What did you learn about voyages of exploration and discovery? What were the motivating factors or the drivers for overseas expansion? What did you glean about early modern Englishmen and their ideas about ’empire’ – what did it mean for them? Comment on any other arguments or discussions you found helpful or interesting in your reading.
Nicholas Canny. ‘The Origins of Empire: An Introduction’ in The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century (1-33).
In his chapter, ‘The Origins of Empire: An Introduction’, Canny explores not only the roots of the British Empire itself but also under what circumstances expansion could be considered colonial or imperial, and why colonists started to identify as British rather than English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. Canny argues that the terms of ‘Britain’ or ‘Great Britain’ had a ‘precise insular connotation’ when they were first used by King James VI and I after 1603 in an attempt to familiarise his diverse subjects and unite them in an imagined community, but that this changed with the Ulster Plantation during which the terms adopted expansionist associations.
While the plantation projects in Ireland saw Scottish and English Protestants joining together in shared enterprise, they were by no means unified. The English, viewing their Scottish neighbours as inferior, dominated the administration and arranged for the better lands to be reserved for English proprietors, whereas the Scots sought to construct a Scottish microcosm within the larger Ulster plantation and established a ‘colony-within-a-colony’. Despite this, the first ‘British’ settler community of Ulster was proof that the establishment of colonies of settlement modelled on the Romans was feasible in the modern world!
Transatlantic explorations and settlements tended to be dominated by English citizens only. The reign of Henry VIII had seen the first tentative attempts of exploration (and exploitation) by the English, but this declined during the regimes of Edward VI and Mary I as both monarchs were forced to focus on internal problems rather than investing in transatlantic ventures. By the end of the sixteenth century, the number of English traders interested in Atlantic, Asian, and African opportunities was still relatively small. Eventually, the London merchants realised that they needed to establish direct trading connections especially with Asia to satisfy customers’ demands for exotic goods and end their reliance on other European powers like Spain or France which led to the founding of new companies and an expansion of trading connections. Canny concludes that because this expansion was not connected with conquest and settlement, it should not be considered imperial or colonial, further questioning the connection between exploration and exploitation. At this point, the emerging ‘British Empire’ was pioneered almost exclusively by Englishmen; few Scots or Irishmen had the financial capacity to become promoters of overseas colonisation until the eighteenth century.
The reasons for overseas ventures were manifold and ranged from promotion of trade to enhancing the position of Protestant rulers in the world and extending the scope of civil society (see also Scammell, 2010). Canny makes an interesting point in suggesting that most Protestants would have focussed on fulfilling their ‘historic civilising mission’ close to home in Ireland instead of attempting to promote their faith in North America. Nevertheless, potential settlers were frequently encouraged to join colonial schemes by arguing Britain’s providential role in defending the achievements of the Reformation. During the republican commonwealth, public consciousness was then directed to the economic no less than the moral importance of overseas empire.
Instead of looking to the policies of exploration, exploitation, colonialism and settlement as they were drawn up by the administration in London, Canny argues that the actual ‘British Empire’ first emerged on a grassroots-level when the colonists realised that they would only be able to claim for themselves the rights of Englishmen by insisting they were ‘British’.
George B. Parks. ‘Tudor travel literature: a brief history’ in The Hakluyt Handbook: Volume I-II (97-132).
Analysing the ‘efflorescence and maturing of travel literature in England as a conscious literary genre within the short space of fifty years’, Parks looks at the first reports of travel and how they were made into literature and published in Tudor England. While Richard Hakluyt was one of the best-known collectors and publishers of reports of travel during the late sixteenth century, others, like the Venetian Giovanni Battista Ramusio, set out to update the classical geography of the world and pay tribute to discoveries before him. Parks argues that earlier travel literature was well known in Tudor England and that contemporary foreign works were very popular during the second half of the sixteenth century, but he fails to draw comparisons to how other nations viewed and celebrated their own achievements and those of others during the same time period.
Drawing on official accounts such as ships’ logs as well as on diaries of officers or gentlemen travellers, Hakluyt’s patriotic resolution to compile a full record of English commercial expansions led to a nation-wide interest in voyage narratives and contemporary enterprise. Especially his first publications left a lot to be desired in terms of literary finesse and were often framed either as a argument or a complaint rather than a full narrative.
Parks suggests that travel literature always focussed on one of three themes: conflict with man, conflict with nature, or both. The north-west voyage accounts focus on discovery of and conflict with nature and follow the overarching theme of endeavour, successes and satisfaction, hardship, distress and failure. While the main objective for these journeys was profit, the accounts outlining them were written and published as propaganda. The accounts of voyages to the south and the south-east primarily focus on the search for gold but also provide a sense of French, English, Portuguese and African cooperation and rivalry. Reports of westward voyages to the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Pacific usually included acts of war as well as storm and armed conflict as two major themes. They are often striking as romance or picaresque tales with some notable naval narratives. Hakluyt’s three Mediterranean narratives constitute their own category and frequently turned into pure adventure and escape stories.
The body of Hakluyt’s literature may be unique in that it records nearly all new voyages of a significant period in a nation’s history, but it is important to note that most of the narratives tell incomplete stories of travel and that few of the authors felt bound to stick only to the facts. Nonetheless, one can imagine literate youths picking up the publications and feeling the itch to travel, explore and make a name for themselves as adventurers. But while the new travel literature may have stimulated transatlantic voyage and settlement, I can’t imagine that it would have inspired citizens to become interested in the Ulster Plantations which were, after all, ‘close to home’ (Canny, 1998).
What did you learn about voyages of exploration and discovery? What were the motivating factors or the drivers for overseas expansion?
Voyages of exploration and discovery could be undertaken for various reasons, including new markets and economic gain, religious zeal, attempts to curtail power of hostile neighbours, opportunity to acquire land. They also gave rise to a new genre of literature, suggesting that the interest in exploration was not limited to merchants and those who sought to spread their own religious beliefs but also became a popular topic within the literate parts of society.
What did you glean about early modern Englishmen and their ideas about ’empire’ – what did it mean for them?
While James VI and I first sought to use the term ‘British’ to unify his various subjects from across the Atlantic archipelago in 1603, it was only when the colonists themselves needed to reinforce their association and connection with their homeland that they started to refer to themselves as ‘British’ citizens.
Also, the idea that an ‘empire’ could only be established through settlement is quite interesting. English merchants quite frequently travelled to Asia and Africa, but since they never attempted to settle there, one could argue that the colonies in North America, not the voyages to Asia and Africa, marked the onset of the British Empire. At the same time, it is undeniable that these early trading connections enabled and facilitated the later annexation of various lands to the British Crown especially in Asia.
So I know how the English treated the Irish, and Scottish in Scotland, but I was wondering if you know how the Scottish treated the Irish? Did they have much interaction with the Irish?
I think this would really depend on whether you are looking at the Lowland Scots who arrived as part of the plantation policy or the Gaels from the Highlands and Isles who had long-standing relations with the Irish.
The Irish and Scottish Gaels had religious, cultural, economic and linguistic connections as well as kinship and marital ties, but how they interacted or treated each other would really come down to the individual relationships of two kindreds. As for the Lowland Scots who came together with the English as part of the Ulster Plantation – I would be surprised if they were more sympathetic towards the Irish (and vice versa) than any of the English undertakers. James VI and the Scottish government had been trying to reform their own “uncivilised” Gaels in Scotland as early as 1581, more than twenty years before James inherited the English Crown, so I would expect that the undertakers from the Scottish Lowlands perceived the Irish as little better than any of the clansmen they had encountered back in Scotland.
Reading:
‘Hakluyt and the Economic Thought of His Time’ by G.V. Scammell, in the Hakluyt Handbook, discusses the economic troubles of England and the economic motivation for expanding into North America. Scammell outlines how Richard Hakluyt, a geographer and promoter of English colonisation, believed that the main issues the English economy faced stemmed from low employment within England, high trade taxes in European countries and a high degree of dependence on the Catholic Spain, a rival that was growing in importance in 1584. These issues, Hakluyt suggested, could be solved through colonial expansion into North America. The expansion would provide greater employment for the people of England, from trade to maritime enterprise, solve the crisis the textile industry was facing by giving them a new market for trade and allow access to a cheaper source of produce. This would allow for the ‘regeneration’ of England, and allow them to weaken, or completely eliminate their competition, and end their dependence on Spain. By reading this, I could see the links this opinion has with the intention of England to expand their hold over Ireland. England saw Ireland as a resource they could exploit, through employment and produce, while also providing a market for their goods to be sold in. Ireland also provided England with a means to try and eliminate their dependence on other European markets, such as Spain, through everything they could gain and trade in Ireland. However, the issue that faced England was that, much the same as their rival Spain, Ireland was a devoutly catholic country.
‘War, Politics and Colonization, 1558-1625’ by John C. Appleby details the English attempts at colonising in the East and West, and the differences that occurred. Appleby shows that the English attempts at colonizing in the West were marked with a lot of violence, especially when trying to enter into the Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade, which was supported by Courtiers, City Magnates and the Queen. There was a massive increase in maritime violence in the Channel and the Atlantic. However, he contrasts this with the relative peace in colonising activities in the East. The English “Empire” expanded into the East, where they formed the Muscovy Company and established trade links with Russia. The peaceful entering into the East reminded me more of the way that the English entered into Ireland, rather than the aggressive tactics of the West, due to the nature in was they initially entered Ireland through invitation rather than conquest. Appleby also discusses how their aims at achieving colonisation failed to match up to expectation due to the lack of sustained support from England, which led to a surge in privateering over colonial planning. This matches up to how I imagine the first expansion into Ireland failed, for example this is similar to Ireland when King Henry VII was the Lord of Ireland (even though this is not the period discussed by Appleby), because he was too busy dealing with things at home in England, to put effort into controlling and supporting colonists in Ireland. This inevitably led to privateering causing serious consequences for colonial interests, which I feel was somewhat the case in Ireland. English families living in Ireland intermarried with Irish people based on their own needs rather than what was necessary for colonial interests. This showed that personal interests were overriding colonial interests because the English rules in Ireland had stated intermarrying was not to happen at all.
‘The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c.1700’ by Anthony Pagden first outlines how in theory England should have been able to subdue and colonise people they viewed as inferior with relative ease due to their experiences in Ireland. He explains that, much like in Ireland, North America provided them with the opportunity to exploit the land and resources in North America allowing them greater access to commercial wealth. However later in this chapter he outlines the English striving for legitimation of their colonisation of North America. They first seek legitimation by linking their imperial ambition to religion, just as the legitimation for their initiatives in Ireland were legitimated by the 1155 Papal Bull from Pope Adrian IV. Unlike in North America though, England unintentionally gave up this legitimation for Ireland by breaking ties with Rome, meaning they had to scramble for new legitimation under the creation of the Kingdom of Ireland. Whereas the English strove to keep legitimacy over their activities in Ireland from the start of their exploits there, Pagden argues legitimacy in North America only became a concern when continuous warfare was needed to maintain expansion. A further difference in the activities in Ireland and North America was the integration with the native people. Whilst in Ireland it was official policy to maintain English bloodlines and to not intermarry with the Irish, this was not the reality as intermarriage happened quite regularly. However in North America the policy of excluding the Native American people from colonial life was successfully maintained.
What did you learn about voyages of exploration and discovery?
Through my reading of the primary sources, especially that of Humphrey Gilbert, you need to have permission from the crown to do so and his method of gaining this permission was to offer to cover all costs of such. I understand that each voyage had different levels of support and success rate as a result. Undertakings that receive little support have very little chance of success.
What were the motivating factors or drivers for overseas expansion?
Overseas expansion is usually undertaken the guise of expanding the Christian faith into areas that are seen as uncivilised. However they are actually seen as a good opportunity for wealth creation. They need a lot of people to man a voyage overseas so it provides a good means of employment. A journey to a new land means that they have access to more resources, land and labour. If a land is previously undiscovered the voyager has access to untapped resources that they are able to exploit for profit. It is also a means of gaining honour because the voyager is seen as doing so for the good of their country in service to their King or Queen, and as such brings them honour in doing so.
What did empire mean to modern Englishmen?
It meant the access to new lands for them to control and provided them with greater trade and wealth. It also meant expanding overseas to bring honour to themselves and their country. It allowed people the opportunity to gain personal wealth and wealth for the country. It even added strength to the country which can help them to greater fight their rivals and potentially overtake them in strength, land and power.
• Nicholas Canny, An Introduction of The Origins of Empire
Canny analyses the beginnings of the British Empire and explores the complex usage of the term ‘British’ amongst colonists. Canny notes how the terms ‘Britain’ and ‘British’, used by King James VI and I, had a ‘precise insular meaning’. These terms acquired expansionist connotations in relation to the Ulster settler society; Scottish and English were referred to collectively as ‘British Protestants’. Yet, Canny also notes how English promoters of transoceanic settlement and exploration did not favour such ventures as “British”. The extension of crown authority beyond Europe, or at least the advocation for it, was decidedly viewed as an exclusively English enterprise. This perception of an overseas English venture (not British) held by contemporary writers, was, Canny states, a reflection of reality as there was a clear lack of Irish or Scots who had the means to become promoters of overseas settlement until the eighteenth century. Figures such as Richard Hakluyt and Samuel Purchas were fundamentally propagandists for militant Protestantism; viewing the growth of trade and colonization as a necessity to counter the Catholic monarchs of Spain and enhance the position of Protestantism. Diverging from Hakluyt, Canny also discusses another contemporary figure, Adam Winthrop, who interestingly gives the impression through his numerous references to Ireland that the island was viewed as no more than an extension of England geographically. Resultingly, it appeared to many that the ‘completion’ of Ireland, a perceived domestic task, should receive priority because the Reformation had made little progress on the island. Many comparisons have been made between the parallels of the colonies/plantations of the Americas and Ulster with a common suggestion being that experience in Ireland influenced colonial practice across the Atlantic. However, Canny argues that despite there being an inevitable transfer of knowledge with many individuals involved in both spheres of colonization, there is an overlook of ‘internal colonialism’ which both hindered and catalysed English colonial ventures further west. King James’ favoured view of an equal partnership, a British enterprise, in Ulster did not come to fruition in reality. The English dominated, administration and the state church were legally subject to England whilst Scots were perceived as second best. To counter this, a cultural microcosm of Scotland with the English-dominated plantation was attempted by bringing in Scottish tenants and marrying Scottish wives. Canny best describes the result as a hybrid society of Scots, Irish, and English with the balance ‘decidedly in favour of the Scots’.
• Anthony Pagden, ‘The Struggle for legitimacy and the image of empire in the Atlantic to c.1700’
Pagden explores the legitimisation process for a developing expansionist state and how justifications are grounded in supposedly natural or divine convictions. The English were late to the Atlantic, far behind in terms of the Spanish and Portuguese with no serious attempt made to settle in the ‘New’ World until Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s expedition of 1583. With the realisation that there was no new Peru or Mexico, the vision of El Dorado was dropped and with it came the alteration of what kind of project the English intended to create in the Americas- to that of colonies and plantations; places which would be sources of agricultural and commercial wealth, not that of human or mineral. Pagden notes how ‘as the self-conscious heirs of the classical imperium mundi’, all the European powers involved were aware for the need to explain and justify their actions as directed towards peaceful conclusions. Pagden follows this up by suggesting that the English, in their own image, were not conquerors of the natives but saviours; not only from paganism and pre-agricultural society as they perceived it but also saviours from the Spanish. It was believed that English colonization was beneficial to both migrant and settler. Furthermore, this belief was supplemented by the view that the land was not even owned by the natives. The argument of Res Nullius claimed that since the Natives simply ‘roamed and foraged’ across the land, they did not own it whereas the English by ‘maturing, gathering, ordering’ it had gained the rights of possession.
• John C. Appleby, ‘War, Politics, and Colonization, 1558-1625’
Appleby states that the achievements between 1558-1625 were not successful in matching the expectations of colonial expansionists such as Richard Hakluyt. This failure, Appleby argues, was due to a structural weakness in English enterprise- the lack of continuous support from the state for cross-Atlantic expansion. Resultingly, colonial and commercial growth was confined to private adventurers whose desire for instant profit was harmful to long-term planning required for colonization. Acknowledging R. Brenner, Appleby notes that colonization was of little focus both to London and the crown during this era with most London merchants fixated on Europe. In 1584, Hakluyt presented Elizabeth with his ‘Discourse of Western Planting’, a comprehensive argument advocating for state support. Religious, social, and economic motives were frequent, yet with Elizabeth unwilling to play her role, efforts of colonization remained in the grasp of private enterprise. It is this failure to create a working imperial policy before 1650 that moulded the English ventures across the Atlantic into a ‘continuous process of trial and error.’
• David Armitage, ‘Literature and Empire’
Armitage states that the coincidence of the discovery of routes to the west coupled with the rediscovery of ancient texts was perceived as the break between the middle ages and the ‘modern world’. The ‘discovery’ of the Americas and the recovery of Greco-Roman literature cemented the notion of the colonisers as modern and supposedly highlighted the backwardness of non-Europeans. Quoting Francis Bacon, Armitage notes that it was not the ‘soil, the climate, or their bodies that distinguished civilized Europeans from wild and barbarous peoples… but rather their skills’. Essentially recent inventions such as the compass, printing, and gunpowder (amongst others) had altered the appearance of the world, more decisively than ‘any political power, religion, or heavenly influence’.
• J. H. Parry, ‘Hakluyt’s view of British history’ in ‘The Hakluyt Handbook: Volumes I-II
In regard to their choice of events to be recorded, Elizabethan chroniclers such as Camden, principally selected that of national patriotism. Camden, a contemporary of Hakluyt and a friend shared much in common. Both shared an ‘intense patriotism’, strong loyalties to Protestantism, scholarly leanings, and conservatism which fuelled them to link present successes with past instances. However, unlike Camden, Hakluyt was not a writer of history but a geographer who was a collector of narratives of travel. Parry points out that Hakluyt adamantly believed that the most decisive way to increase the power and wealth of England was a focus on trade overseas, particularly settlement. Interestingly, Parry notes that Hakluyt seldom used the word British, and when did, he was referring to ancient British or simply the English and Welsh. Furthermore, he perceived Ireland as a colony by conquest; making comparisons between it and the settlements of the ‘Portuguese captains donatory in Brazil’.
Conclusively from the readings it was apparent that a range of factors was present for overseas expansion in the form of religious, perceptions of civility, economic and political drivers. Oversimplifying it; religiously, the view of countering Catholicism and spreading Protestantism was deemed critical with the guise of religion acting as a justification; perceptions of civility drove the quest to ‘rescue’ the ‘barbaric’ indigenous people; economically, new markets and trade routes were opened; and politically, the English desired to counter the powerful Iberian empires of Catholic Spain and Portugal.
I’m just wondering how you view the attempt to gain Ireland. Do you think it was colonial, or just basically a land grab? Because I can see the argument that it was about it just being seen as an extension of England and therefore the land belonged to the English. However, I’m not sure how this can be considered not colonial, as every attempt at expanding and settling in a country means that it is seen as an extension of England, even though it’s overseas. Maybe i’m misunderstanding though.
War, Politics and Colonisation 1558-1625 by John C Appleby
England’s foray into expansion and colonisation was deemed a failure until the early 17th century. England had an abundance of enthusiasm to expand but there was a lack of state support and interest in overseas expansion. England was more interested in European trade until the decline of the cloth trade which was England’s prized resource. It is assumed there is more interest in wealth which possibly prompted ambitious ideas to expand and trade with far off markets for the acquisition of luxuries. England bought many of the resources it needed in the manufacture of cloth from Spain so expanding and acquiring their own materials would reduce their costs. For example, they could concentrate on exporting goods and reduce imports. They could also save money on severing ties with the Spanish market because of high costs reducing their monopoly on trading.
The most prominent feature of the 16th century was the hostile relations with Spain. Religious differences created hostilities because each saw the other as heretics. Spain tried to interfere in English affairs with Spanish plots to remove Elizabeth from the throne to restore Catholicism to England. Although religion was a small part of the problem, Spain saw England as a threat to their territories. For example; Piracy was encouraged by Queen Elizabeth rewarding Hawkins and Drake for attacking Spanish ships and taking their treasure. There was also interference from England in the Spanish owned Netherlands. In 1572, Elizabeth supported the Dutch rebellion against the Spanish which led to war between the two nations.
Although there are clear hostilities between Spain and England, Appleby suggests an attempt at weakening the Spanish through private enterprise. Colonisation in the later 16th century was attempted by Sir Richard Grenville and also Gilbert but were unsuccessful. This is blamed on the lack of Royal support which could explain further ventures were backed by organised privateering. Lack of support and funding from the state was a theme throughout colonisation attempts.
Hakluyt and the economic thought of his time
Hakluyt claims the economic situation was grave for England because there was no outlet for woollen cloth which was England’s major product. High taxation in France for goods and reliance on Spain for the oils and dyes England needed for making cloth. Spain was the main source for trade which they monopolised which England suspected was an attempt to bankrupt them. If England could expand and colonise then they would be free from Spain and free from high taxes which would hopefully make them more self-sufficient. Colonisation creates jobs, trade routes and in turn the need for more ships. This suggests the ambitions England has to monopolise the trade system for themselves. There is undertones of Spanish resentment and the need to cripple their economy by any means necessary. However, England was obviously struggling economically and there was a need to reduce costs and increase income. This would be why North America was the holy grail to them. Tapping into new resources, opening up trade in more luxurious goods and buying cheaply from the indigenous tribes would solve their immediate problems. It would need the approval and backing from the state which was not evident in the 16th century but the ventures into colonisation was funded by the tradesmen and nobility in London.
The North-West Project 1565-67.
Petition from Humphrey Gilbert to the Queen
This source is a plea for consent to travel the North passage funded by himself. He promises not to traverse anywhere that put the relationship between England and Spain in jeopardy. Gilbert has conditions attached to his petition asking for ownership of the discovered passage and any discoveries made, a fifth will be given as payment to him.
– Nicholas Canny, ‘The Origins of Empire: An Introduction’
In this chapter, Canny explores the definitions of ‘empire’ and how it transformed from its tradition of independence to colonising land to create settlements and trade routes. Originally, James VI and I used the term ‘Britain’ to form a sense of unification amongst the nations, however, this was not realistic as settlers in Ulster continued to keep within their nations communities. King James favoured the theory to have English and Scottish as equal partners in civilising and to be intermixed. This was not successful as the plantations that emerged were English created and English dominated. Furthermore, Scottish settlers were not treated as equals to English and were ‘tolerated’ by the English, this led to the formation of distinct Scottish and Irish communities within the England controlled plantations. Though, it was still classified as the first ‘British’ settlement, despite the nations not living equally in a unified community.
In addition, Canny argued that plantations in Ulster hindered the British colonial development as they could not send anymore Scots overseas, nor could they financially afford to. Sending tenants, families, livestock and finding accommodation was expensive and left a strain on the Scottish money supply, leading to many Scots becoming indebted to money-lenders.
However, later on this changed as Scottish, English and Irish went to the West Indies for work. Along with the decrease of migrates to Ireland as it became less attractive to settlers that preferred America, the empire became ‘British’ rather than ‘English’ due to the diverse group that settled in the colonies.
A key aspect of colonisation, especially in the beginning, was the spreading of Protestantism. As Richard Hakluyt and his associates believed the ‘promotion of trade and colonisation as one necessary means both to the enhance the position of protestant rulers int the world and to check the Catholic monarch in Spain.’ Therefore, they felt as it was their duty to pass on the knowledge of the ‘true religion’ to communities that had no access to this knowledge. John Milton even likened plantations to the Creation story in the Bible, stating God as a ‘Sovereign Planter.’
Furthermore, the plantations in Ulster were organised into a network of towns and cities, later helping as blueprints for the colony settlements. Town and cities were used to ‘civilise’ inhabitants.
For Charles II, colonisation became important for wealth as he wanted to keep up colonial efforts for custom revenue. Colonialism became known as essential for economic benefits. Trade became essential for the empire and the increase of wealth and trade allowed for the transformation from exploration to exploitation. Forced labour and slaves were taken across the empire to work on manufactured goods.
– J.M. Parry, ‘Hakluyt’s view of British History’ in D.B. Quinn (ed.), The Hakluyt Handbook, 2 vols (London, 1974)
Hakluyt did not attempt to piece together his histories, he rather let his sources speak for themselves. This meant that his views on British history had to be pieced together by his choice in documents. He believed that the ‘quickest and surest’ way for England to increase wealth and power was by overseas trade, particularly by settlements and trade in the East – his patriotic views consisted of England being better when it was stronger.
In his writing, Hakluyt rarely used the term ‘British’ and would only occasionally use it when including the Welsh. To him, the Irish were colonised by conquest, likening Strongbow’s Irish plantation to the Portuguese settlements in Brazil.
Despite his colonial and religious standpoints, Hakluyt admired Spanish institutions and customs and wanted his countrymen to adopt these practices.
– G.V. Scammell, ‘Hakluyt and the economic thought of his time’ in D.B. Quinn (ed.), The Hakluyt Handbook, 2 vols (London, 1974)
Hakluyt saw that England had become dependent on Spain for oils and dyes that the English needed for woollen cloth, their main export. With this, he felt Spain were deliberately attempting to ruin England. In addition, French taxation was too high for the English enjoyment. Therefore, Hakluyt believed that the best solution to these problems was to colonise land outside of Europe so they can gather their own raw materials rather than reply on Spain. Therefore, this would equate to lower tax prices as it would be outside of European control.
Hakluyt believed that with these reforms England would destroy all competition and break Spain. Allowing England, who were slow to join with other nations in colonising, to become the biggest power in Europe.
From these readings, my understanding is that the reasons for oversea colonisation shifted throughout time and what was discovered. In the beginning their justification was to spread the word of God to ‘uncivilised’ people but, as exploration went on, they found good and resources that could economically benefit Britain.
War, Politics, and Colonization, 1558–1625 John C. Appleby
Appleby, Talks about the early stages of transatlantic trade and colonial trading. For the most part he gives off the idea that it was plagued by amateurism and from the late 16th and early 17th century it was still in an experimental phase, although within this time frame much was done to increase trade due to the limited resources England had, as well as decline in cloth trades. Many trade links were made spanning from Muscovy opening trade with the east. But also, across the Atlantic and many early colony’s and trade posts were set up across Africa and the Americas. However, The English crown was still viewing colonisation very inwardly to begin and did not see much use into expanding colonial ties. This led the early colonial expansion to be led by privateers and independent merchants who were driven by the idea to make quick profit based on more luxury goods such as gold slaves or ivory. However, this focus remained on quick profit goods and in the early stages of colonial expansion little was done to make colonialization a permanent feature of an “English Empire”
Appleby goes on to say that, it was not until expansion of French and Spanish catholic empires that the English crown decided to expand interest in the colony’s, due to a growing idea and formation of militant Protestantism which aimed to put itself in direct competition with the Spanish and French empires. Leading to a rapid expansion of colonial interest. Culminating in the Anglo-Spanish war after the war ended and even just before this led to a shift in the way the crown and colonial companies viewed the colony’s and this marked a point of greater expansion and promotion of colonial schemes. Although Appleby does note that this still remained rather small but with the growing militant Protestantism more emphasis was given to expanding empire to rival other Europeans.
But From these Appleby explains there was a large expansion of overseas trade and economic growth after the Anglo-Spanish war and at this point we start to see an importance emphasised on colonies and now they are becoming a more valuable commodity a shift in there status and importance can be seen. Although there was still this idea of amateurism at this point as it was still for the most part in the hands of privateers and the new found trade was also accompanied by plunder and rivalry between the Spanish and Dutch. As well as older industries within England still had much of the focus of English commerce which threatened the expansion of the colony’s
New aggressive competition with the Dutch also led to another wave of development on colony’s who the English rivalled themselves against promoting much expansion and creating another wave of importance over colonisation.
By the mid 1650’s colonisation was still small and, in some ways, amateurish but in the late 16th and early 17th century we see a change in attitude which deems new importance to colonisation and aggressive expansion firstly funded by nationalistic Protestantism against the French and Spanish and then later as a trade competition with the Dutch.
George B. Parks. ‘Tudor travel literature: a brief history’ in The Hakluyt Handbook: Volume I-II (97-132).
Analysing the works of Richard Hakluyt who acted as a very well-known collector and publisher of reports and travel logs and published many works which parks come to suggest added to this growing hyper patriotism of the 17th century and had great popularity in late Tudor England. And from this it becomes no surprise an attitude towards travel and exploration was on the rise.
The narrative of these books that Parks describes many factors of inspiration for those wanting to take part in voyages overseas. These narratives focused on an idea of adventurer and exploration as well as strong economic gain as well as parks suggests an idea of religious duty an importance placed on Protestantism aim of religious dominance.
One important feature Parks shows is that books like these had a strong idea of patriotism an idea of English Protestantism we can see as a continuing structure from what Appleby mentioned in the late 16th century. We can see a beginning in the way attitudes of colonisation are beginning to change. An idea of a nationalistic view was setting which began to change this idea of nation to empire and as a result we see this slow change towards the idea of colonisation begin.