Imperial Federation: Britain's Plan to Unite the Empire

in 1883 the historian john robert seeley wrote one of the most influential histories of the british empire ever published though on the surface nothing more than a somewhat revisionist essay regarding the rise of british power contained within was something of a political manifesto from seeley he argued that the settler colonies often ignored and considered mere appendages to britain ought to instead have been seen as an extension of the british nation as such he offered two possibilities for the future of the british empire either the independence of these distant colonies or alternatively the formation of a globe-spanning imperial superstate seeley was not the first to argue for such imperial unity but his arguments in particular gave rise to a new popular idea generally referred to as imperial federation it is not coincidence that it was the 1880s imperial federation became a prevalent idea the victorian high noon of british power was over in most cases britain was no longer able to enforce its will on any state that dared defy it the united states had come out of its civil war more centralized and energetic than ever before britain's great asiatic rival the russian empire was resurgent under alexander iii after years of stagnation under alexander ii whilst in europe the balance of power had been thrown off kilter by the unification of germany in 1882 the occupation of egypt had infuriated almost all of the european great powers britain it seemed was increasingly alone and under threat from the unified land empires of the world it was in this context of increasing british insecurity regarding their international position that the idea of imperial federation began to gain traction the basic proposal was that the settler colonies canada the cape the colonies that would later make up australia and new zealand should reform into a legal and politically binding federation replacing the odd collection of ties to the crown fear of other predatory powers and vague sense of britishness that currently kept the empire loyal the justification for the plan was the british diaspora contained within these colonies their populations for all intents and purposes were british and seeley argued they were extensions of the british nation rather than countries in and of themselves this was to a large extent correct in the 1880s the historian john darwin has described how most settler colonies were firmly committed to their britannic identity indeed in many cases they were more keen on the british connection than the british themselves were bored salisbury at one point describing australian colonists as the most unreasonable people he had ever heard of after they demanded the annexation of the new hebrides likewise though not fitting in with seeley's view of a greater british race most natives in the settler colonies had little problem with the imperial connection per se proposals for how the federation would actually operate were always vague it was generally supposed that the colonies would retain the large degree of internal self-governance that was being increasingly devolved to them in the 1880s but major empire-wide departments such as defence and foreign policy would instead be put before an imperial parliament in london at which there would be representation from all of the settler colonies while london's authority over domestic policy would begin and end was never decided perhaps something akin to the power westminster maintains over the scottish parliament today india and the other smaller colonies and trading outposts would continue to be ruled directly supporters generally supposed this would give the empire a sense of direction for once instead of the drift-like policy it then had summed up in seeley's famous phrase it seems as if we've conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind the plan did undoubtedly have great influence within the empire seeley's book inspired a new generation of imperial politicians border rosebury alfred milder and joseph chamberlain were just some within the british elite that were at least supportive if not wholly committed to imperial unity it also spawned advocacy groups like the imperial federation league throughout britain and the colonies it seemed then that there might have been a legitimate way forward for imperial federation yet the idea never came close to being implemented the two dominant political figures of the era gladstone and salisbury both disregarded imperial federation both for different reasons gladstone in general disliked the empire being anything other than a trading and civilizing force and had little time for imperial policy in general salisbury on the other hand did believe in imperialism but viewed the federation as a fantasy that would never be able to reconcile the competing interests of the colonies into a single super state the idea did find a more perceptive audience during the brief premiership of lord rosebury but he was too inconsistent and in power for too short a period of time to seriously advance the scheme by the turn of the century the idea was beginning to lose traction and the leagues were being wound up yet it somewhat ironically finally found a politician with a clear vision as to at least a pathway to federation joseph chamberlain was in the words of winston churchill the man who made the weather he had turned down the home office to become colonial secretary and since reading seeley's book had become doggedly committed to imperial expansion abroad and social reform at home he almost single-handedly managed britain's war effort during the boer war and had been delighted by the aid the settler colonies had offered with an election due in 1906 he thought it the perfect time to give the empire a real sense of direction the proposal he came up with was imperial preference in simple terms free trade within the empire tariffs on foreign goods this he argued would at least open the road for an imperial federation but despite chamberlain's claim that the average britain was imperial minded imperial preference and the rise in food prices that would come with the abandonment of free trade instead scared the british public and the proposals were never implemented when world war one came though no movement towards federation had been made it was still generally proclaimed as a war for the empire but instead of strengthening the bond between the colonies the conflict saw the emergence of national identities among them instead with it the whole justification for the proposals that the colonies formed a greater britain collapsed some ideas associated with federation would go on to be implemented such as a version of imperial preference but ultimately siri's first prediction that the empire would eventually give way to independent states if not unified was to prove correct even if the federation did never come close to becoming a serious geopolitical entity it is nonetheless an interesting counterfactual as well as evidence that the british empire never had a central direction it wasn't imbued with the manifest destiny of america or an unstoppable nationalism like germany or italy it was at heart an essentially reactive force with little in the way of serious long-term planning as to its direction

Channel: Old Britannia

Views: 422,698

Keywords:

Id: BWLnTmchdic

Length: 7min 8sec (428 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 30 2022