The Nature of the British Empire in 1857 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Nature of the British Empire in 1857
Historical context: Britain's imperial expansion
England's imperial ventures began in the early seventeenth century with the establishment of colonies in North America and the West Indies. The East India Company, founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, created trading posts and gradually acquired territorial control in India. Following the unification of England and Scotland in 1707, Britain engaged in a series of wars with France and Spain throughout the eighteenth century. These conflicts proved successful, and by the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763, Britain had secured control over much of North America and substantial portions of India, positioning itself as the foremost imperial power.
The Seven Years' War (1756-1763) was a global conflict that fundamentally reshaped the balance of imperial power. Britain's victory marked a turning point, establishing it as the dominant colonial power and setting the stage for its nineteenth-century imperial expansion.
The loss of thirteen North American colonies through defeat in the American War of Independence (1775-83) dealt a serious blow to British prestige and imperial ambitions. However, the Empire recovered and expanded again during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Britain's naval and commercial strength, combined with the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1814-15 and subsequent expansionist policies, ensured that Britain had become the world's greatest imperial power by the mid-nineteenth century.
Understanding imperialism
Imperialism refers to the process by which a country, usually an empire or kingdom, extends its power through the acquisition of territories, often called colonies. The term derives from the Latin word imperium, meaning power, though it was rarely used before the 1870s. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, imperialism acquired negative connotations, being viewed as a process through which colonies were exploited by the mother country (the home country of the colonists).
The evolution of the term "imperialism" reflects changing attitudes toward colonial rule. While the practice existed for centuries, the word itself only gained widespread use in the late nineteenth century, coinciding with growing criticism of colonial exploitation.
The term now applies mainly to Western (and Japanese) political and economic dominance, particularly in Asia and Africa, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is almost interchangeable with colonialism.
Composition of the Empire in 1857
In 1857, the British Empire comprised a complex mix of territories that shared little in common beyond Britain's control over them. These territories fell into two broad categories: colonies of settlement and dependent or Crown colonies.
Colonies of settlement
Colonies of settlement had been founded and populated by people of British or European origin. These territories exhibited considerable diversity in their composition and character.
Canada contained many French-speaking colonists who had settled there before British control. Newfoundland did not consider itself part of Canada at this time. In southern Africa, Cape Colony and Natal included many Afrikaans-speaking Boers (people of Dutch origin who had settled in southern Africa). Although Britain's West Indian islands had originally been settled by European colonists, by 1857 they were mainly populated by people whose ancestors had been enslaved Africans brought to work on plantations. Slavery had ended in the British Empire in 1834.
Australia existed as a collection of separate colonies scattered across the continent, not yet unified as a single nation. Each colony developed its own distinct character and governance structures during this period.
In New Zealand, Maori chiefs had ceded sovereignty (ultimate power) to Britain in 1840. However, fewer than 100,000 Maoris had lived in New Zealand before British settlers arrived, and by the 1850s, people of British stock outnumbered the indigenous Maori population.
British migration to the colonies
Large-scale British migration shaped the demographic character of settlement colonies during this period. The Irish potato famine of the 1840s drove substantial numbers of Irish people to emigrate. While many travelled to Britain and the USA, others relocated to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Irish emigration remained high throughout the 1860s. Economic hardship prompted many Scots to emigrate, particularly to Canada. After 1870, most emigrants were English.
Britain had used transportation (enforced relocation as an alternative punishment to imprisonment) since the seventeenth century. Australia served as a dumping ground for British convicts until 1868. Between 1783 and 1868, approximately 160,000 individuals were transported there. The Colonial Land and Emigration Commission funded assisted passages from the proceeds of land sales in Australia, paying for 340,000 Britons to emigrate to Australia between 1840 and 1872.
The arrival of steam-powered ships by the 1850s revolutionized colonial migration. What had once been a dangerous journey of several months became considerably speedier and safer, facilitating the movement of both free settlers and assisted emigrants to distant colonies.
Governance in settlement colonies
By 1857, most colonies with substantial numbers of British settlers had been granted self-government. However, Britain retained control over their foreign relations and defence. The prevailing British view anticipated that these colonies would eventually become independent nations, though there existed a strong hope that they might form part of a 'Greater Britain' – an extension of Britain itself. Many Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and people of British descent in southern Africa shared this vision of maintaining close ties with Britain.
Dependent and Crown colonies
Dependent colonies, often called Crown colonies, contained few British or European settlers. These territories were controlled either by the British Parliament or by British trading companies during the mid-nineteenth century.
India stood as the largest and most important dependent colony. In 1857, it was ruled by a Governor-General who worked in association with the privately owned East India Company (a commercial company that had established considerable political power in India during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries). Certain areas, such as Ceylon and Malaya, proved highly profitable through trade and plantation agriculture.
The East India Company's role in governing India represented a unique feature of British imperialism: a private commercial enterprise wielding extraordinary political and military power over millions of people. This arrangement would change dramatically following the events of 1857.
Some dependent colonies appeared to offer relatively limited economic opportunity. Britain's colonies in west Africa, for instance, had lost much of their economic importance following the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1807. However, strategic considerations remained important: islands like Malta and Mauritius provided the Royal Navy with essential naval bases, ensuring British control of important maritime routes.
Colonial governance and administration
Executive power and control
In the Crown colonies, British-appointed governors possessed full executive power (the right to administer and manage territories). British rule almost everywhere depended upon the support of local elites, including hereditary rulers, great landowners and wealthy merchants. This arrangement avoided the expense of maintaining large British administrative structures and military forces across vast territories.
The Colonial Office Hierarchy
British governments made ultimate decisions regarding colonial policy. Governments delegated day-to-day matters to colonial secretaries who presided over the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office, in turn, delegated responsibility to colonial administrators or, in the case of settlement colonies, to the colonists themselves.
This system of delegation meant that local conditions and personalities often shaped colonial policy as much as directives from London.
Legal systems and racial inequality
The Empire lacked legal coherence. Britons transported their own legal traditions to settler colonies, but Roman-Dutch law prevailed in the Cape, Ceylon and British Guiana. Varieties of French law operated in Lower Canada, St Lucia, Mauritius and the Seychelles. Trinidad retained Spanish law, while Cyprus maintained old Turkish law.
The Reality Behind Legal "Impartiality"
Judicial impartiality existed in theory: all people were supposedly equal before the law. In reality, white men were considered superior to all other races, while women did not possess the same legal rights as men. This racial and gender hierarchy permeated the entire imperial legal system.
Autocratic rule and British attitudes
While Britain ruled its colonies autocratically (through non-democratic rule, often by one person), most British administrators believed their rule was enlightened and civilising. They argued that British governance would rescue colonies from backwardness, chaos and violence. Britain maintained this position to justify its control, expecting to preserve order in these territories for a considerable time for the benefit of indigenous (native) peoples.
Local opposition was dealt with harshly, as successful rebellion in any part of the Empire might encourage trouble elsewhere. This fear of the "domino effect" influenced British colonial policy throughout the nineteenth century, leading to swift and often brutal suppression of dissent.
Racial attitudes and assumptions
The Racist Foundations of Empire
The Empire operated on profoundly racist principles, judged by contemporary standards. Most Britons assumed they were God's chosen race and that this divine selection granted them the right to rule over other 'lower' races. White settlers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa shared these assumptions.
To maintain white authority and prevent it from being diluted through interaction with indigenous assemblies or recruitment of indigenous officials, the British opposed integration at every level of white society. The white elite maintained a deliberate social distance from indigenous peoples, implementing strict codification of almost all social contact. Mixed-race marriages were particularly taboo.
Nevertheless, within all colonial areas there existed a minority of white people who believed in studying local languages and traditions. These individuals sought to gain a better understanding of indigenous peoples and their cultures, though they remained a small fraction of the overall white population.
Economic foundations: from mercantilism to free trade
The shift to free trade
The Empire had initially been based on mercantilism (the belief, widely held in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that economic self-sufficiency was the key to national wealth and prosperity, with European states expecting that colonies would provide them with valuable raw materials and markets for their goods). However, by the 1850s, British politicians were committed to free trade (international trade without tariffs being imposed).
The Theory of Free Trade
Unlike conventional imperialism, which profited imperialists at the expense of their subjects, free trade, in theory, profited both Britain and its trading partners. This economic philosophy went further than commercial relations alone. Britain believed that free trade would permit the free passage of ideas as well as goods. Britain would eventually export its institutions and values along with its manufactured products, all of which were considered more advanced than those of other societies.
Britain perceived itself as a liberator, opening up 'closed' societies through free trade. If indigenous peoples rejected or resisted free trade, Britain was prepared to impose it by force. The British government believed such action served its own interests while simultaneously benefiting indigenous peoples in the long term.
The imperialism of free trade: historical interpretation
Historians Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher argued (in the 1950s) that British imperialism was shaped as much by 'informal' imperialism as by 'formal' annexation (taking permanent possession of a country). They stressed the importance of free trade, characterising British imperialism as essentially an 'imperialism of free trade'.
Robinson and Gallagher's Key Argument
According to Robinson and Gallagher, Britain undertook formal, expensive colonisation only as a last resort when other methods of securing commercial interests failed. This interpretation implies that Britain was reluctantly imperialist, at odds with the enormous territorial gains made during this period.
Nevertheless, their analysis remains valuable in demonstrating that the Empire was a complex entity with influence extending well beyond formal political borders. Britain remained determined to safeguard its commercial interests through whatever means proved necessary. If this could be achieved without formal annexation, that approach was preferable for British policymakers.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The British Empire in 1857 comprised two distinct types of territories: colonies of settlement (with substantial British/European populations) and dependent/Crown colonies (with few European settlers, controlled by Britain or British companies).
-
British rule depended heavily on cooperation with local elites rather than large British administrative structures, though ultimate authority rested with British-appointed governors and the Colonial Office in London.
-
The Empire operated on profoundly racist assumptions, with white administrators believing they had a divine right to rule and a civilising mission, while maintaining strict social separation from indigenous populations.
-
By the 1850s, British economic policy had shifted from mercantilism to free trade, with Britain viewing itself as a liberator opening closed societies, though prepared to impose free trade by force if necessary.
-
Historians Robinson and Gallagher characterised British imperialism as primarily an 'imperialism of free trade', arguing that formal annexation was a last resort when informal commercial control proved insufficient.