In the early 18th century, successive British governments refrained from direct imperialism; asides from the settler colonies in North America, Britain had few land holdings outside Europe; India was traded with rather than conquered, and through the EIC rather than government officials. Similarly, the slave-trade was a private business, with government protection and some imperial holdouts on the African coast, but little in the way of direct colonisation.
This changed after the Seven Years' War; Pitt the Elder, playing to the gallery, pursued a policy of imperial aggression and thus after the war Britain gained huge tracts of land across the globe.
Both sides in this debate have valid points: empire was expensive, and the outlays of manpower and capital could have been better used elsewhere. However, on the other hand Empire gave Britain more secure access to vital resources, which had both civilian and military applications (I'm thinking rope, timber, etc. for the Navy).
My question to you, AH.com is this: did imperial expansion and direct imperial rule benefit Britain? My focus is economic, but please do include cultural, political and demographic impacts that you think might be relevant.
Obviously imperialism is a contentious subject, so I'd like to make it clear: I am only interested in Britain. Colonialism was very different for the areas that lived under it, but that is not the topic of this particular thread.
This changed after the Seven Years' War; Pitt the Elder, playing to the gallery, pursued a policy of imperial aggression and thus after the war Britain gained huge tracts of land across the globe.
Both sides in this debate have valid points: empire was expensive, and the outlays of manpower and capital could have been better used elsewhere. However, on the other hand Empire gave Britain more secure access to vital resources, which had both civilian and military applications (I'm thinking rope, timber, etc. for the Navy).
My question to you, AH.com is this: did imperial expansion and direct imperial rule benefit Britain? My focus is economic, but please do include cultural, political and demographic impacts that you think might be relevant.
Obviously imperialism is a contentious subject, so I'd like to make it clear: I am only interested in Britain. Colonialism was very different for the areas that lived under it, but that is not the topic of this particular thread.
