Misich 1

Courtney Misich January 12, 2017

HST 670 Dr. Conn

Imperial’s Debate in the First British Empire

Introduction

The British Empire was founded on the political orientation that had evolved by the

English then incorporated in Britain and the empire. These ideas of liberty, equality, and rule of

law are similar to what would be called liberalism. However the idea of an empire was never

completely determined in Britain, the debate over the justification and the benefits of empire

continued from the founding until the empires end. The most dynamic component of the debate

is during the First British Empire, where those in the metropolis or Britain feared the negative

effects of imperialism in the country causing ruin. The origins of the empire faced the question

of justifying the empire and consolidating it under a united British imperial identity. Then,

during the eighteenth- century, a debate developed over the necessity of the empire in order to

protect Britain, this culminates with the American Revolution which called the constructed

British imperialism into question. At the start of the second British Empire, the identity and

function of the empire had to be reconstructed which ignored the debate and altered the type of

British Empire. This exploration into imperialism and liberal ideas, argues that the British

Empire was built and developed on the liberal ideas such as liberty, equality and rule of law;

however, this conflicted with the realities of empire creating doubts about the necessity of

controlling colonies which caused the empire to be altered.

Building the Empire

Misich 2

Providing the origin of an empire demonstrates the initial ideals and goals that are

significant to the mother nation. In Britain, the British emphasis of their empire was one of

maritime, commerce, and liberty which they attempted to incorporate into their colonies such as

their North American ones. The question of empire delves into the discussion of the beginning,

which is a source of contention depending on the historian’s definition as David Armitage states

“it will be argued that the emergence of the concept of the ‘British Empire’ as a political

community encompassing England and Wales, Scotland, Protestant Ireland, the British islands of

the Caribbean and the mainland colonies of North America, was long drawn out, and only

achieved by the late seventeenth century at the earliest.”1 This argument about the origins as

Armitage states was drawn out because several other possibilities of the beginnings of the empire

that provide contextualization for the development of an integrated Britain and formed their view

of empire. These various sources of contention provide for historical discussion and debate that

Armitage explores as Carla Pestana summarizes the contention as “authors labored to develop

concepts of imperium (sovereignty) and dominion (property) that would justify the creation of a

British empire centered in the Atlantic basin.” 2 The legal terms that the British debate,

Machiavelli and Sallust arguments and Richard Hakluyt and Samuel Purchas, that attempted to

place the British Empire within a Protestant, commercial, maritime, and free ideology. This

ideology contains similar elements of liberalism and has the tendency to be flexible like

liberalism in order to continue.

As this ideology is developing, Linda Colley demonstrates that the root of the growing

concepts of British identity develops through the emplacement of the English, Scottish, and

1 David Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000), 7.

2 Reviewed Work: The Ideological Origins of the British Empire by David Armitage, Review by: Carla

Gardina Pestana, the William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), 543.

Misich 3

Welsh against the figurative ‘other’ in relation to the empire. The legal debates over imperial

ideology and its results influence the development of the British identity that will continue the

debate surrounding the British Empire. Colley argues the progress of the British identity was a

consequence of wars between Britain and France, which resulted in the examination of their

organizations and transforming their countries. This sense of opposition allowed for England to

expand to its neighbors that fit within its identity, such as Wales and Scotland that will add to its

imperial ideas and growth. Armitage also discussed this tendency of the British to use their

memory as a unifying factor and commonality with Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in order to

expand its empire and its imperial ideas. Colley discusses this English hegemony to its neighbors

in response to an outside threat as “the Welsh, the Scottish, and the English remain in many ways

distinct peoples in cultural terms…. Instead, Britishness, was superimposed over an array of

internal differences in response to contact with the Other, and above all in response to conflict

with the Other.”3 The other becomes the contrast to the British idea of Empire and its liberal

values since this is what makes the British successful in their imperial ventures. As Britain built

its imperial ideology and identity upon the ideas of liberalism, this has been the greatest source

of contention within its ideology to make these ideas complicit. Keith Windschuttle states this

conflict correctly as “the argument has focused on the political consequences of empire, but

since the seventeenth-century it has also been a matter of sustained debate about economic

policy…the intellectual tradition that has raised the most objections to imperialism has not been

Marxism but liberalism.”4 Although Marxism is later than the first British Empire, Windschuttle

3 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 (Yale University Press, 1992), 6.

4 Kramer, Hilton, and Keith Windschuttle. "Liberalism and Imperialism." In The Betrayal of Liberalism: How

the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control, (Chicago,

Ill.: Ivan R. Dee, 1999), 74.

Misich 4

is correct that the fiercest debate is over the economic policy and the source of intellectual debate

results from liberalism, which is demonstrated by the arguments of Edmund Burke and Adam

Smith in the eighteenth century.

The Eighteenth Century Debate

During the eighteenth-century, the British Empire faced continuous wars and additions to

the empire after the French and Indian War. The additions to the empire fueled the debates over

the British’s view of imperialism and how to treat the diversity that was now their empire. This

culminates with the American and French Revolutions, where the foundations of British

imperialism were shaken to its core and forced the British to change their method of empire. The

first British Empire was based as Windschuttle states, “the liberal idea of improvement and

retained a faith in free trade, both of which Britain hoped could be exported worldwide.

Moreover, the gentlemanly capitalist model, while obviously expansionist, was neither inevitably

imperialist nor militarist… it became imperialist… primarily to protect its investments.”5 This is

the idea that those in favor of empire endorsed during the eighteenth-century, a commercial

empire spreading liberal ideas, trade, and improving their colonies. As for those against, the fear

of the empire becoming so unstable, politically and economically, that it will destroy the empire

and the metropolis. Windschuttle describes the European consensus about empires at the end of

the eighteenth-century as, “most of ‘enlightened’ Europe agreed that large-scale overseas

dependencies were not only economically unviable but politically undesirable because, as the

British had found in 1776, the French had discovered in the 1790s, and Spain was to confirm in

the 1820s and 1830s, they could even threaten the stability of the metropolitan powers.”6 As the

5 Hilton and Windschuttle, “Liberalism and Imperialism,” 79.

6 Hilton and Windschuttle, “Liberalism and Imperialism,” 78.

Misich 5

idea of empires being consumed like the Roman model that Europeans feared, the enlightened

minds of the age debated over how to prevent their country’s consumption and how to prosper.

The two major eighteenth-century British figures that opposed the expanse of empire were Adam

Smith and Edmund Burke.

As the Scottish moral philosopher, Adam Smith, worked in the mid-eighteenth-century,

he began to compile an extensive argument against colonialism. His well-known ideas were

developed in this vein with free market and free trade to combat an interventionist mercantilism

and the system of colonial monopoly, both which Smith argues harms the mother country’s

economy. As Bernard Semmel summarizes Smith’s economic reason for adapting British

imperial economic policy stating, “the distances involved in overseas colonial trade made for less

frequent turnovers of capital, and therefore such trade was less remunerative to the

nation…contrary to the mercantilist view, Britain would benefit if the restrictions of the

commercial system were removed…for the mercantile system had sacrificed the interest of the

home consumer of colonial goods to the interest of the producer and the trader…the high profits

of the colonial monopoly had depressed domestic wages and rents and injured all trades in which

no monopoly existed.”7 Smith’s argument over the economic consequences was an attempt to

demonstrate the costs of the empire in the country, while also stating that if the colonies were

independent then there could be a mutually beneficial free trade system between them. This was

Smith’s solution to the loss of the colonies that would maintain British commercial dominance

without sacrificing the country’s ideology or liberal ideals.

77 Bernard Semmel, The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from Adam Smith

to Lenin, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993) 19.

Misich 6

However for Adam Smith, the economic side of the empire was not the direction of his

focus but the political difficulties that developed. Emma Rothschild summarizes Smith in the

empire as, “an individual who was preoccupied with the political difficulties of empire, who was

intensely conscious of the public dramas of the times in respect of the British, French, and

Moghul empires, and who lived, in London and Scotland, in a milieu of hectic imperial

connections.”8 This concept as Smith centered in the empire can be seen throughout his works on

colonialism. Smith’s life in Scotland also plays greatly in his views of empire, where Scots made

up the majority of those in imperial postings after the Act of Union in 1707 and the failed

Jacobite invasion in 1745. These concepts of empire aided Smith in building his concept of the

progress of societies, which is his cultural argument against imperialism that explains European

are refined societies that conquer societies in early stages. Smith’s views of colonialism from his

view of the progress of society are summarized by Jennifer Pitt, “view of historical development

as at once universal or natural, and also shot through with contingency, indicates that the use of

despotic powers for the purpose of inducing progress in a backward society is both unnecessary

and presumptuous. Smith’s theory suggests such ambitions rest on false confidence.”9 Smith’s

development politically with this cultural aspect of the progress of societies demonstrates his

belief that imperialism is not a viable option based on the ideology and development that the

British have taken. This ideology and liberal ideals continuous throughout Smith’s arguments

against colonialism with his views of sympathy aiding the British with adapting their empire to

these views. Rothschild describes this from one of Smith’s early works in 1764 stating, “the

colonists of Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas were, by contrast, and despite the oppressions

8 Sankar Muthu and Emma Rothschild, "Adam Smith in the British Empire," In Empire and Modern Political

Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 185.

9 Jennifer Pitts, A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France, (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2005) 34.

Misich 7

of colonial policy, ‘descended from worthy ancestors, from whom he has not proved them to

degenerated.”10 Smith’s uses the American colonists to demonstrate his ability to sympathize

with those who have been oppressed through colonialism, but who have retained their dignity

without being crushed by imperialism.

While Smith understood that attempting to convert Britain to yield up its empire was

foolish, as previously stated he wished for them to adapt their imperial ambitions to live up to

their ideology and ideals. Yet Smith was facing intense imperial and nationalistic rhetoric as Pitts

details:

The imperialists’ rhetoric, [Kathleen] Wilson argues, ‘homogenized’ the empire,

rhetorically eliding the differences among the various British imperial territories and

presuming the empire ‘to consist of flourishing and commercially viable colonies,

populated largely by free (white) British subjects and supplemented by commercial

outposts in ‘exotic’ climes.’ This homogenization move enabled supporters of

mercantilist policies and imperial expansion to suggest that the empire was associated

with the spread of liberty and free trade rather than with the domination of subject

peoples.11

This concept of the British Empire was given to the public and was what Smith was fighting

against, mainly because the situations of the colonies were misrepresented, but also that this view

would over extend the British and recreate the fall of Rome. Smith used his economic evidence

to reinforce this thought of a politically, culturally, and economically unstable imperial dream

that would induce the British nation and its empire to give way as Rome had made out.

10 Muthu and Rothschild, “Adam Smith in the British Empire,” 193.

11 Pitts, A Turn, 52-53.

Misich 8

Edmund Burke shared Adam Smith’s moral philosophy with ideas of justice, humanity,

sympathy, and an appreciation of cultural variety. Moreover, both men worried about the effects

of imperial influence on the ideology and ideals of Britain that would contribute to the collapse

of the commonwealth and empire. Pitt describes the influence on Burke’s imperial criticism, “his

understanding of moral judgement, for instance, shared a great deal with the strand of moral

theory developed by Adam Smith and David Hume. The notions of sympathy and moral

imagination enabled Burke to elaborate a critique of British imperial practices that had

theoretical affinities with the thought of Smith, but that was unparalleled in its deep and

sustained engagement with imperial policies.”12 The notions of sympathy, moral imagination,

and justice were present in Smith’s arguments, however, for Burke; it was the lack of these views

that contributed to him challenging the empire with the most famous critique being the Warren

Hastings impeachment case. First Burke’s overall critique of British imperialism is “the British

people’s failure to regard their colonized subjects, above all Indians and Irish Catholics, as

appropriate subjects of sympathy encouraged the unchecked, systematic abuse of power that too

often characterized British imperial rule.”13 This was for Burke, the problem that would allow for

the collapse of Britain, which he fought to preserve. Burke crusaded in Parliament against the

East India Company, for the Americans, and to increase the rights of the Irish and Catholics

within Britain.

Beginning with India, Burke did extensive research into the history and culture of the

region without ever visiting it. His main concern was for the effects that the British Imperialism

was having on the region and the fear that they would undermine the traditions of Britain, back

home. Uday S, Mehta describes his concern, “Burke was primarily concerned with communities

12 Pitts, A Turn, 60. 13 Pitts, A Turn, 60.

Misich 9

that were threatened. The greed and financial corruption of the empire, the capricious brutality

with which Governor-General Hastings and his associates abused their office and power, the

arbitrary and feigned concern that Parliament occasionally showed towards these and other

abuses.”14 The rationale behind Burke’s attack on the East India Company is out of sympathy for

the India, who have their home pillaged, but also for the strong sense of commitment to the

British ideology and ideals. During the Hastings case, Hastings defends his actions in India with

the claim of geographic morality which to Hastings meant that he acted in the context of the

region that he ruled. However, Burke challenges this idea, stating:

I must do justice to the East. I assert that their mortality is equal to ours, in whatever

regards the duties of governors, fathers, and superiors; and I challenge the world to show

in any modern European book more true morality and wisdom than is to be found in the

writings of Asiatic men in high trust, and who have been counsellors to princes. If this be

the true morality of Asia, as I affirm and can prove that it is, the pleas founded on Mr.

Hastings’s geographical morality is annihilated.15

This is the challenge to British ideals and ideology that Burke cannot uphold, that Hastings has

disregarded them and in doing so attacked the foundations of the empire and nation.

Additionally, this reaffirms what Mehta described as Burke’s primary critique that the British

lacked sympathy to the colonial subjects which would cause greed and corruption to become

rampant throughout the empire and nation leading to its collapse like Rome. Pitts expands on

Burke’s fear to one of an inherent imperial structural problems, arguing, “the governor-general’s

actions as symptoms of much deeper, in fact systemic, corruption and abuse of power by the

14 Sankar Muthu and Uday S. Mehta, "Edmund Burke on Empire, Self-Understanding, and Sympathy," In

Empire and Modern Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 163. 15 Muthu and Mehta, “Edmund Burke on Empire,” 178-9.

Misich 10

British in India. Burke’s critiques operated on three levels: he delineated the crimes of Hastings

as an individual, the structural vices of the East India Company, and the failings of British rule in

India generally. The last he portrayed as consequences of more widespread British moral and

political deficiencies, notably Britons’ restricted moral community, presumptuousness in judging

other societies and complacency about the use of their burgeoning power around the globe.”16

Pitts’ summary of Burke’s critique at the Hastings’ Trial demonstrates how Burke viewed the

threat to Britain and its empire. Burke’s belief in the tradition and standing of Britain’s ideals

and ideology is shown throughout his attacks on its imperialism. It is clear that Burke believes

the largest threat to Britain’s liberal ideals is its imperial ambitions which allow for the ideals to

be ignored or twisted for one’s own profit.

Conclusion

This exploration into imperialism and liberal ideals demonstrated that the British Empire

was built and developed on the liberal ideals such as liberty, equality and rule of law; however,

the realities of empire caused the liberal ideals to be threatened. However the idea of an empire

was never completely determined in Britain, the debate over the justification and the benefits of

empire continued from the founding until the empires end. Men of the eighteenth-century fought

for their protection in order to defend Britain. The defense placed by Edmund Burke and Adam

Smith allowed for the problems within the empire to be shown in the light. However, as a result

of the American and French Revolution, the Second British Empire turned to the Roman model

that its predecessors feared would cause the fall of the British. This is shown in the foundation of

the British imperial ideology and identity, while Burke and Smith ardently attempt to defend

Britain against this path.

16 Pitts, A Turn, 65.

Misich 11

Bibliography

Armitage, David. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000.

Colley, Linda. Britons : forging the nation, 1707-1837. New Haven [Conn.] ; London : Yale

University Press, 2009.

Kramer, Hilton, and Keith Windschuttle. "Liberalism and Imperialism." In The Betrayal of

Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal

Politics of Coercion and Control. Chicago, Ill.: Ivan R. Dee, 1999.

Muthu, Sankar. Empire and Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2012.

Pitts, Jennifer. A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Semmel, Bernard. The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from

Adam Smith to Lenin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

The Ideological Origins of the British Empire by David Armitage, Review by: Carla Gardina

Pestana, the William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), 542-545.