CHAPTER 3: FROM THE EMPIRE TO THE COMMONWEALTH:

MIGRATIONS, IDEOLOGIES AND IDENTITY

I/ THE BRITISH EMPIRE

A/ ORIGIN AND DEFINITION

The word empire was use even before the great colonial expansion that took place in the
second half of the 19th century. And the word refers to the British domination on her colonies
and the centralization of this power under the rule of the British Monarch. Later on the term
Commonwealth was used to define cooperation, a partnership, a sharing of right and duties,
based on freedom. From the end of the 17th century until the end of the 19th century Britain
had the status of a world power, was very powerful economically. Her economic strength,
power is very much link to the navy and the navy was developed to maintain her trading, her
commercial position with colonies, mostly in Africa and Asia. But B economic power
depended not only on trade but also on the export of men and capital which were very
important.

1/ Migrations

Between 1850 and 1880 more than 2.5 million British people immigrated to go to the
colonies. Mostly they need to find a job and also because there was the Gold rush:

1848 = Gold discovered in California , Nevada … this Gold Rush Attracted 3 hundred
thousand people from Britain .

1852 = Many British people left the country to go to Asia and Australia , once again because
in 1851 Gold was found in Australia and many British people left to go there. (65 000 people
left B)

In the 1870s = gold and diamonds were also found = another wave of British immigration.

In 1776 = Declaration of Independence of the US = the lost of American was a very difficult
lost for B. So instead of going to the US, British people preferred “swing to the East”. People
still immigrated to the US, less but still.

On the other hand immigration from Natives of the colonies into B was more limited and it
was mostly restrictive to servants and to jobs in army and seaport. Also at the time the White
population was still predominant. Racial prejudice was very strong and the working
conditions were very difficult for the immigrants.

1
In 1833 = were passes the “Emancipation Act” meaning that slavery was abolishes in the
British colonies.

However in 1807 the commerce of slave was already forbidden but this was not respected by
some British people, especially in West Indies (Antilles) where the lobby of planters was very
strong and planters said that trading was necessary for their business, their system.

As a result of this act, 700 000 slaves were freed and an indemnity was given to their owners.
Indemnity = (2 million pound as a sort of compensation)

2/ Commerce
It’s important to keep in mind that the British Empire meaning the process of colonization was
not a planned process. Economy was the main reason for colonization, in order to maintain
British economy. Colonization was first made to exploration and mostly this exploration was
made by big trading companies and for example “the East India Company” obviously
implanted in India which was trade in silk, spices, china, tea and coffee.

At the beginning of the 18th century when the Mongol Empire collapse “the East India
Company” started to take control of the colony.

Business and trade were the origin of the colonization.

1858 = India became a colony depending on the crown, on the authority, under the British
rule.

It was at first private enterprise, venture. Britain was obsessed with idea of free trade. The
idea was national prosperity was deeply linked to free trade. Early 19th century free trade is
necessary. As a result a policy of free trade based on the principal of territorial expansion
became the official motto in order to developed and maintain the colonial expansion.
According to the official discourse from the 1830s until 1860s, Britain had no imperialist
convictions. Many politicians declared that didn’t want to impose political rule on the colony
but the idea is only to trade with them, to manage a commercial link. And the government
didn’t want to intervene militarily in the colonies but only to maintain free trade but of course
if the colonies refused free trade principle it could be militarily imposed.

Hobson who was a reporter started to be hostile and write against this imperialist expansion.
However if economic principles were the first motives of the colonial expansion there were
not the only reason. At first this was the main reason but more and more other reasons came
and we could define it as a complex network. Other reason came and they were called the
“3Cs” (Livingstone) = Commerce, Christianity and Civilization.

And some colonies had a strategic importance, they could be used as naval bases, (military
importance), warehouses. Humanitarian reasons were present (“humanitarianism”) and the
discourse of Kipling (in favor of the colonial expansion and defend the colonial idea as the
“White man’s burden”, the idea was people, Natives had to be educated, civilized).

2
The colonies was still considered as an asset (= un atout), the idea was that the colonies were
a way to assert Anglo-Saxon domination in the world and in 1871 the total population of the
empire = 235 million people.

In June 1897 was celebrated Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, (celebrated her 60 years on
the throne) this celebration became also a celebration of the imperial greatness. As a result
this became a form of glorification of Britain old queen, etc and many monuments were built
to honor this imperial conquest, also symbolically (1876) the queen had been crowned
“Empress of India”. All the classes approve this empire .Workers believed that imperial
expansion could improve their living condition; they believed that their job could be more
secured. The preservation of empire was linked to the notion of stability, social stability,
economic stability, etc... And also at the end of the 19th century the industry revolution
contributed to British supremacy. During the Victorian period (1837-1901) was considered as
the zenith of the Britain commercial, financial and naval power.

3/ Ideological debate

In the 2nd half of the 19th century there were political considerations behind colonial
expansion. There were 2 form of imperialism:

• First a “formal empire” meaning that the colonial expansion had to be done
because of political, strategic and religious reasons. And also the idea to try to
convert the natives to Christianity.

• “Informal empire” which was a more disguised form of imperialism (plus

hypocrite). The idea is only to maintain and to develop their influence, mostly their
commercial influence. No political strategy. It was still a form of imperialism.
More pragmatic form and based on free trade. But at the end of 19th century anti-
imperialism started to develop especially as we mentioned Hobson was one of the
main leaders of this denunciation = imperialism has a negative impact on Britain,
it was too expensive. Also important in lost of lives British people lost their lives
in colonies, also suffered of the process of colonization.

It had also a political impact: the right and the left had their own vision of the colonization
and the 2 main ideas were focused on the 2 most important prime ministers at the time
(Disraeli and Gladstone) and both had a different vision. Disraeli (conservative), he wanted to
maintain the colonial expansion, he wanted prestige for Britain, and he wanted a “Greater
Britain”. Never the less despite of this enthusiasm , is also compared the colonies as a
“millstone” ,his idea of imperialism was more romantic more idealistic, he didn’t really want
to care about economic difficulties , death of people, whereas he was interesting about
idealistic vision , romantic vision .

• Chamberlain was his disciple (of Disraeli) and he became a colonial secretary and
he was much more involved and was much more pragmatic. He tried to accelerate
the process of expansion. For him Britain has “a national mission”, his slogan been

3
 that “Empire is Trade”. According to him B had to maintain her presence on the 5
continents. He wanted to establish a “theory of customs principle” = imperial
preference.

• On the other hand, Gladstone who was a liberal had always been hostile and
against imperialism, and he wanted the colonies to ultimately gain independence,
to become a self-government. And in that sense, the idea was the “voluntaries”
who believed that that the colonies had to be governed upon a principle of
freedom, partnership, and cooperation. According to him the ultimate goal of the
colonies was independence. He was the one “to coins the phrase “the
Commonwealth of nation”

B/OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN COLONIES

VOIR ENT : la prof n’a pas encore mis le doc

II/ THE COMMONWEALTH

A/ PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS

At the beginning of the 20th century, anti-imperialist feelings as well as nationalist feelings
had grown, had developed.

1917 = The South Africa Defense minister suggested that the empire should be renamed (have
a negative connotation) and was named “the Commonwealth of nations”

1922 = The Treaty of London established and recognized the term “commonwealth” and
established that the Commonwealth would be a free association , free partnership of different
country , there were 3 =/ types of association. First type was “the Independent states” also
called “the Dominions” such as Canada, Australia and New Zeeland who were considered as
the full member of the Commonwealth. Then there was “the dependent territories”, and a
third form was “the special members of the Commonwealth (usually small country such
islands that shows to maintain their linked with Britain instead of choosing an alliance with
neighbors.

The Commonwealth usually every 2 years decides to organize conferences with each country
sending representatives. Sometimes a country sends none representatives.

SPECIAL CASES:
The circumstances in which each country became independent varied. But it all cases power
was transferred with the help and with the agreement of Britain and decided to stay part of the
Commonwealth and each country was given its own democratically elected government.

4
There was one exception with Southern Rhodesia (=Zimbabwe), it was founded by the settler
Cecil Rhodes and it was declared independent in 1965 but without British consent especially
because the people who ruled the country were minority of Whites settlers and this was judge
as unfair by the united nation. So, the independence wasn’t accepted and sanctions were
imposed by the U.N. And eventually this led to the creation of Zimbabwe in 1980 and at this
time was consider as fairer and was recognized as independent country.

Another special case was South Africa, it became a Republic in 1961, but it wasn’t admitted
within the Commonwealth because of the Apartheid policy which was judge unacceptable by
the U.N and by the Commonwealth.

Also in the case of countries at war with each other, when they become independent they can
choose to be part of the Commonwealth or not.

Ex: India became independent in 1947 and it decided to be part of the Commonwealth.
Ex: The New Republic of Pakistan decided not to join
Ex: The Bangladesh decided to be part of the Commonwealth once it became independent.

Another special case is Hong Kong = It was a British colony but once it became independent
from the British rules it couldn’t stay within the Commonwealth because it was a Chinese
territories and Britain actually add a 99-year lease (= bail) on this territories and this expire in
1997, so in 1997 Hong Kong was given back to China .Free trade is still maintain with the
Island until the year 2047.

The Commonwealth takes a form of a consultative entity. The idea is that the different
members states gather during Commonwealth conferences and during this conferences the
relationship between the different states are define and Britain also plays a part with advises
other country. Britain use to give advice in term of economic policy. The C is more an idea
than a real organization. They aren’t any set of rules. But it remains part of the British
mentality.

The idea of the Commonwealth is not just about Britain asserting a role, a power over the
world, and mostly a cultural role. This work is the other way round. This is also a way for the
Commonwealth countries to be present in Britain.
Ex: The Cricket which is very famous in former British Colonies

B/ IMMIGRATION AND RACE RELATIONS SINCE WW2

1/ Immigration from former British colonies

Before the WW2 very few none whites or ethnic minorities lived permanently in Britain.
However after 1945, more of the population from the former colonies mostly Africa and Asia
decided to come and settle in Britain.

5
During the 1950s, an average of 30,000 immigrants came to Britain every year. During the
1960s, the figure (= le chiffre) increase, double either. An average of 60,000 people came to
Britain every year, but during the 70s immigration was much lower, immigration decrease due
to government restrictions.

In 1971 there about 2.0 million ethnic minorities live in Britain and two-third of them came
from the Commonwealth countries and the rest the remaining third were born in Britain. (4%
of immigrants). They came to Britain for different reasons:

• As members of the C they had been raised to admire Britain. Britain became an
ideal and they were educated to admire Britain way of life. Many of them actually
came to Britain to study. The “Rhodes scholarship” (by Cecil Rhodes) = enable
students from the C countries but also from the USA and Germany to come to
Britain to study for a year and especially to come to Oxford University.

• During the 20 year following WW2, the British economy was quite prosperous,
flourishing and jobs were available for immigrants and mostly unskilled job
(ouvrier non qualifier). Many people at the time came to work for the NHS as
doctor, as nurses too. Also many companies, businesses, farms encourage people
from the Commonwealth to come and work in Britain, and they were advertizing
job was done in the Commonwealth country. At the time workers were needed, and
most of the immigrants settled in industrial region, in the Midlands for ex, also in
the suburb of London, in the North of England as well where jobs were on offer.
In the 1960s the increase of immigration could be explained by rumors saying the
government will soon limit immigration.

2/ The British Government Restricts Immigration

They were fears among politicians that the increase in immigration would cause serious
economic and social problem, they were fears about the lack of jobs. This fear was that the
immigrants were also increase the burden of the NSH, of the Welfare state.

As a result the immigration issue became central and it played a major part in the different
electoral campaigns over the years. And the successive governments gradually reduce
immigration.

In 1962, “the Commonwealth immigrants act” was voted and this act limited immigration to
workers who could prove that they had a job to go in Britain. Also, it was limited to people
who had close relatives, who had a family in Britain. And this major was criticized by labor
especially because it only applies to Commonwealth immigrants and this was considered as
unfair because people from Europe could emigrate without restriction.

When Labor was back in power (1964-1970), it also had restrictions. Labor actually
implemented measures. At the time public opinion seemed also opposed to a limited

6
immigration. Quotas were introduce, limited immigration for people coming from the
Commonwealth. Once again when the conservative came back in power in 1979, they
introduced new intensives measures and period of probations for immigrants. And illegal
entry was condemned. In the following decade (1980s), Thatcher made it even more difficult
for non-white immigrants to enter Britain and mostly in terms of relatives trying to join their
families. In 1981 was past “the British Nationality Act” and it included the different
immigration policies and it also tries to define what it meant to be a British citizen.

3/ Ethnics relations

In Britain as a hole, there is nothing except violence. In the UK immigrants were giver full
civil rights and they were given the right to vote 6 month after permanent residence in the
UK. And of course this had electoral and political consequences as well as social and
economic consequences.

When they made use their right to vote, of course they votes for the party closer to their
believes. And at the time they felt closer to the labor party, in some region, especially in the
SE, in some area in London. This was no longer true since more and more labor and
conservative party decided to adopt more or less the same policy about immigration.

However in a society like Britain which has always been rather homogeneous, the different
waves of immigration were not always easily accepted by the population. Many white people
refuse to consider minority as equal = racial prejudice. Very often ethnics minority were
refused entries in pubs and restaurant, and this type of prejudices also make difficulties to
them to find a house and to find a job in a time of economic crisis.

Moreover ethnic minorities felt that the police were prejudiced against them and relations
with the police were often very tense. Frictions, conflicts were very strong and could lead to
serious clashes with police forces and this was the case with riots in 1958 in Notting Hill and
Nottingham. Also with the economic crisis especially during the late 1960s up to the late
1980s when jobs became fewer and when it was more difficult to find a place to live or to pay
the rent.

The White felt threatened by the minorities. This led to an increase of hostility. Therefore
ethnic minorities tended to get together and to live in more affordable housing and mostly
council housing. This situation strengthen, reinforced the links between the difference
community, but it also reinforced the isolation of this community and this didn’t solve the
racial prejudice, prejudice still existed. Racial prejudice was still very strong in some areas
like the former industrial regions (ex: in the Midlands, in the North of Eng and in some
suburbs of London = mostly in the South and also in the East).

Even if some Indians and Pakistanis immigrants belong to the middle classes or to the upper
middle-classes, social integration remained difficult. Among politicians some voices emerged
against the emigration process and contributed to heighten the tension. At the time the parties
try to encourage racial harmony, they try to defuse the tension but exceptionally some
politician were strongly opposed to immigration process.

7
In Enoch Powell= very strong MP politicians

In 1968 Enoch Powell pronounces a speech which was very controversial, very criticize and
for him immigration was a mad process. For him the Commonwealth was still a form of
dependence, a colony. Immigration is like death for the country. “The rivers of blood” speech.

He suggested that ethnic minorities should be send back to the country of their birth. After
that the Conservative leader fired Enoch Powell.

4/ Government and racial harmony

After the 1958 riots, racial conflict and with the immigration increase in the early 1960s the
labor party tried to find solutions to improve relation among the population. When he was in
power Harold Wilson (labor PM) realized that acts of parliament (=laws) could not force
people of different origin to respect one another. But he believed that he was still a duty of the
government to show people what was acceptable and what was not acceptable.

Labor governments established 3 laws/ Relations acts:

• In 1965 = “The Race Relations Board”= this was an organization created to work
toward fair treatment for non-White populations and people who encouraged racial
disorder for example people who refused to serve ethnics minorities in pub or
restaurant could be taken to court, condemned by justice.

• In 1968 = “The community relations commission” and the role of this commission
was to keep an eye on what was going on in mixed race areas and this commission
encourage the creation of councils to try to encourage relations between =/ minorities
and the white population. Another part that was that people were prosecuted if they
show sign of discrimination against ethnic minority mostly if they refused to offer a
house to immigrants or to give a job to them.

• In 1976 = was created “The commission for racial equality” with the same idea to
actively encourage better relation and better understanding between people of =/
origins. Once again people could be condemned for trying to encourage racial hatred.
For ex abuses language could be punished by justice.

The Result of these acts = A few years after, some positive impact could be felt, seen, but
progress was slow because changing mentality take a long time. In the 1980s some elements
came to contradict these progresses, disturbing developments and put at risk an already fragile
stability. The integration of immigration is based on community integration (≠ to France) and
it aims at preserving the traditions, the distinctive features of the individuals. Integration is
achieved through mediation = a representative act as a mediator.

8
These came lead to the rise of extremist ideology, extremist groups.

Ex: In the late 1980s, in 1989 the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses”
which is a reflection of a very dreamy ideology was condemned.

In the 1980s when unemployment increase to reach 3 million, it became more and more
difficult for ethnics minorities to find a job.

Ex: In 1981 riot took place in Brixton which is an area of South London and another riot took
place in Liverpool and in Birmingham in 1985.

The reasons behind these riots = ethnic minority were very often victim of discrimination
from the White population.

Very often their properties were vandalized, they were also victim of violence and if the 1 st
generation of immigrants was rather passive and less accepted this unfair treatment, the 2 nd
and 3rd generation were more demanding, they protested more against this unfair treatment.
They could no longer tolerate this unfair discrimination, especially regarding job access.

More other the 2nd and 3rd generations often suffered of an identity problem. Some could feel
they are from different culture. Another problem is that British citizenship is rather exclusive.

Also the fact that criminality is often higher in areas where immigrants live; the surveillance
of the police is also quite strong which is obviously the cause of some tensions. Especially
because the police was mostly White and the tiniest element can lead to conflict.

Therefore racial discrimination, insults, prejudice, unfair disadvantage in term of employment

added to constant police surveillance, all these elements contributed to increase tension
explaining the riot in the 1980s.

In 1993, Bernie Grant a Black labor MP (Member of Parliament) drew up an account (= faire
un constat) of the immigrants situation and this account is quite negative, gloomy, sinister. He
said that many Black people felt disgusted and disillusioned by the way they were treated in
Britain and he felt there was no future for them in Britain. He even suggested they might be
better off leaving Britain and go back to their country of origin.

Moreover in 1993, “the British national party” which is a right extremist party defended the
idea of a white Britain but even if they weren’t successful, a BNP councilor was elected in an
area of London.

The situation in the mid 1990s is still quite gloomy, quite negative.

Conclusion:

On the whole, the transition from the empire to the Commonwealth was achieved rather
smoothly without much difficulty. The empire became synonymous with territorial conquest
economic imperatives and capitalism. More and more at the beginning of the 20th century with
anti-imperialist protests rising, the concept of the Empire became questioned. A new way of
defining thing had to be found, especially because the Empire had become morally

9
unacceptable. The change from the Empire to the Commonwealth was accelerated because
many former colonies became independent and after WW1 several laws were passed to define
the Commonwealth

Ex: in 1926 where the =/ members met = Imperial Conference

Ex: In 1931= the Statute of Westminster

During these events, the definition of the commonwealth became the assertion of free
association, equality of status (between the=/ countries) and they were independent,
autonomous (for a former British territory)

The dominions or self-governed territories kept their national sovereignty meaning that they
made their own decisions concerning their internal and external affairs. So, Britain was no
longer dominated the Commonwealth, Britain was a member like any others. As a result the
Commonwealth became a multi-racial entity, a multi racial community. And the British
monarch acts as a symbol only, it doesn’t have any role. The member countries are so =/ that
there is no common foreign policy between them. You cannot define the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth remains a free cooperation, and regularly meets during conferences but
only discuss problem such as economic policies, health issues and educations issues. Nothing
would suppress the national sovereignty of any of its members. However when a member
violate democratic principles its membership could be suppressed or abolished.

Ex: South Africa, in 1961 the Commonwealth refused to integrate it in the Commonwealth
because the apartheid.

As a result the commonwealth accepted South Africa because civil rights were restored at the
end of the apartheid.

Ex: Pakistan was also suspended in 1999 because of the anti-democratic regime. However it
was readmitted in 2004 thanks to democratic reforms but the main reasons being that
Pakistan could play a strategic role in the World on terror led by Bush and Blair at the time.

Ex: Zimbabwe also had to leave the C in 2003 because the country didn’t respect democratic
values. (Ex=Election rigging)

In 1981 = the conservative government suspended this full citizenship right especially
because politicians feared about a few year later.

Despite their equality of right the Commonwealth immigrant have suffered of racial prejudice
in Britain even if law were passed to defuse tension, and to try to maintain a harmony
between minorities.

10