This passage explains it all:  Britain's policies increasingly became such that what happened in the American colonies (the birth of manufacture and a middle class) were being reversed, killing this middle class.  Naturally, everyone; the landed and wealthy elites and the common man had a stake in preserving their way of life in the "colonies" otherwise they would be forced to evacuate a desolate world the same way British Subjects eventually evacuated all other British colonies of the time, where such policies were implemented.

The passage is quite interesting:

"Why, however, did this absenteeism exist? Why did not the owners of
property reside on their estates? Because the policy which looked to
limiting the whole population, male and female, old and young, to the
culture of sugar, and forbade even that the sugar itself should be
refined on the island, effectually prevented the growth of any middle
class that should form the population of towns at which the planter
might find society that could induce him to regard the island as his
home. Such was not the case in the French Islands, because the French
government had not desired to prevent the weaker class of the
population from engaging in the work of manufacture, as has been seen
in the case of Grenada, in which sugar was refined until the period of
its surrender to the British arms.[33] Towns therefore grew up, and
men of all descriptions came from France to make the islands _their
home_; whereas the English colonists looked only to realizing a
fortune and returning home to spend it. All this is fully shown in the
following extract, in which is given a comparative view of the British
and French Islands immediately before the emancipation act of 1832."

I feel it a prudent lesson to modern thinking - there's a lot to debate from extrapolating past events to today, without relegating it merely to "history".

For instance in this case, we can see why the US was so tax adverse, under the British Empire they had equivalent of a sales tax of almost 30%.  Even at our income levels our taxes are not that high because we never translate all our taxable income into purely consumption.

We can see that the modern US variant of this economic empire of Britain's is much more liberal, allowing industrialization and middle class growth through-out the world, in fact arguably the US championed the middle class the same as the French (both did so differently) and the US version of that championship seems to have been more successful.

All other nations have a middle class owed to one of those two nations...Germany owes their middle class to France, whose conquest of most of Germany forced the Prussians to end Serfdom by law.

Britain owes its middle class largely to the US - where the Revolution forced Great Britain to reevaluate policies, declare Ireland free (significant though not free in any real sense) and move towards a more liberal economic system rather than an exploitative one.

Also most of the Americas has depended solely upon the US for a large amount of their economic growth.

Japan owes its middle class largely to the US - though they tried to foment one in the 1880s that was also supported by the US and occurred because the Meiji restoration understood that the US represented the most powerful nation in the world - more powerful than the European powers which had never successfully compelled Japan to open their ports.

Observing the US's powerful base of support (the middle class) Japan among other objectives sought to create their own, industrial middle society.

It failed for other reasons around 1920s culminating in its end in 1931 when militarist factions took over the civilian government and ate away at their liberal society...by defeating them in WW2 Japan was liberated from their own tyrannical military dictators.

Huff puff

Into the history section, or dust bin...where it is never viewed or commented upon.