From: Romesh Dutt, The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule Englishmen…have given the people of India the greatest human blessing – peace. They have introduced Western education. This has brought an ancient and civilized nation in touch with modern thought, modern sciences and modern life. They have built an administration that is strong and efficient. They have framed wise laws and have established courts of justice.
On the 31st of December in the year 1600, ‘The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies’ received a Royal Charter to be England’s trading representative in India. By they early part of the 17th Century, Britain had already eclipsed Portuguese interests in India. The company bought in cotton, silk, indigo, opium, saltpeter and tea mainly in exchange for silver bullion. These were valuable commodities in Britain at that time. By 1720, 15% of British imports were from India.
After winning the French and Indian war, Great Britain’s economy entered economic downturn, causing great strain on the ruling power.
(Devore, Lecture #3.) Even though most of the credit was issued from England, it allowed the colonists to buy more things and further strengthen and enhance the cohesiveness of the colonies. By this time the colonies had already well established external trade relationships with both the Indians and other countries. One of their major trade partners was the West Indies, where the colonists procured molasses from which they made rum. (Devore, Lecture #3.) All of these economic developments – consumerism amongst the colonies, Anglicizing of the colonies, the newfound availability and use of credit and the abundance of external trade – play a major role in the reasons that lead up to the American Revolution.
I believe that the colonies shouldn’t pay for Britain’s economy drop from the French & Indian War because it is very unreasonable that the colonists who were in the brunt of battle must suffer even more just because the mother country is in debt. In contrast, others may believe that the British should be taxing the colonists more because there is nobody else to make up for this loss of money and the colonists should pay their share of the debt anyway. In document one, lines 6-9, written through the eyes of a member of the British Parliament, it displays that the British already pay their taxes and raising that would be unfair. The British already spent so much on this war and the colonies are the one who benefited since they were clear of threats
According to Dr. Lalvani, “Both Nations benefited from the trade links” (Paragraph #10). While this is true, Document 6 states that there was barely any woven cotton exported to Britain. The evidence shows that there was not a fair trading system between the countries, the British gaining an unfair amount the tradable resources, leading to more money. In addition to Dr. Lalvani, “British worked to preserve the environment and animals in India” (Paragraph #17). On the other hand, Document 7 illustrates that “Cash crops like indigo, cotton, and tobacco as they were very profitable crops for them but it totally degraded the farmland and made it unfit for growing other crops”( Doc # 7). With this evidence, it proves that the British used India’s land to gain revenue, while destroying the farmland in the process, making the Indian’s barely able to grow crops for themselves, leaving them starving and to
From a British economic standpoint, the French and Indian War, in addition to the Seven Years War, plunged them further and further into a seemingly endless mountain of debt. Profits and taxes were insufficient to keep the country afloat: “[the] revenue…is small and inconsiderable…” (Document F). This caused Britain to heavily tax its own citizens. The British citizens saw no justice in this, as they centered on the fact that their tax money was paying for American wars and military. The military
“…the revenue arising is very small and inconsiderable… and is not sufficient” (Doc F). The hard-won victory in the French and Indian War cost the British millions of pounds and created an enormous war debt. England’s burden of debt nearly doubled since 1754, from 73 million pounds to 137 million pounds. After considering their hardships, England felt it only right
The central pillar of the British economy during its colonial period was its extensive trading power. Any threat to this power would have to be remedied sooner than later. For this exact reason the Currency Act of 1764 was birthed. In spirit the Currency Act of 1764 was intended for the betterment of British commerce. However, in actuality the Currency Act of 1764 had a negative impact on the lives of British colonial residents.
The French and Indian war left immense debt to the British empire, altering the economic relationship between Britain and its American colonies when Britain started applying mercantilism to the colonies to gather revenue. The British Order who are
The Seven Years War severely affected the economic relationship between Britain and the colonies, because Britain imposed mercantilist regulations and levied taxes in order to have the colonists pay for Britain’s war debt. In the time before the seven years war the colonies went through a period of salutary neglect where economic and trade regulations were extremely
The French and Indian War set the stage for future events that no one could ever have imagined. The economic practice of mercantilism, which insured profit only to the mother country was the accepted practice between England and her colonies. As long as these economic policies were met, England left much of the day to day governing of the colonies up to the colonies. It was this "salutory neglect" that ultimately led to the ideological differences between England and the colonies. England won the war, but it paid a great price for that victory. England was bankrupted, and as a result had no choice but to look to her colonies to regain financial stability. The pressures of taxation and naval restrictions imposed by the crown and Parliament,
A British merchant, Ralph Fitch describes trade conducted by the Portuguese a great advantage in China since it reveals the mercantilist rivalries among European countries competing for East Asian trade dominance (Document 4). The purpose of this document is to show that a British merchant is concerned that Britain is missing out on opportunities to profit from global trade. Britain could make a great deal of money to be made in this trade if they could participate. This explains that the British want to have the world trade dominance. Eventually the Europeans became reluctant to continue shipping so much silver to East Asia. This is largely because they preferred to hoard the silver so that they could use it to pay mercenaries in their ongoing wars. An English scholar, Charles D’Avenant shows the English position on trade in 1697 that the global flow of silver’s influence on the mercantilist tendencies of European nations and the amount of silver leaving (Document 8). The purpose of this document is to show that D’Avenant concedes that there are problems with the Asian textile trade that the imported items have little use for people in Britain. Also that D’Avenant points out that Asia do not buy anything from the Europeans. This shows that silver might be leaving the country to be “buried” in China since the large demand for luxury goods. From 1500 to 1800, Mexico and Peru produced about
First, Europe’s relationship with India was of mutual prosperity and trade. Until the East India Company began to create a monopoly for itself in Indian trade, pushing out other European rivals, notably the French, followed it’s by conquest of the country, that phase was from 1600 to 1757 was not an unequal colonial relationship. The East India Company had a large interest in promoting the export of silks and cotton textiles from India which soon began to be noticed on British industrial