British Empire: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Todd Coles
(→‎Maps: - Seeing if gallery format works better for this.)
mNo edit summary
 
(109 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''The British Empire''' was the worldwide domain controlled by Great Britain from its origins about 1600 until independence was granted to the dominions in the 1920s, India in 1947, and the other colonies about 1960. It became the '''British Commonwealth''' in 1920, which was never more than a discussion forum.
{{subpages}}
{{TOC|right}}
At its height the '''British Empire''' covered  almost a quarter of the world's land surface (the greatest in history) and included large areas of North America, Australia, Africa and Asia. Britain now has only 14 small [[/Addendum#Overseas Territories|overseas territories]], including [[Bermuda]], the Falkland Islands, [[Gibraltar]] and the Cayman islands.  
Most of the former members of the British Empire are now members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]].


The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref> John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His Majesties Dominions in the West-Indies (London, 1685).'' Armitage pp 174-5</ref>
{| align="center" border="1"
==First Empire==
| style="background:lightblue"|
==Second Empire==
In addition to the text below, this article comprises
==End of Empire==
* [[/Addendum#Countries of the Empire|'''Countries of the Empire''']]  - a brief account of the founding of each of the principal British colonies; 
==Gentlemanly capitalists and the economics of Empire==
* [[/Timelines|'''Timelines ''']] - links in chronological order to reports of events in the acquisition and dissolution of the British Empire;
Imperial policy was set by London-based financial and mercantile interests.  Gentlemanly capitalism was the nexus of landed, financial, and service elites that dominated politics and the economy in Britain and were the driving force behind imperial expansion.  That is, "gentlemanly capitalists" in Britain set policy, while the dominions were run by a dependent and collaborating elite.<ref>Cain and Hopkins (2001); Dumett, 1999</ref>
* [[/Addendum#Maps|'''Maps''']] - maps of the colonies; and
==Culture of the Empire==
* [[/Addendum#Constitutional terminology|'''Constitutional terminology''']] - the terminology of the categories of colonies and mandated territories.
==Maps==
|}
<gallery>
Image:W-indies1763.jpg|West Indies in 1763<ref> Robinson (1922) p 49</ref>
Image:India1763.jpg|India in 1763<ref> Robinson (1922) p 89</ref>
Image:Empire1783.jpg|Empire in 1783, showing the lost American colonies in gray<ref> Robinson (1922) p 129</ref>
Image:India1857.jpg|thumb|500px|India in 1857 <ref> Robinson (1922) p 195</ref>
Image:Canada1860.jpgCanada in 1860s, before Confederation <ref> Robinson (1922) p 215</ref>
Image:S-africa.jpg|South Africa, 1910 <ref> Robinson (1922) p 265</ref>
Image:Africa1881.jpg|Africa in 1881<ref> Robinson (1922) p 292</ref>
Image:Indian-ocean.jpg|Indian Ocean area 1920 <ref> Robinson (1922) p 325</ref>
Image:Suez1920.jpg|Suez Region, 1922 <ref> Robinson (1922) p 345</ref></gallery>


==Bibliography==
==Overview==
===Overviews===
By the beginning of the 20th century, Britain had created an  empire that was larger than any previous empire. But it was an empire that lacked the consistency of purpose, location and character of its Roman and Ottoman predecessors. The purposes of its founders had included escape from persecution, the exploitation of natural resources, the establishment of trading links, the pursuit of military advantage, and the [[mercantilism|mercantilist]] objective of preserving a positive [[balance of payments]]. Its colonies were scattered, seemingly at random, throughout the five continents. Their forms of governance had included both  direct rule and indirect rule; both assimilation (meaning the adoption of British laws and customs), and the preservation of traditional society, customs and laws. Some subject peoples experienced benign paternalism, and some suffered systematic brutality.  
* Bayly, C. A. ed. ''Atlas of the British Empire'' (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
* Bryant, Arthur. ''The History of Britain and the British Peoples'', 3 vols. (1984–90), popular.
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis
*  Dalziel, Nigel. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire'' (2006), 144 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0141018445/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from amazon.com]
* Ferguson, Niall. ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power'' (2002),
* Hyam, Ronald.  ''Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion'' (Macmillan, 1993).
* James, Lawrence.  ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997).
* Judd, Denis. ''Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present'' (London, 1996). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6969240 online edition]
* Lloyd; T. O. ''The British Empire, 1558-1995'' Oxford University Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27709944 online edition]
* Louis, William. Roger (general editor), ''The Oxford History of the British Empire'', 5 vols. (Oxford U.P., 1998–99).
** vol 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. by Nicholas Canny
** vol 2 "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall
** vol 3 ''The Nineteenth Century'' edited by William Roger Louis, Alaine M. Low, Andrew Porter; 1998. 780 pgs. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98650583 online edition]
** vol 4 ''The Twentieth Century'' edited by Judith M. Brown, (1998). 773 pgs [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104728347 online edition]
** vol 5 "Historiography" ed, by Robin W. Winks
* Marshall, P. J. (ed.), ''The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire'' (Cambridge, 1996).
* Olson, James S. and Robert S. Shadle; ''Historical Dictionary of the British Empire'' 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58315322 online edition]
* Robinson, Howard . ''The Development of the British Empire'' (1922), 465pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=woRdQlGbL_oC&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
* Rose, J. Holland, A. P. Newton and E. A. Benians (gen. eds.), ''The Cambridge History of the British Empire'', 9 vols. (Cambridge, 1929–61); vol 1: "The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783" 934pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99039834 online edition Volume I]
* Smith, Simon C. ''British Imperialism 1750-1970'' Cambridge University Press, 1998. brief


===Political, economic and intellectual studies===
Historians have long sought explanations for Britain's paradoxical  ability to dominate an imperial population some twenty times its own size, and for the willingness of  many of its former colonies to associate themselves with it as free and equal members of the Commonwealth.
* Adams, James Truslow. "On the Term 'British Empire,'" ''American Historical Review'', 22 (1927), 485–9; [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192204)27%3A3%3C485%3AOTT%22E%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W in JSTOR]
* Andrews, Kenneth R. ''Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630'' (Cambridge, 1984).
* Armitage, David. ''The Ideological Origins of the British Empire'' Cambridge University Press, 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105295909 online edition]
* Armitage, David, 'Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?' American Historical Review, 104 (1999), 427–45. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(199904)104%3A2%3C427%3AGBAUCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]
* Armitage, David (ed.), Theories of Empire, 1450–1800 (Aldershot, 1998).
* Barone, Charles A. ''Marxist Thought on Imperialism: Survey and Critique'' (1985)
* Barker, Sir Ernest, ''The Ideas and Ideals of the British Empire'' (1941).
* Baumgart, W. ''Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion, 1880-1914'' (Oxford University Press, 1982)
* Bayly, C. A. ''Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780-1831'' (Longman, 1989).
* Bennett, George (ed.), ''The Concept of Empire: Burke to Attlee, 1774–1947'' (London, 1953).
* Blaut, J. M. ''The Colonizers' Model of the World'' 1993
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis
** Cain, P. J.. and A. G. Hopkins. "Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas I. The Old Colonial System, 1688-1850," ''Economic History Review,'' 2nd ser. 39, 4 (1986): 501-525 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%28198611%292%3A39%3A4%3C501%3AGCABEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W  in JSTOR]
** Cain, P. J.. and A. G. Hopkins. "Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas II: New Imperialism, 1850-1945," ''The Economic History Review'' Vol. 40, No. 1 (Feb., 1987), pp. 1-26 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%28198702%292%3A40%3A1%3C1%3AGCABEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 in JSTOR]
** Cain, P. J.. and A. G. Hopkins. "The Political Economy of British Expansion Overseas, 1750-1914," ''The Economic History Review''Vol. 33, No. 4 (Nov., 1980), pp. 463-490 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%28198011%292%3A33%3A4%3C463%3ATPEOBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]
* Darby, Philip. ''The Three Faces of Imperialism: British and American Approaches to Asia and Africa, 1870-1970'' (Yale University Press, 1987
* Doyle, Michael W. ''Empires'' (Cornell UP, 1986).
* Dumett, Raymond E. ''Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire.'' 1999. 234 pp. 
* Elliott, J.H., ''Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830'' (Yale University Press, 2006).
* Gallagher, John, and Ronald Robinson. "The Imperialism of Free Trade" ''The Economic History Review,'' Vol. 6, No. 1 (1953), pp. 1-15 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117(1953)2:6:1%3C1:TIOFT%3E2.0.CO;2-M in JSTOR], [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm online free at Mt. Holyoke] highly influential interpretation in its day
* Harlow, V. T. ''The Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763–1793'', 2 vols. (1952–64).
* Heinlein, Frank.  ''British Government Policy and Decolonisation, 1945-1963: Scrutinising the Official Mind'' Routledge, 2002.
* Herbertson, A. J. ''The Oxford Survey of the British Empire,'' The Clarendon Press, 1914 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=800783 online edition]
* Ingram, Edward. ''The British Empire as a World Power'' (2001)
* James, Lawrence. ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1994).
* Johnson, Robert. ''British Imperialism'' Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. historiography
* Kennedy, Paul, ''The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery'' (London, 1976).
* Kenny, Kevin, ed.  ''Ireland and the British Empire'' Oxford U. Press 2004.
* Koehn, Nancy F. ''The Power of Commerce: Economy and Governance in the First British Empire'' Cornell University Press, 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103680544 online edition]
* Knorr, Klaus E., ''British Colonial Theories 1570–1850'' Toronto, 1944).
* Louis, William Roger. ''The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22913874 online edition]
* Louis, William Roger. ''Imperialism at Bay: The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941-1945'' Oxford University Press, 1978 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74595606 online edition]
* Marshall, Peter, and Glyn Williams, eds. ''The British Atlantic Empire before the American Revolution'' 1980 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108499327 online edition]
* Mehta, Uday Singh, ''Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought'' (Chicago, 1999).
* Pocock, J. G. A. 'The Limits and Divisions of British History: In Search of the Unknown Subject', ''American Historical Review'', 87 (1982), 311–36.
* Prakash, Gyan. “Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography,” ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 32, 2 (1990): 383-408 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4175(199004)32:2%3C383:WPHOTT%3E2.0.CO;2-T in JSTOR]
* Webster, Anthony. ''Gentlemen Capitalists: British Imperialism in South East Asia, 1770-1890'' (1998)


==Causes==
Trade policy was among the reasons for the growth of empire. The decay of the feudal system <ref>"''In England the system broke down during the 13th and 14th centuries as services and obligations were commuted to money payments''", Oxford Dictionary of Local and Family History.</ref> had, by  the 16th century, enabled labour to move into manufacturing activities such as cloth production, and cloth producers and others were seeking new markets for their  products<ref>[http://mises.org/daily/5951/The-Principles-of-Liberalism-in-17thCentury-England Murray N. Rothbard: ''The Principles of Liberalism in 17th-Century England'', Mises Daily, April 24, 2012]</ref>. In line with the [[mercantilism|mercantilist]] orthodoxy of the time, governments granted monopoly rights (royal charters) to colonising companies, and imposed restrictions (Navigation Acts
<ref>[http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/NavigationActs.htm ''Navigation Acts'', The Quebec History Encyclopedia, 1948]</ref>) designed to make them accept British exports. Personal economic and/or religious advantage  motivated the colonists themselves, but their activity also served the purpose of official trade policy. Different purposes were served by  the possession of the Caribbean colonies. The revenues received over a period of 150 years by their absentee English owners from the sugar plantations, and by the English slave traders from the trade in goods and slaves, were so vast that there have been (admittedly controversial) claims that they made a significant contribution to the financing of the [[industrial revolution]]. Commercial advantage was allowed to outweigh - what were eventually recognised as overwhelming - humanitarian considerations until the Atlantic slave trade was prohibited in 1807. Trade was the sole purpose of the initial British presence [[/Addendum#India|in India]], and military action leading to annexation occurred only when that presence was threatened<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/trade_empire_01.shtml Professor Kenneth Morgan: ''Symbiosis: Trade and the British Empire'', BBC History, February 2011]</ref>.


===Social and cultural studies===
A determining factor of the rapid expansion that occurred during the 19th century was the achievement of naval supremacy by the virtual destruction of the French and Spanish navies in the battle of Trafalgar<ref>[http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/battle-trafalgar.htm ''The Battle of Trafalgar'', BritishBattles.com]</ref>. The development of trade was still a policy objective, but it was often overlaid by the practice of  forcibly excluding European competitors, and it sometimes - particularly [[/Addendum#Other African countries|in Africa]] - became a straightforward scramble for power.
* August, Thomas G. ''The Selling of the Empire: British and French Imperialist Propaganda, 1890-1940 '' Greenwood Press, 1985
* Bailyn, Bernard,  and Philip D. Morgan (eds.), ''Strangers within the Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire'' (Chapel Hill, 1991)
* Boehmer, Elleke ed. ''Empire Writing: An Anthology of Colonial Literature, 1870-1918'' Oxford University Press, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/empire-writing-an-anthology-of-colonial-literature-1870-1918-by-elleke-boehmer.jsp online edition]
* Brantlinger, Patrick. ''Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914'' (Cornell UP, 1988).
* Broich, John. "Engineering the Empire: British Water Supply Systems and Colonial Societies, 1850-1900." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2007 46(2): 346-365. Issn: 0021-9371 Fulltext: at [[Ebsco]]
* Brooks, Chris.  and Peter Faulkner (eds.), ''The White Man's Burdens: An Anthology of British Poetry of the Empire'' (Exeter UP, 1996).
* Cannadine, David. ''Ornamentalism'' (2002)
* Constantine, Stephen. "British Emigration to the Empire-commonwealth since 1880: from Overseas Settlement to Diaspora?" ''Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History'' 2003 31(2): 16-35. ISSN 0308-6534
* Hodgkins, Christopher. ''Reforming Empire: Protestant Colonialism and Conscience in British Literature'' (U of Missouri Press, 2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109323527 online edition]
* Hyam, Ronald. ''Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience'' (Manchester UP, 1990).
* Karatani, Rieko. ''Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth, and Modern Britain'' (Frank Cass, 2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108523673 online edition]
* Lassner, Phyllis. ''Colonial Strangers: Women Writing the End of the British Empire'' Rutgers University Press, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103152697 online edition]
*  Levine, Philippa, ed.  ''Gender and Empire'' Oxford U. Press, 2004.
*  McDevitt, Patrick F.  ''May the Best Man Win: Sport, Masculinity, and Nationalism in Great Britain and the Empire, 1880-1935'' Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
*  Morgan, Philip D. and Hawkins, Sean, ed.  ''Black Experience and the Empire '' Oxford U. Press, 2004.
* Morris, Jan. ''The Spectacle of Empire: Style, Effect and Pax Britannica'' (Faber, 1982).
* Porter, Andrew.  ''Religion Versus Empire?: British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914'' Manchester U. Press 2004
* Potter, Simon J. ''News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System.'' Clarendon, 2003
* Price, Richard. "One Big Thing: Britain, its Empire, and Their Imperial Culture." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(3): 602-627. Issn: 0021-9371 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Rubinstein, W. D. ''Capitalism, Culture, and Decline in Britain, 1750-1990'' (1993),
* Rüger, Jan. "Nation, Empire and Navy: Identity Politics in the United Kingdom 1887-1914" ''Past & Present'' 2004 (185): 159-187. ISSN 0031-2746
* Sauerberg, Lars Ole. ''Intercultural Voices in Contemporary British Literature: The Implosion of Empire'' (Palgrave, 2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101712297 online edition]
* Spurr, David. ''The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing and Imperial Administration'' (Duke UP, 1993).
* Trollope, Joanna. ''Britannia's Daughters: Women of the British Empire'' (Hutchinson, 1983).
* Wilson, Kathleen, ed.  ''A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660-1840'' Cambridge U. Press 2004.


===Primary sources===
==Acquisitions==
* Bartholomew, John.  ''Atlas of the British empire throughout the world'' (1868 edition) [http://books.google.com/books?id=1CwBAAAAQAAJ&dq=intitle:atlas+intitle:british+intitle:empire&num=30 online 1868 edition]; (1877 edition) [http://books.google.com/books?id=0ywBAAAAQAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=intitle:atlas+intitle:british+intitle:empire&num=30&sig=0GlKM9dHrZPPrmh2zhog5eL-W6c online 1877 edition]
''The principal acquisitions are listed in chronological order on the [[/Timelines|timelines subpage]] and by geographical location on the [[/Addendum#Countries of Empire|addendum subpage]]''
* Faunthorpe, John Pincher. ''Geography of the British colonies and foreign possessions'' (1874) [http://books.google.com/books?id=ynADAAAAQAAJ&dq=intitle:atlas+intitle:british+intitle:empire&num=30 online edition]
* Great Britain Board of Education. ''Educational Systems of the Chief Crown Colonies and Possessions of the British Empire'' (1905). 340pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=dbsWAAAAIAAJ&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30&as_brr=1 online edition]
* Lucas, Charles Prestwood. ''A Historical Geography of the British Colonies: part 4: South and East Africa'' (1900) [http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz8UAAAAIAAJ&dq=intitle:british+inauthor:egerton+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
==External Links==
* [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=1&as_vt=british+empire&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn= primary sources and older secondary sources]


--------
The settlements in North America began in the early years of the 17th century, not long after the ending - with the loss of Calais - of England's military adventures on the European mainland, but they were enterprises of different sort. They were undertaken by associations of private individuals, not by the state; and the colonists were farmers, not soldiers. The [[Thirteen Colonies]] had British-appointed Governors, but their relations with Britain were essentially those of trading partners,  until the British government attempted to use the colonies as a source of revenue, prompting the [[American Revolution]] and Britain's recognition in 1783 of [[The United States of America]] as an independent country. In the course of what some historians call the [[/Addendum#First Empire| First Empire]], Britain established itself as the leading imperial power by its victories over France and Spain in the Seven Years War. It was rewarded in the settlement at the end of that conflict in 1763 with the expulsion of France from nearly all of North America and India. By  the end of the 18th century Britain was in secure possession of [[Canada]] and some thirty Caribbean islands (see [[/Addendum#The West Indies|list of colonies in the West Indies]]) and had established a secure  foothold in [[India]]. By the early 20th century, it had consolidated its control of India, acquired a miscellany of    countries in Asia {see [[/Addendum#Other Asian countries|list]]),  and the [[/Addendum#The Antipodes| Antipodes]],  had established its control of [[South Africa]], and had successfully engaged in the European "scramble for Africa" (see [[/Addendum#Other African countries| list of African colonies]]).
<references/>


[[Category:History Workgroup]]
==Governance==
[[Category:CZ Live]]
The standard structure of government for a British colony was headed by a Governor (or High Commissioner) acting as an agent of the [[The Crown (UK)|Crown]], who was supported by an advisory or legislative council, and who employed a staff of civil servants. Variants of that structure were adapted to particular circumstances. In colonies with predominantly British populations there were usually legislative councils elected by the populace, and civil servants who were recruited from the local populace. The powers of the governors of that sort of colony were seldom - or sparingly - exercised, and they became essentially ceremonial when those colonies became [[/Addendum#Dominions|Dominions]]. In  colonies with predominately native populations (including most of the [[/Addendum#Other African countries|African colonies]]), the civil service often amounted to little more than a scattering of District Officers, each of whom performed all the functions of government in his area of responsibility (India after 1858 was a major exception with a large  civil service,  recruited extensively from the Indian populace). The attitudes of the colonial administrators
to non-white populations ranged from benevolent [[paternalism]] to [[racism|racist]] indifference.  There nevertheless emerged an empire-wide policy of respect for indigenous religions and customs, although it was not consistently applied. African colonies with substantial European populations operated separate legal system for Europeans and Africans, and  those with predominately African populations, used only their traditional systems of law. But many colonial administrators believed themselves to be engaged in a civilising mission, the ultimate objective of which would be the local adoption of  something like the  [[Westminster system]] of governance, together with the local acceptance of European conduct norms. The colonial administration of India  operated a general acceptance  of local norms and customs, but it acted successfully to put an  end to suttee (widow-burning),  and unsuccessfully to put an end to the caste system<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh_xvKLhZHg ''The Indian Caste System - An Introduction'', YouTube]</ref>.  The British colonists' strategy for the preservation of their control was to avoid confrontation when possible, but to respond decisively when challenged. A more than proportional response was often adopted with the objective of deterring further challenges. Examples of such "overkill" responses included the brutal punishments of recalcitrant slaves<ref>[http://archive.org/stream/capitalismandsla033027mbp/capitalismandsla033027mbp_djvu.txt Eric Williams: ''Capitalism and Slavery'', University of North Carolina Press]</ref>, the allegedly genocidal treatment of Tasmanian aborigines,  the punitive response to the Indian Mutiny, and the military response to the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12997138 ''Mau Mau uprising: Bloody history of Kenya conflict'', BBC News, 2011]</ref>.
 
==Exits==
''The principal events in the transition from Empire to Commonwealth are listed in chronological order
on the [[/Timelines#From Empire to Commonwealth|timelines subpage]]
 
The transition from Empire to Commonwealth had its formal origin in the Colonial Conference of 1887. The idea that the Empire should be seen as a family of nations, not just the random offspring of the British Crown, had been floated some years before, and had found expression in the formation of the Imperial Federation League. The British government of the time saw the 1887 conference as a means of getting some colonies to make a contribution toward the rising cost of maintaining the navy, but some of the fifty-odd self-governing and Crown colonies that were represented had other ideas
<ref>J E Tyler ''Development of the Imperial Conferences 1887-1914''. The Cambridge History of the British Empire, Chapter XI [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Mu48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=Colonial+conference+1887&source=bl&ots=1WXyNLY_nI&sig=ihtxpzDQ_k4oqZe8G_UQdO_Ib1E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rVzCT-rWBMjA8gPJgqC6Cg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Colonial%20conference%201887&f=false (Google extract)]</ref> and the succession of Imperial conferences that followed over the next forty years made increasing  inroads into Britain's hegemony. By 1910, four  colonies<ref>Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa</ref> had become self governing and had been granted "[[/Addendum#Dominions|Dominion status]]", and the 6th Imperial Conference  in 1926 established the Dominions as communities within the British Empire on equal terms with Britain. In debates concerning  policy toward the [[/Addendum#Crown Colonies|Crown Colonies]] the option of self-government was rejected in favour of the concept of "trusteeship" meaning the promotion of interests of the native populations as well as the interests of the white settlers<ref>[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/protectorate-trusteeship.htm Cabinet papers on trusteeship and development, UK National Archives]</ref>, and several Colonial Development Acts were passed to enable financial support to be provided to the colonies. In 1940, the objective of colonial policy was officially stated to be "to protect and advance the interests of the inhabitants of the colonies". In 1945,  Britain's first post-war government was elected  with an election commitment to "seek to promote mutual understanding and cordial co-operation between the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, the advancement of India to responsible self-government, and the planned progress of our Colonial Dependencies"
<ref>[http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1945/1945-labour-manifesto.shtml 1945 Labour Party Manifesto]</ref>, and in 1948 it stated the objective  of  its colonial policy to be  to guide the Crown colonies  to "responsible government with a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression"<ref>Anthony  Kirk-Greene''On Crown Service: A History of HM Colonial and Overseas Civil Services, 1837-1997'', IB Tauris, 1999[http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/On_Crown_Service.html?id=0CRaqF6vSuAC&redir_esc=y (Google extract)]</ref>.
 
[[India]] became independent in 1947 after a negotiated partition<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml Crispin Bates: ''The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies'', BBC History, 2011]</ref> involving the creation of Pakistan. The name "British Commonwealth" had by then been officially applied only to the self-governing Dominions that owed constitutional allegiance  to the British Crown, but in 1949 the [[Commonwealth of Nations/Addendum#The London Declaration of 1949|London Declaration]] extended the concept to include countries that became republics after they became independent (enabling India to remain in the Commonwealth after it became a republic in 1950), and changed its title from British Commonwealth to [[Commonwealth of Nations]]. Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 and its remaining membership in 1950 consisted of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[South Africa]], [[ India]], Pakistan and [[Ceylon]]. In the course of the  following 20 years, at least 20 more British colonies gained their independence, and nearly all of them decided to join the Commonwealth.
 
==Legacy==
The net effect of the British Empire is necessarily indeterminate because of the lack of information about what would have happened had it not existed. It is possible, however, to identify some outcomes that probably would not have happened in its absence. It is unlikely, for example, that English would otherwise be spoken as many as one in four of the world's population<ref>[http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-faq-the-english-language.htm ''How many people speak the English language?'', The British Council]</ref>. And  the  fact that most Commonwealth of Nations countries have democratically-elected governments, <ref>[http://common.pdev.rroom.net/uploads/documents/deepening_local_democracy.pdf  Malaika Scott: ''Deepening local democracy in the Commonwealth'', Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit,  2004]</ref> may plausibly be attributed, in part, at least,  to their former membership of the British Empire.
 
==References==
{{reflist}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]]

Latest revision as of 11:01, 21 July 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Timelines [?]
Addendum [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

At its height the British Empire covered almost a quarter of the world's land surface (the greatest in history) and included large areas of North America, Australia, Africa and Asia. Britain now has only 14 small overseas territories, including Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the Cayman islands. Most of the former members of the British Empire are now members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

In addition to the text below, this article comprises

  • Countries of the Empire - a brief account of the founding of each of the principal British colonies;
  • Timelines - links in chronological order to reports of events in the acquisition and dissolution of the British Empire;
  • Maps - maps of the colonies; and
  • Constitutional terminology - the terminology of the categories of colonies and mandated territories.

Overview

By the beginning of the 20th century, Britain had created an empire that was larger than any previous empire. But it was an empire that lacked the consistency of purpose, location and character of its Roman and Ottoman predecessors. The purposes of its founders had included escape from persecution, the exploitation of natural resources, the establishment of trading links, the pursuit of military advantage, and the mercantilist objective of preserving a positive balance of payments. Its colonies were scattered, seemingly at random, throughout the five continents. Their forms of governance had included both direct rule and indirect rule; both assimilation (meaning the adoption of British laws and customs), and the preservation of traditional society, customs and laws. Some subject peoples experienced benign paternalism, and some suffered systematic brutality.

Historians have long sought explanations for Britain's paradoxical ability to dominate an imperial population some twenty times its own size, and for the willingness of many of its former colonies to associate themselves with it as free and equal members of the Commonwealth.

Causes

Trade policy was among the reasons for the growth of empire. The decay of the feudal system [1] had, by the 16th century, enabled labour to move into manufacturing activities such as cloth production, and cloth producers and others were seeking new markets for their products[2]. In line with the mercantilist orthodoxy of the time, governments granted monopoly rights (royal charters) to colonising companies, and imposed restrictions (Navigation Acts [3]) designed to make them accept British exports. Personal economic and/or religious advantage motivated the colonists themselves, but their activity also served the purpose of official trade policy. Different purposes were served by the possession of the Caribbean colonies. The revenues received over a period of 150 years by their absentee English owners from the sugar plantations, and by the English slave traders from the trade in goods and slaves, were so vast that there have been (admittedly controversial) claims that they made a significant contribution to the financing of the industrial revolution. Commercial advantage was allowed to outweigh - what were eventually recognised as overwhelming - humanitarian considerations until the Atlantic slave trade was prohibited in 1807. Trade was the sole purpose of the initial British presence in India, and military action leading to annexation occurred only when that presence was threatened[4].

A determining factor of the rapid expansion that occurred during the 19th century was the achievement of naval supremacy by the virtual destruction of the French and Spanish navies in the battle of Trafalgar[5]. The development of trade was still a policy objective, but it was often overlaid by the practice of forcibly excluding European competitors, and it sometimes - particularly in Africa - became a straightforward scramble for power.

Acquisitions

The principal acquisitions are listed in chronological order on the timelines subpage and by geographical location on the addendum subpage

The settlements in North America began in the early years of the 17th century, not long after the ending - with the loss of Calais - of England's military adventures on the European mainland, but they were enterprises of different sort. They were undertaken by associations of private individuals, not by the state; and the colonists were farmers, not soldiers. The Thirteen Colonies had British-appointed Governors, but their relations with Britain were essentially those of trading partners, until the British government attempted to use the colonies as a source of revenue, prompting the American Revolution and Britain's recognition in 1783 of The United States of America as an independent country. In the course of what some historians call the First Empire, Britain established itself as the leading imperial power by its victories over France and Spain in the Seven Years War. It was rewarded in the settlement at the end of that conflict in 1763 with the expulsion of France from nearly all of North America and India. By the end of the 18th century Britain was in secure possession of Canada and some thirty Caribbean islands (see list of colonies in the West Indies) and had established a secure foothold in India. By the early 20th century, it had consolidated its control of India, acquired a miscellany of countries in Asia {see list), and the Antipodes, had established its control of South Africa, and had successfully engaged in the European "scramble for Africa" (see list of African colonies).

Governance

The standard structure of government for a British colony was headed by a Governor (or High Commissioner) acting as an agent of the Crown, who was supported by an advisory or legislative council, and who employed a staff of civil servants. Variants of that structure were adapted to particular circumstances. In colonies with predominantly British populations there were usually legislative councils elected by the populace, and civil servants who were recruited from the local populace. The powers of the governors of that sort of colony were seldom - or sparingly - exercised, and they became essentially ceremonial when those colonies became Dominions. In colonies with predominately native populations (including most of the African colonies), the civil service often amounted to little more than a scattering of District Officers, each of whom performed all the functions of government in his area of responsibility (India after 1858 was a major exception with a large civil service, recruited extensively from the Indian populace). The attitudes of the colonial administrators to non-white populations ranged from benevolent paternalism to racist indifference. There nevertheless emerged an empire-wide policy of respect for indigenous religions and customs, although it was not consistently applied. African colonies with substantial European populations operated separate legal system for Europeans and Africans, and those with predominately African populations, used only their traditional systems of law. But many colonial administrators believed themselves to be engaged in a civilising mission, the ultimate objective of which would be the local adoption of something like the Westminster system of governance, together with the local acceptance of European conduct norms. The colonial administration of India operated a general acceptance of local norms and customs, but it acted successfully to put an end to suttee (widow-burning), and unsuccessfully to put an end to the caste system[6]. The British colonists' strategy for the preservation of their control was to avoid confrontation when possible, but to respond decisively when challenged. A more than proportional response was often adopted with the objective of deterring further challenges. Examples of such "overkill" responses included the brutal punishments of recalcitrant slaves[7], the allegedly genocidal treatment of Tasmanian aborigines, the punitive response to the Indian Mutiny, and the military response to the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya[8].

Exits

The principal events in the transition from Empire to Commonwealth are listed in chronological order on the timelines subpage

The transition from Empire to Commonwealth had its formal origin in the Colonial Conference of 1887. The idea that the Empire should be seen as a family of nations, not just the random offspring of the British Crown, had been floated some years before, and had found expression in the formation of the Imperial Federation League. The British government of the time saw the 1887 conference as a means of getting some colonies to make a contribution toward the rising cost of maintaining the navy, but some of the fifty-odd self-governing and Crown colonies that were represented had other ideas [9] and the succession of Imperial conferences that followed over the next forty years made increasing inroads into Britain's hegemony. By 1910, four colonies[10] had become self governing and had been granted "Dominion status", and the 6th Imperial Conference in 1926 established the Dominions as communities within the British Empire on equal terms with Britain. In debates concerning policy toward the Crown Colonies the option of self-government was rejected in favour of the concept of "trusteeship" meaning the promotion of interests of the native populations as well as the interests of the white settlers[11], and several Colonial Development Acts were passed to enable financial support to be provided to the colonies. In 1940, the objective of colonial policy was officially stated to be "to protect and advance the interests of the inhabitants of the colonies". In 1945, Britain's first post-war government was elected with an election commitment to "seek to promote mutual understanding and cordial co-operation between the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, the advancement of India to responsible self-government, and the planned progress of our Colonial Dependencies" [12], and in 1948 it stated the objective of its colonial policy to be to guide the Crown colonies to "responsible government with a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression"[13].

India became independent in 1947 after a negotiated partition[14] involving the creation of Pakistan. The name "British Commonwealth" had by then been officially applied only to the self-governing Dominions that owed constitutional allegiance to the British Crown, but in 1949 the London Declaration extended the concept to include countries that became republics after they became independent (enabling India to remain in the Commonwealth after it became a republic in 1950), and changed its title from British Commonwealth to Commonwealth of Nations. Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 and its remaining membership in 1950 consisted of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon. In the course of the following 20 years, at least 20 more British colonies gained their independence, and nearly all of them decided to join the Commonwealth.

Legacy

The net effect of the British Empire is necessarily indeterminate because of the lack of information about what would have happened had it not existed. It is possible, however, to identify some outcomes that probably would not have happened in its absence. It is unlikely, for example, that English would otherwise be spoken as many as one in four of the world's population[15]. And the fact that most Commonwealth of Nations countries have democratically-elected governments, [16] may plausibly be attributed, in part, at least, to their former membership of the British Empire.

References