Influences on Imperial Policy (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Influences on Imperial Policy
What influenced imperial policy?
British imperial expansion was not the product of coordinated conquest plans. Instead, British governments consistently aimed to protect what they perceived as Britain's commercial and strategic interests. Throughout 1857-1967, most British governments and the British population recognised that the Empire served several purposes. Understanding what drove imperial policy requires examining economic motivations, security concerns, public attitudes, and practical considerations about cost and control.
Why Empire mattered to Britain
Between 1857 and 1967, most British governments and citizens believed the Empire delivered tangible benefits. The Empire:
- Enhanced Britain's status as a great power on the world stage
- Supplied reliable sources of food and raw materials while providing guaranteed markets for British manufactured goods
- Offered the Royal Navy essential bases that enabled Britain to control major sea routes
These three benefits - power, provisions, and protection - formed the core justification for maintaining and defending the Empire. British governments viewed these advantages as essential to national interests, even when enthusiasm for territorial expansion declined.
These perceived advantages meant that governments remained committed to defending imperial interests, even when enthusiasm for expansion waned.
Attitudes to expansion before 1870
Before 1870, there was limited appetite for acquiring new territories. The loss of the American colonies in 1783 had demonstrated that colonies might eventually seek independence, raising questions about whether territorial expansion was worthwhile. Given this precedent, there appeared little reason to pursue further acquisitions.
Nevertheless, during the period 1844-70, when indifference to Empire supposedly prevailed, Britain acquired or annexed substantial territories:
Territorial Acquisitions 1844-70:
- New Zealand
- Gold Coast
- Hong Kong
- Natal
- Sierra Leone
- Lower Burma
- Basutoland
- Large areas of India
This extensive list reveals a significant paradox: even during an era of supposed imperial apathy, strategic and commercial considerations continued to drive territorial expansion.
Responding to threats and maintaining authority
When the Empire faced challenges, whether from external powers (such as Russia, Germany or France) or from internal resistance (such as the Indian uprising in 1857-8), Britain demonstrated willingness to enforce its authority. Perceived threats to imperial interests frequently prompted Britain to assume greater responsibilities in contested regions. Establishing a presence in an area often became the foundation for subsequent expansion.
During the 1880s and 1890s, Britain's established interests appeared increasingly vulnerable. Politicians recognised that failing to act might result in losing ground to rival powers. If Britain remained passive, it risked forfeiting territory to competitors. Consequently, political leaders implemented measures to safeguard imperial interests more actively than before. The territorial gains that resulted were substantial, particularly in Africa.
Fear of competition and territorial loss
British governments worried that if rival nations seized territory, Britain's colonies might face threats and British economic interests could suffer. Until the 1930s, Britain possessed sufficient military and economic capacity to resist its imperial competitors.
The 1930s Turning Point:
By the 1930s, however, Britain confronted growing challenges from Germany, Italy and Japan. Economic and financial difficulties arising from the Great Depression curtailed Britain's ability to maintain large military forces across the globe. British governments reduced imperial garrisons wherever feasible. Apart from the Indian army, colonial military units had modest strength and could not reliably suppress local uprisings without support from British troops. Britain had to hope that major internal security crises would not erupt simultaneously with international confrontations.
Britain's changing economic position
During the mid-nineteenth century, Britain's commercial dominance extended far beyond its formal Empire. British industrial output, banking and commercial power gave Britain enormous influence in China, the Middle East and Latin America. It appeared that extensive colonies were unnecessary when Britain could exercise economic control through informal means.
By the 1880s, however, Britain's commercial supremacy was contracting. As Britain's informal empire came under challenge, its formal empire expanded. Imperial expansion in the 1880s reflected Britain's declining dominance rather than demonstrating British power. Instead of enjoying vague commercial influence over the world, Britain now exercised more definite control over specific parts of it. Britain annexed large territories to prevent competitors from imposing high tariffs that would exclude British goods.
Trade policy shifts and the Great Depression
Britain maintained its commitment to free trade until the 1930s. The Great Depression forced a policy reversal. In 1932, the British government introduced tariff protection and imperial preference - a system giving preferential trading terms to Empire and Commonwealth members.
The Economic Significance of Imperial Preference:
By the mid-twentieth century, over half of Britain's trade was conducted with the Empire and Commonwealth. This dramatic shift meant that Britain's economic interests had become deeply intertwined with the imperial system. The policy change transformed the Empire from a strategic asset into an economic necessity.
Britain was therefore determined to preserve its imperial system, as economic interests now depended heavily on it.
The role of public opinion
By the 1870s, British governments had become aware that public opinion often strongly supported imperialism. This public sentiment shaped how governments responded to imperial matters. Popular newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express championed imperialism. These publications both reflected and influenced public and governmental attitudes towards the Empire.
The widespread public support for imperialism meant that politicians faced pressure to defend and extend British interests overseas. Governments could not easily abandon imperial commitments when the electorate viewed the Empire positively.
Cost-effectiveness and cheap imperialism
Those responsible for colonial policy aimed to maintain British interests while minimising expenditure. Lord Salisbury, who served as Conservative leader from 1886 to 1892 and again from 1895 to 1902, provides an instructive example. Although Salisbury strongly supported imperialism, he believed that retrenchment - reducing expenditure - should be a guiding principle of colonial policy.
Britain was determined that colonies should be financially self-sustaining. Wherever possible, officials employed inexpensive methods of control. This approach meant that in many colonies Britain governed through collaboration with traditional leaders rather than direct administration.
Example: Collaboration with Local Leaders
Rather than establishing expensive direct administration systems with large numbers of British officials, colonial authorities frequently worked through existing power structures. Local chiefs, emirs, or traditional rulers maintained their positions and authority, but operated under British supervision. This strategy:
- Minimised the cost of colonial administration
- Reduced the need for large British military garrisons
- Avoided direct confrontation with indigenous populations
- Made colonial rule more sustainable financially
This "indirect rule" system was particularly prevalent in African colonies, where it allowed Britain to maintain control over vast territories with relatively modest expenditure.
Great efforts were made to avoid antagonising indigenous populations, as rebellion would necessitate expensive military intervention.
By the early 1960s, Macmillan's government concluded that there were no sound economic reasons for spending large sums to govern people who did not wish to be ruled. The Empire was consequently abandoned more rapidly than originally intended. The cost of maintaining control had outweighed the benefits.
Remember!
Key Influences on Imperial Policy:
-
British imperial policy was driven by commercial and strategic interests rather than coordinated expansion plans; governments aimed to preserve great power status, secure resources and markets, and maintain naval bases.
-
Expansion occurred even during periods of supposed indifference (1844-70), and accelerated when Britain's informal economic empire faced challenges in the 1880s, leading to formal territorial acquisition particularly in Africa.
-
Fear of competition from Russia, Germany, France, Italy and Japan prompted territorial expansion, but by the 1930s Britain's economic difficulties and military limitations constrained its capacity to defend the Empire effectively.
-
The Great Depression transformed British trade policy; the introduction of tariff protection and imperial preference in 1932 meant that by mid-century over half of Britain's trade depended on the Empire and Commonwealth.
-
Cost-effectiveness shaped imperial policy throughout; Britain governed through collaboration with local leaders to minimise expense, and by the 1960s Macmillan's government abandoned Empire rapidly when colonial rule became economically unjustifiable.