British Colonial Rule (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
British Colonial Rule
British attitudes towards colonial independence
Most British officials expected that colonies would eventually become self-governing states within a multiracial Commonwealth. Between 1914 and 1939, however, minimal progress occurred towards this objective. In most colonies, there appeared to be little internal pressure for 'home rule'. Without demands from colonial populations, Britain showed no willingness to grant independence. The colonies generated substantial economic value that Britain was reluctant to relinquish. Additionally, racial prejudice and ingrained assumptions about British authority made it difficult for colonial officials to consider non-Europeans capable of self-governance. Even certain Labour MPs doubted that self-determination (the power of people of a particular group or nation to choose their own form of government) could realistically be achieved in most dependencies for an extended period.
There was a striking contradiction between British rhetoric about eventual self-governance and the reality of colonial policy. The combination of economic interests, racial attitudes, and lack of internal pressure meant that Britain took virtually no concrete steps toward independence during this period.
Regional patterns of colonial governance
The West Indies
The West Indies saw minimal political development during this period. Britain granted few concessions towards democratic representation. By 1930, approximately 175,000 West Indians (representing one-tenth of the total population) worked in the sugar industry. Trade unions faced prohibition and wages remained low. The Great Depression of the 1930s triggered serious disturbances across several islands. Britain acknowledged that these troubles resulted from previous neglect, and a Royal Commission subsequently recommended increased subsidies to improve social conditions.
Africa
Across the African continent, the political situation varied considerably. The only colonial population granted self-rule during this period comprised the 30,000 white settlers in Southern Rhodesia, who received this status in 1923 despite ruling over approximately one million black people.
The stark disparity between white settlers and African populations is evident in Southern Rhodesia: 30,000 white settlers received self-rule while governing one million black Africans who had no political representation.
Kenya
In 1919, Kenya received representative government through an assembly designed for a white electorate. Between 1919 and 1923, Kenyan white settlers enacted a series of measures that strengthened their control over black populations. These measures required more labour from black Kenyans, reduced their wages, increased their taxation, and restricted their freedom of movement.
In 1923, the newly appointed colonial secretary, the Duke of Devonshire, issued a declaration stating that 'the interests of the [Kenyan] African natives must be paramount'. The Devonshire Declaration prevented white settlers from establishing a self-governing colony within the Commonwealth. By 1939, approximately 21,000 white Kenyans lived in the territory—a ratio of one white person to every 175 Africans.
The Devonshire Declaration of 1923 represented a crucial turning point in British colonial policy. While it prevented white minority rule from becoming entrenched, it did not lead to meaningful political representation for the African majority in the short term.
An East African Dominion?
Leo Amery, appointed colonial secretary in 1925, advocated enthusiastically for Empire expansion. He envisaged creating an East African Dominion dominated by white settlers, encompassing Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland. The Conservative Cabinet showed less enthusiasm for this proposal, and Amery's plans failed to materialise.
A 1929 Royal Commission concluded that African interests required paramount consideration and that white settlers were not the most appropriate trustees of those interests. The Commission determined there should be no responsible government for Kenya and no 'closer union' of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika until proper mechanisms had been developed to consult African opinion.
West Africa
During the 1920s, black people gained positions in the Gold Coast's higher civil service under Governor Guggisberg. Nigeria, being larger and containing more disparate elements than the Gold Coast, proved harder to unify and modernise. Similar to Sierra Leone and the Gambia, Nigeria exhibited divisions between coastal and inland regions. Along the coast, particularly in the capital cities, educated African groups existed who desired greater political power for themselves. However, these coastal elites recognised uneasily that the vast majority of the population living further inland possessed far less sophistication and would certainly gain most political power if British authority withdrew.
West African colonies presented a unique challenge for British administrators. Coastal educated elites sought political power but were simultaneously reluctant to see full democratisation that would transfer power to the inland majority populations.
The nature of British colonial administration
General characteristics
Britain's colonial record in Africa between the wars was poor, though arguably superior to that of other European states in most respects. Britain governed through local collaborators, relying on white prestige and the threat of force. One governor of Nigeria observed that 'The great merit of British rule is that there is so little of it'. The British undoubtedly extracted resources where possible. In the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia between 1930 and 1940, they collected $2.4 million in taxes whilst providing only $136,000 in development grants. So little money was invested in Nyasaland that workers emigrated to the more racially hostile environments of Rhodesia and South Africa.
Case Study: Economic Exploitation in Northern Rhodesia
The copper belt of Northern Rhodesia provides a stark illustration of British economic priorities:
Taxes collected (1930-1940): $2.4 million
Development grants provided: $136,000
Ratio: For every dollar invested in development, Britain extracted approximately $17.60 in taxes. This represents a development-to-extraction ratio of less than 6%.
The Colonial Service
The 1920s and 1930s represented the peak period for the Colonial Service (the people who worked for the British Colonial Office), which attracted much of the elite from Britain's public schools and universities. The character of British rule in the dependencies is sometimes portrayed as despotism exercised by pompous and bigoted men in shorts and pith helmets. Alternatively (though less fashionably), it is depicted as a selfless struggle against the poverty and ignorance of primitive populations.
In reality, the number of British officials remained small and the financial resources of most colonies severely limited. Colonial rule necessarily relied on locally recruited subordinates to staff both bureaucracies and security forces.
The reality of the Colonial Service lay between these two extreme portrayals. With limited British personnel and constrained financial resources, the system depended heavily on local collaborators and subordinates to function—a fact that complicates simplistic narratives of colonial rule.
Limited development investment
Relatively little money was invested in colonial economic development, education, or public health. Government policy had long maintained that colonies should be financially self-supporting. Therefore, to fulfil what Britain claimed was its 'positive trust' to its colonial subjects, minimal action was taken. In most African colonies, fewer than ten per cent of black children attended school (most of which provided substandard education). A governor of Tanganyika characterised his colony as 'lying in mothballs' between the wars. This description applies aptly to most dependencies. Few territories experienced substantial economic prosperity, and most suffered severely from the Depression of the 1930s.
The principle that colonies should be "financially self-supporting" became a convenient justification for severe underinvestment in development, education, and public health. With fewer than 10% of black children attending school in most African colonies, Britain failed to fulfill its claimed "positive trust" toward colonial populations.
Key Points to Remember:
- British rule between 1914-39 showed minimal progress towards colonial self-determination, despite rhetoric about eventual Commonwealth membership
- Only white minorities (30,000 in Southern Rhodesia, 21,000 in Kenya) received self-rule or representative government; the Devonshire Declaration (1923) prevented further white settler dominance
- Economic exploitation characterised British rule: Northern Rhodesia's copper belt yielded $2.4 million in taxes against only $136,000 in development grants
- The Colonial Service relied heavily on local collaborators due to small British official numbers and limited financial resources
- Investment in colonial development, education, and health remained minimal—fewer than 10% of black children attended school in most African colonies