit — combined multiple benefits into one payment.
Tried to make welfare more efficient and reduce fraud.
Critics said it increased poverty and hardship for many.

NHS and Education

Pushed for more privatisation in NHS through reforms.
Gave more control to academies and free schools in the education sector.
These reforms aimed for more competition, but some feared quality dropped.

Political and Constitutional Changes

Passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 — elections every 5 years.
Gave more powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (devolution).
Held a referendum on Scottish independence (2014) — Scotland voted to stay.

EU Referendum

Promised and held the EU Referendum (2016).
Result: Brexit — UK voted to leave the EU.
This decision shaped British politics for years after.

In short, Cameron’s reforms changed many parts of British life. While his government claimed success in reducing debt and modernising services, critics blamed him for rising inequality and the Brexit crisis.

Conclusion

Each of these topics — the French Revolution’s impact, the Methodist movement, and Cameron’s reforms — played a major role in shaping Britain’s politics, society, and values. They reflect how different times brought different challenges, but all pushed Britain towards change and reform.

📘 Benefits of Practicing This Descriptive Paper

✅ These CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive questions are compiled from authentic FPSC CSS past papers, following the real written exam format.
💬 Attempting this CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive helps students master structured writing and analytical skills for CSS exams.
🧾 Every question in this CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive strictly follows the official CSS exam syllabus approved by FPSC.
📊 Students preparing for CSS 2025 can rely on this CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive to practice time management and topic selection.
🔍 The solved CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive contains concise explanations to improve conceptual understanding and writing clarity.
🎯 Regular revision of this CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive builds confidence and strengthens your preparation for the CSS written paper.
🏆 This CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive is essential for mastering exam techniques and achieving success in the FPSC CSS 2025 examination.

Download CSS Past Paper 2025 – British History

🏁 Final Note

Keep revising these CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive to strengthen your grip on important concepts and improve accuracy in upcoming CSS exams. Regular practice with these CSS Past Paper 2025 British History Descriptive will help you score higher and build full command over the CSS exam syllabus.

👉 Also read CSS Past Paper 2025 British History (Part-I MCQs)

📰 Check out other years’ past papers of British History.

🔗 Check FPSC past papers directly from the official FPSC website.

Post Views: 409