Course:HIST317/Presentation/transcript

NOTE: There are numerous grammatical and textual mistakes - this is solely meant to be a guide for my presentation. I have posted it so that notes can be taken off it later.

Alex has just discussed the expansion of empire. Yet was this empire really as secure as the “Pax Britannica” made it seem? Just as the Empire expanded in some areas, others became increasingly unstable, I will take you through a number of instances which depict a weakness within the Empire and which further question this period as a time of peace and security. If you’re interested, you may do further research on any of these individual topics, but my goal is simply to illustrate the breadth of decay in the Empire.

Our Period begins with 3 major crises. The Great Potato Famine, which lasted from 1845-1849, greatly impacted the demography of Britain. From the start of the famine till 1851, the population of Ireland dropped by roughly a quarter. In other words, a considerable portion of the United Kingdom disappeared. Those who remained lived in squalid conditions. Even Benjamin Disraeli commented that Ireland possessed “a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien church and in addition the weakest executive in the world.” This famine seems to be one of many instances which hint towards an empire in decay

The second crisis is in actuality a series of crisis, that is the Rebellions of 1850’s. During this decade, a number of revolts sprang up throughout British holdings. Foremost among them was the Indian Revolt of 1857, otherwise known as the Sepoy Mutiny.. The Mutiny had numerous causes including, cultural, economic, and social grievances by the local population of India. One particular reason was the controversy over the employment of the new Enfield Rifle which gave credence to rumours that the Sepoys may be forced to adopt Christianity. The revolt lasted from May 1857 to mid 1858, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. By the end of the revolt, the British government replaced the East India Company as the ruling institution, which one might argue would be the expansion of the Empire. However, I would urge you to consider any revolt of this magnitude as indication of troubles within the empire, regardless of whether the rebellion is against the government or a joint stock company. Either way, the revolt is an act against a British ruling body. Furthermore, subsequent events also indicate a decline in the strength of Empire.

During the mid to late 19th century, the Home Rule movement gained traction throughout the empire. Home Rule is the demand of a particular nation within the empire for the creation of a national parliament and Dominion status. While this does not remove this nation from the empire, Home Rule does give limited self-sovereignty and restricts British rule. In 1867 Canada confederated, gaining Dominion status. Meanwhile, many in Ireland had pushed for Home Rule or even a complete repeal of the act of union ever since that act was instituted. 4 Home Rule bills were introduced into the Parliament, beginning in 1886. The first two bills were rejected by the house of Lords and did not pass parliament. The House of Lords, filled with conservatives, feared that Irish Home Rule would remove a large part of the United Kingdom, would set a dangerous precedent and threatened to break apart the empire. It seems that the British Empire was not as secure as Pax Brittanica would make it seem. Additionally, although Irish self-sovereignty was typically pursued through peaceful means, radical groups such as the Irish Republican Brotherhood did employ violent methods, such as the dynamite campaign launched in the 1880’s. Not only was the empire under threat, but the general peace was as well.

Other rebellions of note include the Mahdi revolt in the Sudan and the Matabele War.

The violence occurring within Ireland points towards a general trend of violence throughout much of the globe, including those areas over which Britain was supposedly Hegemonic. The third crisis which marks the start of our period is the Crimean War. I would encourage you to think of this as a predecessor to, or even a mini, world war I. Similar to the Great War, the Crimean War featured the great European Powers, including Britain, France, the Ottoman empire and Russia, as belligerents. The war was fought over the same region that sparked the first world war, but expanded as far as the pacific. Arguably, the Crimean war was the first modern war, employing new technology, especially in armaments. The war is also marked by the massive amount of lives lost due to poor tactics. Where some may claim that the war was fought gladly by reluctant imperialists a number of facts seem to contradict this. To begin, the British military employed the practice of pressing a person intro military service, indicating that many fighting did not wish to do so. Additionally, Disraeli resented being pulled into the conflict, but accepted the conflict, not because of a rationale like reluctant imperialism, but because others within the government had made the war unavoidable (which also points to uncertainty and division within the government itself). Although the British were victorious, this war begins to illustrate that this period was not necessarily a time of peace in which the occasional wars were fought solely to fulfill the British responsibility to civilize foreign peoples.

In fact the list of wars seen here, (use link to page http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-wars-1800-1899 ) a number of which the British were involved in, indicates that this period was hardly a “pax” brought about by British Rule.

The last indication that the British Empire was not necessarily secure was the massive arms build up during these years, particularly in the years preceding World War I, in fact before any definite indication of the Great War on the horizon. To begin, the British initiated the use of numerous new weapons during this period. The effects of the employment of new rifles was previously discussed in the context of the Indian Mutiny. Repeating guns inflicted incredible damage during numerous disputes. Supposedly, although I find this claim somewhat dubious, the British even toyed with the idea of using poisonous gas in the Crimean War, although this technology was not nearly as well developed as it had been by world war I.

Britain also began to build up its modern warship fleet. British naval policy had dictated that Britain should maintain a naval force equal to the next two greatest naval powers. Hence, when germany began to build up its fleet, the two countries began an arms race, which some claim was a major factor in bringing Britain into the first world war. Regardless, this arms race indicates a sense of uncertainty in the British military mind. The general arms build up brings the notion of peace and security into question. Would this massive stockpiling be necessary, if such a great peace as the Pax Brittanica really existed?

The events I’ve described illustrate that the British Empire faced a great number of problems within the Empire, bring the question of the security of the empire and the peace supposedly implemented by it. I will now turn to Mike for our conclusion on the “Pax Brittanica.”