‘The relationship between crown, parliament and the colonies did not change in the period from 1558 to 1783.’ How far do you agree?
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
The origins and growth of the British Empire 1558-1783
👑Complete Model Essay
‘The relationship between crown, parliament and the colonies did not change in the period from 1558 to 1783.’ How far do you agree?
The relationship between crown, parliament and the colonies did not change in the period from 1558 to 1783. How far do you agree?
The assertion that the relationship between the crown, parliament and the colonies remained static between 1558 and 1783 is a simplification that overlooks significant evolution and shifts in power dynamics. While elements of continuity existed, particularly in the early part of this period, the latter half witnessed a growing assertion of British control and a burgeoning sense of colonial grievance that ultimately culminated in the American Revolution.
In supporting the hypothesis
It is tempting to argue that the relationship remained largely unchanged, as the crown and parliament employed a ‘light touch’ approach to governance in the early stages. This is evident in the implementation of the Navigation Acts, which aimed to assert British control over colonial trade by prohibiting trade with non-British nations. While these acts were crucial in directing colonial economic activity towards Britain, their enforcement was often lax, suggesting a preference for working with existing colonial rulers and fostering economic development. This ‘salutary neglect’ policy allowed colonies to flourish, fostering a sense of autonomy and self-governance. The use of charters, which granted specific rights and responsibilities to colonial governments, further reinforced this sense of local control.
Furthermore, the crown and parliament were largely unable to impose significant taxation on the colonies, relying instead on revenue generated from trade. This further supported the impression of a loose relationship, with the focus being on mutual economic benefit rather than direct political control.
In challenging the hypothesis
However, a closer examination reveals a growing tension and a shift in power dynamics throughout the period. While the Navigation Acts may have initially been loosely enforced, their very existence served as a constant reminder of British control over colonial trade. Moreover, the increase in parliamentary legislation specifically targeting colonial affairs in the second half of the period indicated a growing desire for direct control.
The Seven Years’ War, a global conflict that saw Britain emerge victorious, marked a turning point. The war, which was fought in part over colonial territories, significantly increased national debt. This led to a desire to generate tax revenue from the colonies, culminating in the infamous Stamp Act of 1765. The colonial resistance to this act highlighted the growing resentment towards British attempts to exert greater financial control. Furthermore, the creation of colonial bureaucracies in the latter half of the period symbolized a more intrusive and centralized approach to governance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the early period saw a relatively light touch approach and a focus on economic development, the latter half of the period witnessed a growing assertion of British control and a shift towards more direct governance. The Navigation Acts, while initially enforced with a degree of leniency, laid the foundation for a system of trade regulation that eventually became a focal point of colonial grievances. The desire to raise taxes from the colonies, fueled by the financial burden of the Seven Years’ War, further exacerbated tensions and ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the American Revolution. Therefore, the assertion that the relationship between crown, parliament and the colonies remained static during this period is ultimately inaccurate. While there were elements of continuity, the period witnessed a significant evolution and ultimately, a breakdown in the relationship, culminating in the separation of the colonies from Britain.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
The Relationship Between Crown, Parliament, and the Colonies: Continuity or Change? 1558-1783
This essay will examine the assertion that "The relationship between Crown, Parliament, and the colonies did not change in the period from 1558 to 1783." While there are strong arguments to be made in support of continuity in the relationship, the latter half of this period saw significant shifts in power dynamics and governance, laying the groundwork for the American Revolution. The essay will explore both sides of this argument, considering the factors that contributed to continuity and the evidence of change.
Arguments for Continuity
1. Navigation Acts & Limited Enforcement: While the Navigation Acts, introduced in the mid-17th century, aimed to control colonial trade exclusively for British benefit, their enforcement was often lax. This suggests a "light touch" approach from the Crown, preferring to work with existing colonial elites rather than impose significant direct control.
2. Economic Development Focus:&x20; The Crown and Parliament primarily focused on fostering the economic development of the colonies, viewing them as sources of raw materials and markets for British goods. This shared interest in prosperity fostered a sense of interdependence rather than rigid control.
3. Alliances with Local Rulers: The Crown often made alliances with local colonial rulers, granting them autonomy in exchange for loyalty and cooperation. This strategy, exemplified in the relationship with the East India Company, aimed to maintain stability and ensure economic benefits without heavy-handed intervention.
4. Limited Taxing Power: Throughout much of this period, the Crown and Parliament were unable to effectively raise taxes directly from the colonies. This lack of direct financial control further suggests that governance was primarily a matter of cooperation and mutual benefit.
5. Charter System & Salutary Neglect: The use of charters to establish colonies and the policy of salutary neglect (a deliberate lack of enforcement of some laws) further illustrate a preference for limited interference in colonial affairs.
Arguments for Change
1. Navigation Acts & Long-Term Grievances: While the Navigation Acts might not have been consistently enforced, they nonetheless created a long-term resentment in the colonies, contributing to the growing sense of grievance that ultimately led to the American Revolution.
2. Increased Direct Control: The second half of the period witnessed an increase in direct control by the Crown and Parliament. This was manifested in the passage of new parliamentary legislation that directly affected the colonies, and a growth in colonial bureaucracy to enforce these laws.
3. Post-Seven Years’ War Taxing Attempts: Following the Seven Years’ War, the British government's need for revenue to fund its vast debts led to a renewed focus on taxing the colonies. The imposition of taxes like the Stamp Act and the Tea Act sparked widespread resistance and fueled the flames of revolution.
4. Shifts in Economic Focus: The shift from privateering to chartered companies and trading activities in the colonies signaled a change in Crown and Parliament’s priorities. This shift created new tensions and pressures on colonial economies, contributing to the growing sense of resentment.
Conclusion
This essay has explored the complex relationship between Crown, Parliament, and the colonies from 1558 to 1783. While the early period was characterized by a "light touch" approach and a focus on economic development, the latter half of the 18th century saw a significant shift towards more direct control and greater attempts to extract revenue from the colonies. This change, driven by factors like the Seven Years' War and the growing sense of autonomy within the colonies, ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the American Revolution. Ultimately, the relationship between Crown, Parliament, and the colonies was one of constant evolution, punctuated by periods of both continuity and change. The assertion that the relationship remained static is thus inaccurate.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Supporting the Hypothesis
It might be argued that the Navigation Acts asserted British control of all imperial trade at the expense of colonial subjects.
Answers might consider that:
⭐The Navigation Acts were not enforced.
⭐Throughout the period government was one of ‘light touch’ and that they preferred to work with existing rulers.
⭐Throughout the period the concern was with the economic development of the colonies.
⭐The crown and parliament made alliances with local rulers.
⭐Throughout the period the crown and parliament were unable to raise taxes from the colonies.
⭐Charters were used to attach the colonies to Britain.
⭐The policy of salutary neglect was in place.
Challenging the Hypothesis
It might be argued that the Navigation Acts created a long-term grievance and a cause of the American Revolution.
Answers might consider that:
⭐There was an increase in direct control in the second half of the period, in terms of parliamentary legislation and the nature and extent of colonial bureaucracy.
⭐There was an increased desire to generate tax revenues from colonies, particularly after the Seven Years’ War.
⭐At the start of the period privateering was a feature and that this changed to trading and Chartered Companies.