Imperialism and Empire in Great Britain

Imperialism and Empire in Great Britain

The Debate of the Late Victorian Era

            At its peak, the British Empire had territorial holdings in every continent on Earth save Antarctica. Most of the first-world powers of modern times were once colonies of Great Britain, including the world’s only national superpower: the United States of America. Britain’s start towards imperial glory began, of all places, in northern France as Duke William I led his army to victory over the ruling Saxon king and set up his kingdom in London in 1066. Six hundred years later England was beginning to colonize parts of Northern America and according to The Encyclopedia of the Victorian World (p. 61), the British Empire by 1897 ruled over one quarter of the world’s population at just over 370 million people, and its flag was the standard over 11 million square miles of land. By the late nineteenth century, a great debate had begun between traditional, conservative, pro-imperial thinkers and policy makers, and the reform-oriented, liberal, anti-imperialists. This hotly contested debate spilled out of the halls of Parliament and into the public square through a series rousing articles written in contemporary periodicals. In defiance of the long-standing traditions of imperialism and moving against the entrenched Conservative philosophy that assailed them, several Liberal thinkers of the time sought to secure the future of Britain through the disintegration of the Empire.

            The notion of empire, while seemingly idealized by the British, did not originate in London. The historical and archaeological evidence for imperialism and its custom of territorial acquisition date back to 3000 BCE with the establishment of the first Egyptian state. From the rise and fall of Egypt there is a clear succession of imperial power in the ancient Near East through Assyria, into Neo-Babylonia, Media-Persia, Greco-Macedonia, and then Rome. It was through Roman influence that Europe as a whole, and Britain in particular, began to understand the power of imperialism. Over the 1000 years that had directly followed the fall of Rome the seeds of imperialism embedded themselves as the penultimate achievement of European kings. The Holy Roman Empire, Habsburg Empire, and Spanish Empire all contributed to the European imperial model. With the discovery of the “New World” in the Americas, English monarchs capitalized on a new means of empire building: trans-oceanic colonization (Nineteenth-Century Britain, p. 219). By the late eighteenth century Britain was able to secure and grow holdings in North America, the Caribbean, South America, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific, and South Africa (Encyclopedia of the Victorian World, p. 61) either directly or through proxies like the Honourable East India Company. And, as stated before, by the late nineteenth century the British Empire was the largest power in the world (Nineteenth Century Britain pp. 219-220). It was in this climate of imperial superiority that many intellectuals persuaded by conservative schools of thought boasted of England’s power and global influence and clearly illustrate the prevailing opinions of contemporary Englishmen. The perception of British self-importance was perhaps best captured in this statement made by Victorian writer Edward Dicey when he said:

“…  [if] the United Kingdom [of Great Britain] would be chosen for obliteration… its sudden disappearance would cause the maximum disturbance to the denizens of this planet.” (Empire and Imperialism, “Mr. Gladstone and Our Empire”, p. 213)

The ideological propensity of Conservative thinkers and politicians to react against the progressive reforms of the Liberals led much of the Conservative identity to be occupied by preservation of British imperial holdings. This ardent defense of the Empire and imperialism contributed to much of the malicious and inflammatory rhetoric leveled at Liberal intellectuals which is illustrated herein. While many Conservative writers and essayists criticized William Gladstone and his ilk with thinly-veiled charges of treason against the Empire, Liberal thinkers engaged in this debate sought, ultimately, the preservation of the nation through the drastic measure of imperial disintegration.

            For starters, many Liberal thinkers like J.A. Hobson, a popular Victorian economist, viewed the Empire as incredibly immoral and unjust. Decrying the practice of imperialism as an “ancient and medieval” practice (Politics and Empire in Victorian Britain, “Imperialism: A Study” p. 304), Hobson then delivers a scathing chastisement by claiming that imperialism “[attacks] upon the liberties and the existence of weaker or lower races” and smacks of “greed and self-aggrandisement [sic] at the expense of others.” (p. 305) Of course, not all Liberals thought the practices of empire were thoroughly corrupt. William Gladstone, four-time Prime Minister of England and poster-child for the Liberal movement, praised Britain’s imperial and colonial history as the means by which America was settled, naming it the “grandest monument ever erected by a people of modern times” (Politics and Empire in Victorian Britain, “England’s Mission”, p. 135). He, unlike many of his political allies, even went so far as to call imperialism an innate propensity to each Briton, much like sight or hearing. (p.135) In spite of that, however, he lamented that it was through arrogance and stubbornness that those American colonies were lost to England. Indeed, if there was ever a place of common ground between Gladstone and his Conservative counterparts like Edward Dicey or Benjamin Disraeli it was in their common view that the English held the moral and ethical high ground in matters of foreign relations. Where Gladstone would disagree with his distinguished political and ideological foes, however, is that some of England’s imperial policies and occasional mismanagement of colonial problems had jeopardized the moral authority England held over her rivals. (pp. 136-137)

            This point was certainly accented with Robert Lowe’s painful charge that in the acquisition of India British troops had been denigrated to the status of thugs and mercenaries for the East India Company by supplanting lawful kingdoms, committing theft, plunder, and rape of “innocent women”. (Empire and Imperialism, “The Value to the United Kingdom of the Foreign Dominions of the Crown”, p. 112) His experience as a statesman in both England and the frontier colony of Australia added a certain weight to the debate in which he charged that the chief material desire that the possession of India met for the British people was English vanity. (p. 111) These men argued passionately about the potential hazards of treating colonial denizens so capriciously. In what must’ve amounted to a degree of foresight or perhaps just an understanding of human nature, it seemed to many of these Liberal thinkers that such moral indiscretions, now described as human rights violations, would lead to popular revolt and the tarnishing of Britain’s reputation as a respectable moral leader in the world. To them, holding on to the Empire was not worth the price of an honorable reputation. And as in the case of America, as Gladstone points out, such blatant disregard for colonial needs or concern resolution would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Empire by force instead of on amiable terms as friends and national allies. 

            But Liberal objection to the continuance of the Empire was not simply a conceptual one. Perhaps more powerful than charges of gross injustice, greed, and moral blight were accusations that the colonies and imperial dominions robbed from the tax-paying pockets of the British people. Some Conservative thinkers, like Victorian-era historian James A. Froude, argued that the colonial holdings of Britain offered England “all and more than all that we require” including “virgin soil sufficient to employ and feed five times as many people as now” exist in Britain. (Empire and Imperialism, “England and her Colonies”, pp. 44-45) This is a very common theme echoed in the writings of many Conservatives of the time like Dicey and Disraeli, but seem to be soundly refuted by the careful, analytical, and substantive research by Liberal politician Charles Dilke. In his essay on fiscal and economic relations with the colonies and imperial holdings, entitled Greater Britain, Dilke argues that the cost of maintaining the infrastructure of defense and government for the Empire was grossly excessive. Using Canada as the most flagrant example, he quotes a statistic of £3M annually being spent by the British government on defense while the colonial government contributes nothing. And as if to add insult to injury, he claims that the colonial government exercises tariffs on British goods in order to stimulate local business. So, according to Dilke, the colonies engage in a practice of taking British money for colonial needs but do not make up for it in free trade. (Empire and Imperialism, “[From] Greater Britain, p. 21) In what amounts to a “silver bullet” to the fiscal advantage of the Empire, Dilke maintains that some of the better trading partners for Britain are those territories that were once colonies but had either been ceded to other nations (like the Ionian Islands) or had become independent (like the United States). Also according to Dilke, Canada’s trade with England constituted less than forty percent of its total trade, while America’s trade with England ranged from fifty-five to sixty-five percent of total trade. To this he remarked:

“Common institutions, common freedom, and common tongue have evidently far more to do with trade than union has; and for purposes of commerce and civilization, America is a truer colony of Britain than Canada.” (p. 24)

In what reminds a modern American of a policy statement made from our own modern Congress, Dilke argues that the funds of the treasury are better spent on the strengthening of Great Britain rather than the maintenance of an ungrateful Greater Britain. Every pound sterling that is spent on the upkeep of imperial infrastructure essentially weakens the defense and domestic infrastructure of United Kingdom. According to Liberal thinkers like Dilke, if Britain is to have hope to survive the inevitable “rainy days” of a national lifetime it must be made to stop squandering its resources on an Empire only too glad to relax on its charity.

            In what probably amounts to the most controversial argument fielded during the multi-decade debate, several Liberal participants argued that the greatest threat to the future of Britain and the Empire was the Empire and imperialism itself. J.A. Hobson assessed imperialism as it related to Victorian Britain by calling it “a constant menace and of perturbation to the peace and progress of mankind” and also a “retrograde step fraught with grave perils to the cause of civilization.” (Politics and Empire in Victorian Britain, “Imperialism: A Study”, pp. 305-306) Conservative critic Edward Dicey, who claimed that the Empire was the security of England, hotly contested this belief in the ultimately self-destructive nature of imperialism. If the Empire were to disappear, he suggested, England’s days would be numbered. (Empire and Imperialism, “Mr. Gladstone and Our Empire”, p. 212) Not surprisingly do we see Conservative politician and Prime Minister of Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, claiming that through these haphazard notions the Liberal Party and its supporters were a great danger to England. He contested that arguments like those of Hobson and other Liberals amounted to an “effort so continuous… and carried on with so much ability and acumen… to effect the disintegration of the Empire of England.” (Politics and Empire in Victorian Britain, “Conservative and Liberal Principles”, p. 132) Insofar as one is able to read between the proverbial “lines” it becomes very clear that Disraeli and Dicey were claiming that the policies of Gladstone’s government and the arguments of these other Liberal intellectuals were destructive and even treasonous. To men like Disraeli, the Liberal anti-imperialist was public enemy number one. But perhaps, as we are seeing through the writings of these men, that “anti-imperialist” is something of a misused label? While it is difficult to consider a better moniker or descriptor, it seems by their statements that Liberals, by definition, were not anti-imperial. They thought, however, that the strongest way to prepare for a more competitive and possibly conflict-filled future was to cut with the dependencies placed upon Britain by its colonies and imperial holdings. As we can see from his essay entitled “The Integrity of the British Empire”, Frederic Rogers, Lord Blachford did not see the dissolution of the Empire as a means unto itself. Rather, he argued that all efforts should be placed towards the setting up of self-sustaining national governments for each colony (especially those ones with a majority population of British citizens) to the end of creating a great confederation of British nations not unlike the beginning government of the United States. In this essay Rogers, an English Lord that worked in the British Colonial office, helped found the British newspaper The Guardian, and friend of Prime Minister Gladstone, argues that the colonies each are “’young nations’, whose sole separation from the parent stock is a question of time.” (Empire and Imperialism, “The Integrity of the British Empire, p. 121) Taking a page from American government, Rogers envisioned this confederation of British colonies to engage the whole of the British Empire in a semi-federal system in which each of these young nations bands together in an act of union to provide for the common defense and acts as a single entity in foreign policy but carries their own domestic weight and governs themselves as they see fit without the inevitably unpleasant imperial interference (p. 128). This system, he argues, would provide for a stronger defense of Britain as it would be predicated not on imperial obligation but on a common unity between trusted and friendly allies.

Yet insofar as conservatives like Edward Dicey argued that the strength of Britain rested solely on the shoulders of the Empire’s military contribution, Charles Dilke rebuts by noting matter-of-factly that “in war-time, we defend ourselves: we defend the colonies only during peace.” (Empire and Imperialism, “Greater Britain”, p. 23) He then explains the source of his argument: “In short, as matters now stand, the colonies are a source of military weakness to us, and our ‘protection’ of them is a source of danger to the colonists” (p. 23). Not only is the standing army for the defense of Britain reduced due to the garrisoning on troops in lands that span the globe and marines that protect her navies, but the fact that those colonies are holdings of Britain also makes them a target to any rising foe wishing to challenge British supremacy. And if that wasn’t enough, there were any number of documented grievances against the gross misappropriation of power by the British army. This is a common complaint raised by any nation, state, or province that perceived the presence of an occupying force on their land. And there should be no question that, by and large, British troops were regarded by colonial locals as an occupying force regardless of London’s best intentions. And for these reasons, and more, did Liberal participants in this debate argue that the greatest enemy of Britain’s survival was Britain’s Empire.

So while it may have seemed logical to accuse Liberals of being an enemy to the British Empire or that they sought the destruction or “cosmopolitanism” of English rule, the true motivations of these leaders becomes clear. By disintegrating the Empire, Britain could limit challenges to its moral and ethical reputation in the world, eliminate a gross and unnecessary drain on money and economic resources, increase trade, and consolidate military resources to the primary defense of the British Isles and a few select military outposts. By completing these tasks, William Gladstone, J.A. Hobson, Charles Dilke, Robert Lowe, and Frederic Rogers hoped to strengthen Britain against inevitable rivalry and possible war. There are several strong reasons this debate is significant. Chiefly among them is the noteworthy fact that immediately following the Victorian period terms like “imperialism” and “empire” became relative slurs against governments and politicians. Western powers like Britain and America began to describe their ideological foes as “empires” and a popular insult on rival politicians in modern climate is to call them an “imperialist”. While this debate was by no means the first debate over the righteousness of imperialism, it certainly seems to have put the proverbial “nail in the coffin” on the subject. What’s more, as colonies like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada slowly gained their independence from Britain, we are sure to assume that resources were freed up, both military and economic, in the early twentieth century as the world plowed headlong into two World Wars – one of which Britain barely escaped intact. While not attempting to insinuate too causal of a relationship between the disintegration certain Imperial holdings and English victory in the Battle of Britain, one is lead to wonder what might have happened if Britain’s military had still been deployed across the globe futilely defending many colonies that never came under direct attack by Axis forces. And, perhaps, Americans of today should pay attention to the arguments and examples laid out by the Liberals in this debate. As America struggles to defend its own “imperial” interests, though we would never refer to it that way, the clouds of another great war do seem to be looming in the horizon. It may be that we soon find ourselves in the position of late-Victorian Britain and will have wished very much that we did not have military and financial dependencies in our “colonies” and “holdings”. If America is to survive our own “rainy days”, it may be necessary to disintegrate our own empire as the Victorians did with theirs.