Misplaced Pages

#477522

104-524: Fourth Empire may refer to: Fourth British Empire, a concept in the historiography of the British Empire Fourth world-empire, the last of the four kingdoms of Daniel Roman Empire , the traditional interpretation of the fourth kingdom of Daniel in Christian eschatology Fourth Reich , a hypothetical successor of Nazi Germany Fourth Empire,

208-567: A "pseudo-empire," oil producers in the Middle East. The strategic goal of protecting the Suez Canal was a high priority from the 1880s to 1956 and, by then, had expanded to the oil regions. Darwin argues that defence strategy posed issues of how to reconcile the needs of domestic politics with the preservation of a global Empire. Darwin argues that a main function of the British defence system, especially

312-524: A duty to protect and promote the human rights of the natives and to help pull them from the slough of traditionalism and cruelties (such as suttee in India and foot binding in China). The notion of "benevolence" was developed in the 1780–1840 era by idealists whose moralistic prescriptions annoyed efficiency-oriented colonial administrators and profit-oriented merchants. Partly it was a matter of fighting corruption in

416-503: A favourite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal

520-676: A few isolated ports in Africa. The fourth kind of empire was the "informal empire," that is financial dominance exercised through investments, as in Latin America, and including the complex situation in Egypt (it was owned theoretically by the Ottoman Empire, but ruled by Britain). Darwin argues the British Empire was distinguished by the adaptability of its builders: "The hallmark of British imperialism

624-548: A fictional organization in Star Gladiator Fourth Empire, the main antagonists of Galaxy Force (video game) See also [ edit ] First Empire (disambiguation) Second Empire (disambiguation) Third Empire (disambiguation) Fifth Empire Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Fourth Empire . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change

728-466: A lid on the growth of domestic wages in the domestic standard of living. . By the 1970s, historians such as David K. Fieldhouse and Oren Hale could argue that the, "Hobsonian foundation has been almost completely demolished." The British experience failed to support it. However, European Socialists picked up Hobson's ideas and made it into their own theory of imperialism, most notably in Lenin's Imperialism,

832-509: A major irritant leading to the American Revolution . Mercantilism taught that trade was a zero-sum game with one country's gain equivalent to a loss sustained by the trading partner. Whatever the theoretical weaknesses exposed by economists after Adam Smith, it was under mercantilist policies before the 1840s that Britain became the world's dominant trader, and the global hegemon . Mercantilism in Britain ended when Parliament repealed

936-436: A nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism . It involves a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade , especially of finished goods . Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries. Mercantilism

1040-454: A negative impact on the majority of the population. In Imperialism he argued that the financing of overseas empires drained money that was needed at home. It was invested abroad because lower wages paid the workers overseas made for higher profits and higher rates of return, compared to domestic wages. So although domestic wages remained higher, they did not grow nearly as fast as they might have otherwise. Exporting capital, he concluded, put

1144-546: A newer edition was brought out in 1919, and 3,000 in 1931. In 1895, H. A. L. Fisher asked in the Fortnightly Review whether any previous historical work could be said to have left as profound a mark on "the general political thinking of a nation". Joseph Jacobs in the Saturday Review claimed that "surely since Sieyès no pamphlet has ever had such immediate and wide-reaching influence". G. W. Prothero stated in

SECTION 10

#1733085919478

1248-580: A peaceful multilateral world order. Conversely, should the state not intervene, rentiers (people who earn income from property or securities) would generate socially negative wealth that fostered imperialism and protectionism. Hobson for years was widely influential in liberal circles, especially the British Liberal Party. Lenin's writings became orthodoxy for all Marxist historians. They had many critics. D. K. Fieldhouse , for example, argues that they used superficial arguments. Fieldhouse says that

1352-459: A stir". According to G. P. Gooch , the book "became the bible of British Imperialists". Robert Ensor claimed that the book was "the single influence which did most to develop the imperialist idea". The German Crown Princess Victoria wrote to her mother, Queen Victoria , in May 1884: "How I wish, dear Mama, you would read that admirable little book, The Expansion of England , by Prof. Seeley!! It

1456-487: Is a theory of New Imperialism first put forward by P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins in the 1980s before being fully developed in their 1993 work, British Imperialism . The theory posits that British imperialism was driven by the business interests of the City of London and landed interests. It encourages a shift of emphasis away from seeing provincial manufacturers and geopolitical strategy as important influences, and towards seeing

1560-410: Is most often applied to American policies. Historians have begun to explore some of the ramifications of British free-trade policy, especially the effect of American and German high tariff policies. Canada adopted a "national policy" of high tariffs in the late 19th century, in sharp distinction to the mother country. The goal was to protect its infant manufacturing industries from low-cost imports from

1664-607: Is now clear that the colonies of the British Caribbean profited considerably during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars." In his major attack on the Williams's thesis, Seymour Drescher argues that Britain's abolition of the slave trade in 1807 resulted not from the diminishing value of slavery for Britain but instead from the moral outrage of the British voting public. Critics have also argued that slavery remained profitable in

1768-545: Is that England may prove able to do what the United States does so easily, that is, hold together in a federal union countries very remote from each other. In that case England will take rank with Russia and the United States in the first rank of state, measured by population and area, and in a higher rank that the states of the Continent". Seeley also doubted the wisdom of holding onto India: "It may be fairly questioned whether

1872-432: Is the idea of empire 'informally if possible and formally if necessary.'" Oron Hale says that Gallagher and Robinson looked at the British involvement in Africa where they, "found few capitalists, less capital, and not much pressure from the alleged traditional promoters of colonial expansion. Cabinet decisions to annex or not to annex were made, usually on the basis of political or geopolitical considerations." Reviewing

1976-467: Is wonderful and so statesmanlike, so farsighted, clear, and fair". Alfred Tennyson sent a copy of the book to Liberal Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone . Gladstone was guarded in his praise: "Although I think a Professor gets upon rather slippery ground when he undertakes to deal with politics more practical than historical or scientific, yet it is certainly most desirable that English folk should consider their position, present and prospective, in

2080-461: The Dictionary of National Biography (1897) that "it contributed perhaps more than any other single utterance to the change of feeling respecting the relations between Great Britain and her colonies which marks the end of the nineteenth century". Historians have also commented on its impact. In John Gross ' opinion, "Few works of the same unmistakably academic stamp can ever have created so immediate

2184-554: The Tudor and Stuart periods, with Robert Walpole being another major proponent. In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament. Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War , but were often controversial. With respect to its colonies, British mercantilism meant that

SECTION 20

#1733085919478

2288-504: The republicanism that swept the American colonies in the 1770s and led to the creation of a rival power. Historians led by Eli Heckscher have identified Mercantilism as the central economic policy for the empire before the shift to free trade in the 1840s. Mercantilism is an economic theory practice, commonly used in Britain, France and other major European nations from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of

2392-408: The "black hole" is a fallacy and that there was continuity. Judd writes: It is commonplace to suppose that the successful revolt of the American colonies marked the end of the 'First British Empire'. But this is only a half-truth. In 1783 there was still a substantial Empire left." Marshall notes that the exact dating of the two empires varies, with 1783 a typical demarcation point. Thus the story of

2496-634: The "obvious driving force of British expansion since 1870" came from explorers, missionaries, engineers, and empire-minded politicians. They had little interest in financial investments. Hobson's answer was to say that faceless financiers manipulated everyone else, so that "The final determination rests with the financial power." Lenin believed that capitalism was in its last stages and had been taken over by monopolists. They were no longer dynamic and sought to maintain profits by even more intensive exploitation of protected markets. Fieldhouse rejects these arguments as unfounded speculation. Historians agree that in

2600-400: The "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of slaves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much

2704-432: The 1730s in the " country party " and in the American colonies developed an alternative vision of empire that would be "Protestant, commercial, maritime and free". Walpole did not ensure the promised "liberty" to the colonies because he was intent on subordinating all colonial economic activity to the mercantilist advantages of the metropolis. Anti-imperial critiques emerged from Francis Hutcheson and David Hume , presaging

2808-412: The 1763–93 period from emphasis on western to eastern territories following U.S. independence. The London bureaucracy governing the colonies also changed, policies to white settler colonies changed and slavery was phased out. The beginning of the formation of a colonial Empire has been much studied. Tudor conquest of Ireland began in the 1530s and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in the 1650s completed

2912-519: The 1830s because of innovations in agriculture so the profit motive was not central to abolition. Richardson (1998) finds that Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are exaggerated, as profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa but that it caused

3016-513: The 1840s, Britain adopted a free-trade policy, meaning open markets and no tariffs throughout the empire. The debate among historians involves what the implications of free trade actually were. " The Imperialism of Free Trade " is a highly influential 1952 article by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson . They argued that the New Imperialism of the 1880s", especially the Scramble for Africa ,

3120-643: The 18th century, British merchant ships were the largest element in the " Middle Passage ", which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most of those who survived the journey wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad (the plantation owners lived in Britain). Parliament ended the international transportation of slaves in 1807 and used

3224-591: The American Revolution and the British Empire. The " new social history " approach looks at community social structure to find cleavages that were magnified into colonial cleavages. The ideological approach that centres on republicanism in the United States. Republicanism dictated there would be no royalty, aristocracy or national church but allowed for continuation of the British common law, which American lawyers and jurists understood and approved and used in their everyday practice. Historians have examined how

Fourth Empire - Misplaced Pages Continue

3328-685: The American revolt provides a key: The Fall of the First British Empire: Origins of the Wars of American Independence (1982) by American professors Robert W. Tucker and David Hendrickson, stresses the victorious initiative of the Americans. By contrast Cambridge professor Brendan Simms explores Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783 (2007) and explains Britain's defeat in terms of alienating

3432-525: The British Commonwealth, and higher tariffs for outside products. Economic historians have debated at length the impact of these tariff changes on economic growth. One controversial formulation by Bairoch argues that in the 1870–1914 era: "protectionism = economic growth and expansion of trade; liberalism = stagnation in both". Many studies have supported Bairoch but other economists have challenged his results regarding Canada. Gentlemanly capitalism

3536-567: The British Empire.") British historians focused on the diplomatic, military and administrative aspects of the Empire before the 1960s. They saw a benevolent enterprise. Younger generations branched off into a variety of social, economic and cultural themes, and took a much more critical stance. Representative of the old tradition was the Cambridge History of India , a large-scale project published in five volumes between 1922 and 1937 by Cambridge University Press . Some volumes were also part of

3640-485: The British colonisation of Ireland. The first major history was The Expansion of England (1883), by Sir John Seeley . It was a bestseller for decades, and was widely admired by the imperialistic faction in British politics, and opposed by the anti-imperialists of the Liberal Party . The book points out how and why Britain gained the colonies, the character of the Empire, and the light in which it should be regarded. It

3744-492: The British regard the colonies as an expansion of the British state as well as of British nationality, and to confirm to them the value of Britain's empire in the East. In his history of the British Empire, written in 1940, A. P. Newton lamented that Seeley "dealt in the main with the great wars of the eighteenth century and this gave the false impression that the British Empire has been founded largely by war and conquest, an idea that

3848-448: The Empire was not planned by anyone. The concept of the British Empire is a construct and was never a legal entity, unlike the Roman or other European empires. There was no imperial constitution, no office of emperor, no uniformity of laws. So when it began, when it ended, and what stages it went through is a matter of opinion, not official orders or laws. The dividing line was Britain's shift in

3952-575: The Empire, as typified by Edmund Burke 's long, but failed, attempt to impeach Warren Hastings for his cruelties in India. The most successful development came in the abolition of slavery led by William Wilberforce and the Evangelicals, and the expansion of Christian missionary work. Edward Gibbon Wakefield (1796–1852) spearheaded efforts to create model colonies (such as South Australia , Canada and New Zealand ). The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi , initially designed to protect Maori rights, has become

4056-461: The English language so that India could join the mother country in a steady upward progress. Macaulay took Burke's emphasis on moral rule and implemented it in actual school reforms, giving the British Empire a profound moral mission to civilize the natives. The Expansion of England The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures is a book by English historian John Robert Seeley about

4160-490: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). Lenin portrayed Imperialism as the closure of the world market and the end of capitalist free-competition that arose from the need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. Later Marxist theoreticians echo this conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism, which explained

4264-608: The Navigation Acts and Corn Laws by 1846. Scholars agree that Britain gradually dropped mercantilism after 1815. Free trade, with no tariffs and few restrictions, was the prevailing doctrine from the 1840s to the 1930s. John Darwin has explored the way historians have explained the large role of the Royal Navy and the much smaller role of the British Army in the history of the empire. For the 20th century, he explores what he calls

Fourth Empire - Misplaced Pages Continue

4368-457: The Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833, it bought out the plantation owners and banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as William Wilberforce were primarily responsible. Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian Eric Williams , a Marxist, in Capitalism and Slavery (1944), rejected this moral explanation and argued that abolition

4472-472: The Royal Navy, was defence of the overseas empire (in addition of course to defence of the homeland). The army, usually in co-operation with local forces, suppressed internal revolts, losing only the American War of Independence (1775–83). Armitage considers the following to be the British creed: Lizzie Collingham (2017) stresses the role of expanding the food supply in the building, financing and defending

4576-522: The Second. Ashley Jackson argued in 2013 that historians have even extended to a third and fourth empire: The first British Empire was largely destroyed by the loss of the American colonies, followed by a 'swing to the east' and the foundation of a second British Empire based on commercial and territorial expansion in South Asia. The third British Empire was the construction of a 'white' dominion power bloc in

4680-526: The United States and Britain. The demand increasingly rose in Great Britain to end the free trade policy and impose tariffs to protect its manufacturing from American and German competition. The leading spokesman was Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914) and he made "tariff reform" (that is, imposing higher tariffs) a central issue in British domestic politics. By the 1930s the British began shifting their policies away from free trade and toward low tariffs inside

4784-477: The World War as the battle between imperialists for control of external markets. Lenin's treatise became a standard textbook that flourished until the collapse of communism in 1989–91. As the application of the term "imperialism" has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect a growing unease, even squeamishness, with

4888-411: The bedrock of Aotearoa–New Zealand biculturalism. In Wakefield's vision, the object of benevolence was to introduce and promote values of industriousness and a productive economy, not to use colonies as a dumping ground for transported criminals. English historian Jeremy Black argues that: One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In

4992-437: The colonial peripheries. The "British world" historians stress the material, emotional, and financial links among the colonizers across the imperial diaspora. The "new imperial historians", by contrast, are more concerned with the Empire's impact on the metropole, including everyday experiences and images. Phillip Buckner says that by the 1990s few historians continued to portray the Empire as benevolent. Historians agree that

5096-511: The colonial political system was based on the winners of free elections, which were open to the majority of white men. In the analysis of the coming of the Revolution, historians in recent decades have mostly used one of three approaches. The Atlantic history view places the American story in a broader context, including revolutions in France and Haiti. It tends to reintegrate the historiographies of

5200-435: The concepts of the First British Empire have "held their ground in historians' usage without serious challenge." In 1988 Peter Marshall says that late-18th-century transformations: constituted a fundamental reordering of the Empire which make it appropriate to talk about a first British Empire giving way to a second one ... Historians have long identified certain developments in the late eighteenth century that undermined

5304-642: The control of large numbers of natives when the East India Company proved highly successful in taking control of most of India. India became the keystone of the Second Empire, along with colonies later developed across Africa. A few new settler colonies were also built up in Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent in South Africa. Marshall in 1999 shows the consensus of scholars is clear, for since 1900

SECTION 50

#1733085919478

5408-452: The debate from the end of the 20th century, historian Martin Lynn argues that Gallagher and Robinson exaggerated the impact. He says that Britain achieved its goal of increasing its economic interests in many areas, "but the broader goal of 'regenerating' societies and thereby creating regions tied as 'tributaries' to British economic interests was not attained." The reasons were: the aim to reshape

5512-407: The emergence of a British imperial ideology from the time of Henry VIII to that of Robert Walpole in the 1720s and 1730s. Using a close reading of English, Scottish and Irish authors from Sir Thomas Smith (1513–77) to David Hume (1711–1776), Armitage argues that the imperial ideology was both a critical agent in the formation of a British state from three kingdoms and an essential bond between

5616-425: The emergence of a sense of American nationalism that united all 13 colonies. In turn, that nationalism was Rooted in a Republican value system that demanded consent of the governed and opposed aristocratic control. In Britain itself, republicanism was a fringe view since it challenged the aristocratic control of the British political system. There were (almost) no aristocrats or nobles in the 13 colonies, and instead,

5720-508: The expansion of empire as emanating from London and the financial sector. Kevin Grant shows that numerous historians in the 21st century have explored relationships between the Empire, international government and human rights. They have focused on British conceptions of imperial world order from the late 19th century to the Cold War. The British intellectuals and political leaders felt that they had

5824-523: The export of some raw materials was banned completely. The Navigation Acts expelled foreign merchants from England's domestic trade. The nation aggressively sought colonies and once under British control, regulations were imposed that allowed the colony to only produce raw materials and to only trade with Britain. This led to smuggling by major merchants and political friction with the businessmen of these colonies. Mercantilist policies (such as forbidding trade with other empires and controls over smuggling) were

5928-552: The fact of power, specifically, Western power. The relationships among capitalism, imperialism, exploitation, social reform and economic development has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as John A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in

6032-501: The full-employment assumption from economics and holds the gross value of slave trade profits as a direct contribution to Britain's national income. Historian Richard Pares , in an article written before Williams's book, dismisses the influence of wealth generated from the West Indian plantations upon the financing of the Industrial Revolution, stating that whatever substantial flow of investment from West Indian profits into industry there

6136-418: The fundamentals of the old Empire and were to bring about a new one. These were the American Revolution and the industrial revolution. Historians, however, debate whether 1783 was a sharp line of demarcation between First and Second, or whether there was an overlap (as argued by Vincent T. Harlow ) or whether there was a "black hole between 1783 and the later birth of the Second Empire. Historian Denis Judd says

6240-532: The globe. Increasing degrees of internal autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies in the 20th century. A resurgence came in the late 19th century, with the Scramble for Africa and major additions in Asia and the Middle East. Leadership in British imperialism was expressed by Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Rosebery , and implemented in Africa by Cecil Rhodes . Other influential spokesmen included Lord Cromer , Lord Curzon , General Kitchner , Lord Milner , and

6344-499: The government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants – and kept others out – by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The government used the Royal Navy to protect the colonies and to fight smuggling – which became

SECTION 60

#1733085919478

6448-478: The government. After the American war, says Bruce Collins, British leaders "focused not on any military lessons to be learned, but upon the regulation and expansion of imperial trade and the readjustment of Britain's constitutional relationship with its colonies." In the Second British Empire, by 1815 historians identify four distinct elements in the colonies. The most politically developed colonies were

6552-631: The growth of the British Empire , first published in 1883. Seeley argued that the British expansion was based on its defeat of Louis XIV 's France in the 18th century, and that the Dominions were critical to English power. He also stated that holding onto India might not be beneficial to England in the long run. The book was a popular success and received a strongly positive response from British politicians and nobility, and several historians have stated that it had great impact upon British thinking. Seeley

6656-459: The historiography concerns the reasons the Americans revolted in the 1770s and successfully broke away. The "Patriots", an insulting term used by the British that was proudly adopted by the Americans, stressed the constitutional rights of Englishmen, especially " No taxation without representation ." Historians since the 1960s have emphasized that the Patriot constitutional argument was made possible by

6760-451: The imperial parliament would be complicated, and predicted that an imperial federal union would flounder on two issues: disputes over tariffs, and the treatment of indigenous peoples. He went on to say that no one believed that representatives from the colonies would ever agree to vote funds for a peculiarly British commitment such as the defence of the neutrality of Belgium. The English Radical and imperialist politician Joseph Chamberlain

6864-524: The independence of Spanish and Portuguese colonies about 1820. By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a highly successful policy of free trade that gave it dominance in the trade of much of the world. After losing its first Empire to the Americans, Britain then turned its attention towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century of almost unchallenged dominance and expanded its imperial holdings around

6968-420: The inhabitants' low purchasing power, the resilience of local manufacturing, and the capabilities of local entrepreneurs meant that these areas effectively resisted British economic penetration. The idea that free-trade imperial states use informal controls to secure their expanding economic influence has attracted Marxists trying to avoid the problems of earlier Marxist interpretations of capitalism. The approach

7072-511: The international system based on Britain's relations with its settler offshoots Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa ... The fourth British Empire, meanwhile, is used to denote Britain's rejuvenated imperial focus on Africa and South-East Asia following the Second World War and the independence in 1947–48 of Britain's South Asian dependencies, when the Empire became a vital crutch in Britain's economic recovery. The first Empire

7176-466: The interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage

7280-451: The last century. In recent decades scholars have expanded the range of topics into new areas in social and cultural history, paying special attention to the impact on the natives and their agency in response. The cultural turn in historiography has recently emphasised issues of language, religion, gender, and identity. Recent debates have considered the relationship between the "metropole" ( Great Britain itself, especially London ), and

7384-528: The link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Empire&oldid=909820845 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Historiography of the British Empire Historians have approached imperial history from numerous angles over

7488-491: The major powers on the Continent. Theories about imperialism typically focus on the Second British Empire, with side glances elsewhere. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the 1870s by Liberal leader William Gladstone to ridicule the imperial policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli , which he denounced as aggressive and ostentatious and inspired by domestic motives. The term

7592-447: The notion that "imperialism" had to be based upon formal, legal control by one government over a colonial region. Much more important was informal influence in independent areas. According to Wm. Roger Louis , "In their view, historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps of the world with regions colored red. The bulk of British emigration, trade, and capital went to areas outside the formal British Empire. Key to their thinking

7696-479: The possession of India does or ever can increase our power or our security, while there is no doubt that it vastly increases our dangers and responsibilities". He also claimed, "When we inquire then into the Greater Britain of the future we ought to think much more of our colonial than of our Indian Empire". The book was an immense success, selling 80,000 copies within two years. The book sold 11,000 copies when

7800-428: The rising American legal profession adapted British common law to incorporate republicanism by selective revision of legal customs and by introducing more choice for courts. The concept of a first and second British Empire was developed by historians in the early 20th century, Timothy H. Parsons argued in 2014, "there were several British empires that ended at different times and for different reasons". He focused on

7904-591: The self-governing colonies in the Caribbean and those that later formed Canada and Australia. India was in a category by itself, and its immense size and distance required control of the routes to it, and in turn permitted British naval dominance from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. The third group was a mixed bag of smaller territories, including isolated ports used as way stations to India, and emerging trade entrepots such as Hong Kong and Singapore, along with

8008-535: The ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favour of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power. Economic historian Stanley Engerman finds that even without subtracting the associated costs of the slave trade (shipping costs, slave mortality, mortality of British people in Africa, defence costs) or reinvestment of profits back into

8112-468: The simultaneous multivolume The Cambridge History of the British Empire . Production of both works was delayed by the First World War and the ill health of contributors; the India volume II had to be abandoned. Reviewers complained the research methods were too old-fashioned; one critic said it was "history as it was understood by our grandfathers". David Armitage provided an influential study of

8216-532: The slave trade, the total profits from the slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to less than 5% of the British economy during any year of the Industrial Revolution . Engerman's 5% figure gives as much as possible in terms of benefit of the doubt to the Williams argument, not solely because it does not take into account the associated costs of the slave trade to Britain, but also because it carries

8320-516: The state and the transatlantic colonies. Armitage thus links the concerns of the "New British History" with that of the Atlantic history . Before 1700, Armitage finds that contested English and Scottish versions of state and empire delayed the emergence of a unitary imperial ideology. However political economists Nicholas Barbon and Charles Davenant in the late 17th century emphasized the significance of commerce, especially mercantilism or commerce that

8424-532: The trade aspect of empire-building. The first British Empire centered on the 13 American Colonies, which attracted large numbers of settlers from across Britain. In the 1900s - 1930s period the "Imperial School," including Herbert L. Osgood , George Louis Beer , Charles M. Andrews and Lawrence Gipson took a favourable view of the benefits of empire, emphasizing its successful economic integration. Regarding Columbia University historian Herbert L. Osgood (1855–1918), biographer Gwenda Morgan concludes: Much of

8528-496: The trading partner with less of his gold and silver). Mercantilist writers emphasized the circulation of money and rejected hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of a growing money supply . In England, mercantilism reached its peak during the Long Parliament government (1640–1660). Mercantilist policies were also embraced throughout much of

8632-456: The world in a fit of absence of mind". In Seeley's view, the British victories over Louis XIV of France in the early 18th century were the foundations of Britain's major expansion. Seeley wrote that the 18th century should be seen as a struggle between European nations for the possession of the New World, rather than a struggle for liberty between the king and the parliament. Seeley noted that it

8736-476: The world through free trade and its extension overseas owed more to the misplaced optimism of British policy-makers and their partial views of the world than to an understanding of the realities of the mid-19th century globe ... the volumes of trade and investment...the British were able to generate remained limited ... Local economies and local regimes proved adept at restricting the reach of British trade and investment. Local impediments to foreign inroads,

8840-460: The world". Fellow Gladstonian liberal and anti-imperialist, John Morley , reviewed the book and noted how greatly its tone differed from Goldwin Smith 's The Empire published twenty years previously. Morley stated that the territorial expansion of England was secondary to, and caused by, her industrial expansion. He also stated that attempts to determine the respective powers of colonial legislatures to

8944-414: The writer Rudyard Kipling . They all were influenced by Seeley's Expansion of England . The British Empire was the largest Empire that the world has ever seen both in terms of landmass and population. Its power, both military and economic, remained unmatched in 1900. In 1876 Disraeli overcame vehement Liberal opposition and obtained for Queen Victoria the title of "Empress of India" (she was not "Empress of

9048-422: Was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion. High tariffs , especially on manufactured goods, are an almost universal feature of mercantilist policy. Other policies have included: The term "mercantile system" was used by its foremost critic Adam Smith . Mercantilism in its simplest form was bullionism which focused on accumulating gold and silver through clever trades (leaver

9152-503: Was a continuation of a long-term policy in which informal empire, based on the principles of free trade, was favoured over formal imperial control. The article helped launch the Cambridge School of historiography . Gallagher and Robinson used the British experience to construct a framework for understanding European imperialism that swept away the all-or-nothing thinking of previous historians. They found that European leaders rejected

9256-506: Was closed to outsiders, to the success of the state. They argued that "trade depended on liberty, and that liberty could therefore be the foundation of empire". To overcome competing versions of "empires of the seas" within Britain, Parliament undertook the regulation of the Irish economy, the Acts of Union 1707 and the formation of a unitary and organic "British" empire of the sea. Walpole's opponents in

9360-471: Was founded in the 17th century, and based on the migration of large numbers of settlers to the American colonies, as well as the development of the sugar plantation colonies in the West Indies. It ended with the British loss of the American War for Independence. The second Empire had already started to emerge. It was originally designed as a chain of trading ports and naval bases. However, it expanded inland into

9464-416: Was greatly impressed with the book and claimed that he had sent his son Austen Chamberlain to Cambridge because Seeley was there. The Liberal Imperialist Lord Rosebery was profoundly affected by the book and it persuaded him to make the Empire one of his primary concerns. One of his biographers remarked that Seeley was Rosebery's mentor. When Rosebery became Prime Minister in 1894, one of his first acts

9568-412: Was its extraordinary versatility in method, outlook and object." The British tried to avoid military action in favour of reliance on networks of local elites and businessmen who voluntarily collaborated and in turn gained authority (and military protection) from British recognition. Historians argue that Britain built an informal economic empire through control of trade and finance in Latin America after

9672-399: Was now more profitable, as a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile, British investors turned to Asia, where labor

9776-413: Was occurred after emancipation, not before it. Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859) was the foremost historian of his day, arguing for the "Whig interpretation of history" that saw the history of Britain as an upward progression always leading to more liberty and more progress. Macaulay simultaneously was a leading reformer involved in transforming the educational system of India. He would base it on

9880-476: Was possible for the dominions to become independent of Britain: "Such a separation would leave England on the same level as the states nearest to us on the Continent, populous, but less so than Germany and scarcely equal to France. But two states, Russia and the United States, would be on an altogether higher scale of magnitude, Russia having at once, and the United States perhaps before very long, twice our population". However, he also stated, "The other alternative

9984-604: Was professor of history at University College London from 1860 to 1869, followed by the Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge from 1869 to 1895. The Expansion of England consists of two lectures Seeley delivered at the University in autumn 1881 and spring 1882. They were substantially modified and, at the prompting of Florence Nightingale , they were published in book form eighteen months later. It

10088-541: Was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain . For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. John A. Hobson , a leading English Liberal, developed a highly influential economic exploitation model in Imperialism: A Study (1902) that expanded on his belief that free enterprise capitalism had

10192-487: Was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the Industrial Revolution . Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital gained from the unpaid work of slaves. Since the 1970s, numerous historians have challenged Williams from various angles, and Gad Heuman has concluded, "More recent research has rejected this conclusion; it

10296-481: Was to enrich the mother country (not the colonists). British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary. British mercantilism thus mainly took the form of efforts to control trade. Much of the enforcement against smuggling was handled by the Royal Navy, argued Neil Stout. A wide array of regulations was put in place to encourage exports and discourage imports. Tariffs were placed on imports and bounties given for exports, and

10400-458: Was to recommend that Seeley be awarded an honour. He was duly appointed Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George . In his history of the British Empire, written in 1940, A. P. Newton lamented that Seeley "dealt in the main with the great wars of the eighteenth century and this gave the false impression that the British Empire has been founded largely by war and conquest, an idea that

10504-449: Was unfortunately planted firmly in the public mind, not only in Great Britain, but also in foreign countries". Lord Moran in his diary recorded a conversation with Winston Churchill on 30 May 1955: "I told him that I had read Seeley's Expansion of England in my youth and it opened up a new world. He looked very sad, but all he said was: ‘Now it would be Seeley's Contraction of England .’" The book finally went out of print in 1956,

10608-419: Was unfortunately planted firmly in the public mind, not only in Great Britain, but also in foreign countries". Historians often point out that in the First British Empire (before the 1780s) there was no single imperial vision, but rather a multiplicity of private operations led by different groups of English businessmen or religious groups. Although protected by the Royal Navy, they were not funded or planned by

10712-414: Was well written and persuasive. Seeley argued that British rule is in India's best interest. He also warned that India had to be protected and vastly increased the responsibilities and dangers to Britain. The book contains the much-quoted statement that "we seem, as it were, to have conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind". Expansion of England appeared at an opportune time, and did much to make

10816-485: Was written at a time of rapid expansion in the British Empire . Seeley's view was that the true function of history was "to exhibit the general tendency of English affairs in such a way as to set us thinking about the future, and divining the destiny which is reserved for us". History had no existence independent of politics: "Politics and history are only different aspects of the same study". Seeley famously remarked, "We seem, as it were, to have conquered and peopled half

#477522