Breadth - Trade Flashcards
Impact of the SYW
1756-63 Prussia and Britain vs France, Austria, and Russia
Britain expanded its empire. They lost their first battles so, the PM realised the importance of the war and borrowed heavily to fund the war effort. This meant they ended up in a lot of debt- raised taxes, led to the AWI
Britain gained control of Bengal. This provided new markets for British goods and provided Britain with tariff-free raw cotton
Ended with the signing of the treaties of Hubertusburg and Paris in 1763. The Treaty of Paris: France lost all claims to Canada and gave Louisiana to Spain, while Britain received Spanish Florida, Upper Canada, and various French holdings overseas - led to French revolution
What was the Scramble for Africa
1884-5 - the Berlin conference. Britain Belgium France Portugal and Italy attended. Discussed how European countries would divide Africa to avoid war between them. Affirmed that they would bring civilisation through Christianity and trade to each region they occupied
Britain colonised Sudan opening the door for colonisation
Early 1880s Ethiopia was in danger of invasion from the British, French and Italians- secured modern weapons defeating the Italians
The British encountered resistance in South Africa against the Boers. Had recognised the independence but the discovery of diamonds led to war- Britain won
Only Liberia and Ethiopia remained independent
How the Slave Trade was abolished - the Quakers
Quakers organised the 1st abolitionist movement in Britain in 1783 joining forces with other nonconformist groups and Wilberforce in 1787.
They ran an effective grass-roots campaign which was the 1st of its kind, increasing pressure on parliament through gathering evidence on the horrors of slavery
With a wealth of evidence and support of the PM, Wilberforce launched the parliamentary campaign in 1789
How the Slave Trade was abolished - France caused problems
France erupted into revolution in 1789, declaring a republic in 1792
The slave rebellion broke out in Haiti with the French as a result emancipating the slaves so, abolition was now a pro-French position.
Britain conspired with the loyalist French plantation owners invading in the hope of restoring the lucrative sugar and coffee slave plantations and seize the colony.
In this context, parliament repeatedly voted against Wilberforce’s bills.
How the Slave Trade was abolished - going in Britain favour early 19th century
By 1802:
British hopes of seizing Haiti receded after a huge loss of life due to disease and defeats by freed slaves.
Napoleon seized power in France and, wanted to restore the revenues from Saint-Domingue, so sent an expedition to restore slavery - made abolishing slavery more attractive to the British
How the Slave Trade was abolished - how we got to acts of parliament being passed
In 1804, Wilberforce successfully passed a bill abolishing the slave trade through the HoC but it was defeated in the Lords.
In 1806, the abolitionists capitalised on their anti-French credentials by introducing the Foreign Slave Trade bill which prohibited any British subjects from supplying slaves to French colonies which was the same under war but many did under the American flag.
Had widespread public support and passed quickly so, carried this momentum into the general election of 1806, and many more abolitionist MPs were elected and opposition crumbled
Both Houses passed the Slave Trade Act by large majorities in 1807 officially ending Britain’s role in the slave trade
In 1833, parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act giving all slaves in the British Empire their freedom - 1834 when the government compensated slave owners £20 million for the loss of their ‘property’ to the owners of over 700,000 slaves
Challenges to Abolishing the Slave Trade
Ports - By the 1760s Britain dominated the triangular slave trade, sending finished goods to Africa and importing sugar from the Caribbean. This played a large part in the development of the ports of Liverpool and Bristol. They were full of merchants and agents for plantation owners that bought and sold ships, trade goods, as well as supplies for the plantations and sugar imports
Gentry - Some Caribbean islands were owned by a handful of Bristol families, who also operated a range of business interests in Bristol. Many of the British gentries were indirectly investing and benefitting from the slave trade, as much of the capital used by the slave traders was provided on credit by English bankers
Government - benefited through taxes and tariffs and thus using this money to finance the Royal Navy and fight European wars. Discovered that over 40 MP’s were either planters or had business interests in plantations
Reasons for abolishing the slave trade - economic
Humanitarian and anti-French were not the only reasons
New industries - Britain’s economy was no longer dependent on the triangular trade – new sources of wealth through new industries and factories. There was a more profitable use of ships (used in other British colonies)
The need for slaves - There was no longer a need for large numbers to be imported to the colonies as there was an over-supply of sugar so, British merchants had difficulties re-exporting it. Sugar could be sourced at a lower cost from Britain’s other colonies e.g., India. Also, wage labour became more profitable than slave labour and Industrialisation began
Decline of profits - plantation struggled to make profits as prices and costs fluctuated due to war interrupting trade. This meant planters struggled to make profit. Instead, the use of ships could be used in other more profitable industries.
Reliability - The selling of slaves in return for tobacco and sugar was never reliable and fluctuations in harvests often caused substantial financial losses- in 1778, merchants in Liverpool lost £700,000
Reasons for abolishing the slave trade - it wasn’t economic reasons
The Atlantic slave trade continued, and slave plantations were still profitable for many years after 1807 without Britain
There is no evidence that plantation owners decided that wage labour was more profitable than slave labour
In 1807 the MPs who had passed the Bill were still had vested interests that they had been in the 18th century. The majority did not have direct interests – they did not rely on the profits made from slavery.
By the early 19th century MPs were more inclined to listen to the anti-slavery voices than the pro-slavery voices. The arguments had been put effectively and unrelentingly
Thomas Clarkson
In 1787 the Committee for the Abolition of the African Slave Trade helped persuade Wilberforce to take up the abolitionist cause. Clarkson’s task was to collect information for the committee to present to parliament and the public
Travelled to the ports of Liverpool and Bristol, gathering evidence and brought examples of equipment used including handcuffs and shackles.
William Wilberforce
In 1780, he became MP for Hull.
His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform.
Clarkson had an enormous influence on him. He and others campaigned for an end to the trade in which British ships were carrying black slaves from Africa, in terrible conditions, to the West Indies as goods to be bought and sold
For 18 years he regularly introduced anti-slavery motions in parliament.
Olaudah Equiano
Kidnapped with his sister at around 11 and sold by local slave traders.
1786 London - became involved in the abolish slavery movement - prominent member of the ‘Sons of Africa’ -12 black men who campaigned for abolition.
1789 - published autobiography, ‘The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa, the African’ - immensely popular, helped the abolitionist cause, and made Equiano wealthy
Impact of the abolition of the slave trade on trade
Had a significant impact on ports like Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow with the volume of trade being reduced as these had boomed from the slave trade. Although, this led to the diversification, which in turn strengthened trade, with Bristol and Liverpool developing new harbours
Reduced the available workforce on the Caribbean sugar plantations, which reduced its levels of production and contribution to trade. However, it led to the growth of trade in other areas such as many ship owners diverting ships to transport raw cotton from America
The government effectively bought out the owners of over 700,000 slaves by paying £20,000,000 in compensation for their ‘property, approximately 40% of total government expenditure that year
Mercantilism and Protectionism
Mercantilism ensured the value of exports is more than imports (positive balance of trade) which was the objective from the 16th-18th century.
Protectionism shielded a country’s domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.
Gov policy was initially both, designed to obtain advantageous trading relationships with colonies while protecting British producers from competition
These policies stifled trade and alienated colonies, pushing Ireland towards rebellion
Adam Smith
1776 he wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations attacking the most fundamental assumptions of the mercantile system.
Import and export tariffs prevented trade from operating effectively by constraining merchants from finding the best deals.
Removing barriers would increase overall wealth, proposing both parties benefited.
Corn Laws - what was it
A series of statutes,1815-1846, keeping corn prices at a high level.
It was intended to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports of grain following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.
It stated no foreign corn would be allowed into Britain until domestic corn reached price of 80 shillings per quarter (protectionism)
Corn laws - who benefitted and who suffered
Benefited:
The nobility and other large landholders- owned the majority of profitable farmland
Landowners had vested interest in seeing the Corn Laws remain in force
The right to vote wasn’t universal but depended on land ownership
Voting MPs had no interest in repealing them
Suffered:
Artificially high corn prices encouraged by the laws meant the urban working class had to spend the bulk of their income on corn to survive
Had no income left over for other purchases- couldn’t afford manufactured goods
Manufacturers suffered and had to lay off workers- difficult to find alternative employment so the economic spiral worsened for everyone involved
Corn Laws - the ability to reform through an increase in voting rights
The Reform Act 1832 - the right to vote was extended to a sizable portion of the merchant class. They were far more likely to look favourably on change to the Corn Laws.
Several groups arose in the early to mid-1800s to fight for the repeal and other rights:
The Chartists campaigned for the right to vote (men and women)
Anti-Corn Law League began in 1836 drawing its members largely from the middle-class, merchants and manufacturers
Th aim was to loosen the restrictions on trade generally so they could sell more goods home and abroad
Navigation Acts
A series of laws designed to restrict England’s carrying trade to English ships, effective chiefly in the 17th and 18th century . The measures, originally framed to encourage the development of English shipping so that enough other ships would be available in wartime, became a from of trade protectionism during an era of mercantilism
Trading goods - colonial goods for export could only be carried on English-built and owned ships, and certain goods (sugar, cotton, tobacco) had to be shipped to an English port even if they were to be exported to another European destination, European imports to British colonies also needed to land at an English port and then be reshipped onwards
The Americas - Americas largely produced raw materials, so mercantilism suited their economic model. Salutary neglect - Britain didn’t enforce the trade regulations too tightly so smuggling was rife - deputised the collection of taxes to local deputies who did not enforce collection and turned a blind eye to smuggling.
Repealing the Navigation Acts
1849
During this period, the Acts had served as an effective means of securing British trade interests but by the mid-19th century, free trade was the preferred option notably because of the growing industrial capabilities of Britain, which became a world leader in manufacturing thanks to its industrial revolution.
This new economic position arguably necessitated a more modern economic policy and, therefore, pressed by manufacturers, Peel sought to promote greater free-trade opportunities. By dismantling the Acts, Britain were effectively prioritising free trade over national defence
Impact:
The policies had been the root of tension and conflict, in North America and Ireland with the removal of the restrictions acted as a stimulus to trade
Had stifled trade and Britain, which could mass produce goods more cheaply, benefited from an expanded market
The repeal was welcomed in many key industrial areas of Britain, e.g. Lancashire which benefited from the direct supply of raw materials from the USA and elsewhere
The Navigation Acts were often ignored in practice anyway and the official repeal regularised the situation
Adopting Free Trade
A slow process to become the default government policy as many tariffs gave British goods, mainly agricultural, a commercial advantage as well as parliament being dominated by Tories who had a direct interest in supporting tariffs but this had started the AWI and discontent in Ireland.
Ireland mainly produced agricultural goods which were similar to England. Parliament from the 17th century introduced tariffs and prohibitions to reduce Irish competition. Ireland’s wealth was concentrated to the landowners while those who worked the land remained poor resulting in growing middle-class frustration towards the restrictions
However, the Irish economy continued to grow as it had excellent grazing land and cheap labour making it competitive. They also profited from the 18th century British wars as they sold supplies to the Royal Navy and armies
In 1779, the gov consulted Smith on how to respond to Irish demands for free trade who was sympathetic as the Irish couldn’t export any goods (glass/silk) abroad apart from some places in Britain (raw wool/woolen cloth). He called the restrictions ‘unjust and oppressive and recommended Ireland have free trade. The gov removed trade restrictions on Ireland in 1779 to prevent conflict
Major victory but further change was slow in coming- Corn Laws 1815 (protectionist)
Importance of the changing political landscape in removing mercantilist and protectionist policies
Only changed after the election of the Whigs in 1830 and the subsequent passage of the RPA 1832 which made constituency boundaries were more representative and extended the electorate by around 250,000 people (60% increase).
The act meant manufacturers and consumers would have a larger role in determining trade policy who would typically oppose protectionism, and associated mercantilism with an artificial positive trade balances.
Sir Robert Peel was a strong believer in free trade and founded the Conservative Party in 1834. In the 1841 election, the Conservatives secured a majority and Peel became PM. He passed laws which dismantled mercantilism and protectionism with over 1,200 import tariffs being abolished 1842-46
The sugar duties were removed- seen as betrayal by those with business interest in the West Indies- following the abolition of slavery, sugar from the British Colonies had become uncompetitive
Attempted to repeal the Corn Laws in 1842 but voted down by party rebels - success in 1846
Sugar Act
1764
Lowers duties on sugar from 6d to 3d but people had only really paid 1d before so this seemed more like a rise of 2d
Mutiny Act
1765
Colonies must provide accommodation and supplies for British troops - most states accept this except New York, so the New York Restraining Act 1767 prevents them from revolting
