|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Imperialism (4/17/2007 11:10:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
For Britain ... weren't most of the companies which ran the colonies given direct authorization from the sovereign to do so?
No. The British empire was built on private enterprise and private capital. Companies employed mercenaries to fight their battles. After the debacle of Britain almost going bankrupt through the upkeep of the north American colonies and the massive trade surplus it financed in favour of the colonies, the British government refused to get involved in any empire building. It later took the roll of keeping the sea lanes open and in the mid 19th century it more or less nationalised the Indian empire and created the ethos of duty to empire to stop the exploitation and corruption of private capital. Many colonies were self governing and tied to Britain through culture and self interest rather than Britain imposing its will, rather like western Europe's submission to the US.
I'll have to try and find something concise enough about France and Spain, their colonies and empires did have a more complex relationship to the centre.
I did a quick review of some of the British Charter companies that were instrumental in forming the Empire.
Chartered company
A chartered company is an association formed by investors or shareholders for the purpose of trade, exploration and colonisation.
...
Chartered companies were usually formed, incorporated and legitimised under a royal or, in republics, an equivalent government charter. This document set out the terms under which the company could trade; defined its boundaries of influence, and described its rights and responsibilities.
...
In order to carry out their many tasks, which in many cases included functions - such as security and defence - usually reserved for a sovereign state
I look specifically at the East India Company, and the Virginia Companies.
Virginia Companies:
The Virginia Company refers collectively to a pair of English joint stock companies chartered by James I in 1606 with the purposes of establishing settlements on the coast of North America. The two companies, called the Virginia Company of London (or the London Company) and the Virginia Company of Plymouth (or Plymouth Company) operated with identical charters but with differing territories. An area of overlapping territory was created. Within the area of overlap, the two companies were not permitted to establish colonies within one hundred miles of each other.
The charters of the companies called for a local council for each, but with ultimate authority residing with the King through the Council of Virginia in England.
East India Company:
By an act that was passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed indemnity ...
...
Both companies finally merged in 1702, by a tripartite indenture involving them both as well as the state ...
...
The Company became the single largest player in the British global market, and reserved for itself an unassailable position in the decision-making process of the Government.
...
East India Company Act 1773
By this Act (13 Geo. III, c. 63), the Parliament of Great Britain imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms and by doing so clearly established its sovereignty and ultimate control over the Company. The Act recognized the Company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right."
...
East India Company Act (Pitt's India Act) 1784
This Act (24 Geo. III, s. 2, c. 25) had two key aspects:
* Relationship to the British Government - the Bill clearly differentiated the political functions of the East India Company from its commercial activities. For its political transactions, the Act directly subordinated the East India Company to the British Government
...
Act of 1786
This Act (26 Geo. III c. 16) enacted the demand of Lord Cornwallis, that the powers of the Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in special cases, to override the majority of his Council and act on his own special responsibility. The Act also enabled the offices of the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the same official.
This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company. After this point, the Company functioned as a regularized subsidiary of the Crown,
Most of the commercial concerns shared the direct responsibility to the Crown for their activities. In the early stages, even if they were not de jure instruments of British sovereignity, they were de facto.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
