The series has now ended but you can still enjoy a wealth of information on the site, from the interactive timeline to historical narratives and profiles.
22nd June 1897: An Australian soldier of the British Empire Forces at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, with the regiment's kangaroo mascot (Getty Images) View more images
The defence of the empire was a consistent conundrum for British governments. That much was obvious in the arguments over who should pay for soldiers and militia preceding the loss of the American colonies.
Nelson's victory at Trafalgar (1805) had given Britain control of the sea lanes along which the investment and profits of empire sailed. But as the empire grew, so the bills became harder to pay. Territories needed administrations, justices and above all, protection. Moreover, Britain was also very much an European power.
Sir Charles Dilke writing in 1890 in his Problems of Greater Britain, observed, "…The danger in our paths that the enormous forces of European militarism may crush the old country and destroy the integrity of the Empire before the growth of the newer communities, which it contains, has made it too strong for the attack…"
He was of the school that demonstrated that in spite of Britain's military resources they were inadequate to meet the unprecedented necessities of a sudden and international conflict. Half Britain's food was imported and industry would soon come to a halt if raw materials didn't reach the British Isles.
Moreover, as Britain increased her overseas trade and possessions, so she increased her vulnerability. "Such," wrote Dilke, "is the one danger which threatens the fabric of that splendid empire …"
So, by the 20th century the empire had become harder to defend, especially at sea because the value of the empire was in the holds of ships. The total trade passing the Cape amounted to more than £53million pounds. Going through Suez, about £80million, The trade with North America amounted to almost £140 million and South America, £50million - all at 1900 prices.
No other nation had this size problem; every colony and outpost had to be defended in time of peace to make war less likely. The popular theory was that the better each colony was defended, then the less likely there would be nationalist uprisings. The Chancellor of the day, HH Asquith said in May 1907 that the Empire had to understand that this was an almost impossible task.
Most of the Dilkes were Charles Wentworth and this one was son of Sir Charles Dilke (1789-1864). After Trinity Hall he was called to the bar but is remembered as a Radical politician and writer. His Greater Britain was a report on his travels in America, Canada and Australasia (1868). He was considered a possible successor to Gladstone but a messy divorce case (1886) led to his resting from mainstream politics and he returned as MP for the Forest of Dean in 1892. He also played a leading part in organizing new Labour MPs and activists into a party that had a proper programme at general elections. His critique The British Empire (1899) was required reading for some considerable time.
That in 1900, a report suggested that manufacturers in Yorkshire and Lancashire claimed that under modern conditions they were dependent week by week of the importation of raw materials for their industries.
Fears of war constantly preyed on the mind of imperialists, In 1890 Sir Charles Dilke wrote Problems of Greater Britain:
"While we have much of which to be proud in the development of our tongue, our trade, our literature, and our institutions, there is a corresponding weakness to which it will be necessary to call attention. The danger that the enormous forces of European militarism may crush the old country and destroy the integrity of the Empire, before the growth of the newer communities which it contains has made it too strong for the attack.
It is conceivable that within the next few years Great Britain might be drawn into war, and receive in that war, at the hands of a coalition, a blow from which she would not recover, one of the consequences of which would be the loss of Canada and India and the proclamation of Australian independence.
Enormous as are our military resources for a prolonged conflict, they are inadequate to meet the unprecedented necessities of a sudden war. We import half our food; we import the immense masses of raw material which are essential to our industry.
The vulnerability of the United Kingdom has become greater with the extension of her trade; and, by the universal admission of the Naval authorities, it would be either difficult or impossible to defend that trade against sudden attack by France, aided by another considerable Naval power.
Our enormous resources would be almost useless in the case of such an attack, because we should not have time to call them forth. Such is the danger which threatens the fabric of that splendid empire."
