Knaplund—A Study in British Colonial Policy 
3 
This step was in accordance with the views on colonial policy 
propounded by the leading economists of the period; but in taking 
it the colonial office seems to have been actuated more by a desire 
to solve pressing practical problems than by regards for abstract 
theories. With the growth of a sentiment favoring and the final 
adoption of free trade and with the repeal of the navigation acts 
many Englishmen considered the overseas dependencies a bur¬ 
den—a source of weakness and expense. Limitation rather than 
expansion of the boundaries of the empire became their slogan. 
Neither the governments nor the leading statesmen of the period 
formally accepted this doctrine, but it influenced the attitude of 
the public towards such questions as colonial defense. Since Water¬ 
loo a large portion of the British army had been kept in the col¬ 
onies.^® When, by the end of the forties, it was deemed necessary 
to strengthen the home defenses Parliament appeared unwilling to 
increase the army estimates; and the desired increase in the force 
stationed in the United Kingdom could be obtained only by with¬ 
drawing the outlying garrisons. 
This was the opinion of Earl Grey, secretary of state for war 
and the colonies 1846-1852. He deplored the agitation of the 
Little Englanders”, but he was deeply impressed with the views 
of the Duke of Wellington, and other eminent authorities, who 
warned England of the danger in neglecting to secure adequate 
protection for the British Isles. By recalling the scattered garri¬ 
sons, already considered useless in case of war, a strong force could 
be created at the imperial base. Steam navigation which had in¬ 
creased the vulnerability of Britain also facilitated the sending of 
reinforcement to any dependency threatened by a foreign foe.^^ 
In South Africa the presence of numerous warlike natives com¬ 
plicated the situation. Here the military expenditures were heavy 
and a further extension of British territory would necessitate an 
increase of the local force at a time when the troops were needed 
elsewhere. Therefore, quite apart from the problematic value of 
such new possessions, an expansionistic policy might tend to aid in 
® A summary of these views is given by H. Duncan Hall, The British Commonwealth 
of Nations (London, 1920), pp. 39—53. 
For the opinions of leading British statesmen see debates in Parliament Jan. 16, 
1838; April 13, May 29, June 12 and 30, 1840; February 8, April 19, and May 6, 
1850. Hansard, 3rd series, XL, cols. 34-73; LIII, cols. 1063, 1064; LIV, cols. 731 
732, 1121, 1158; LV, cols. 239-245, 268, 269; CVIII, cols. 546-566, 606, 607, 1009; CX, 
cols. 565, 566,, 678, 589, 1171, 1172. See also General Sir Robert Biddulph, Lord Card- 
weU at the War O^ce (London, 1904), pp. 38-41. 
“ Biddulph, Lord Cardwell, p. 39, 
