Dominions of Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century. Dominion. About state support for education

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "Syktyvkar State University"

Law Institute

Department of Theory of State and Law and Fundamentals of Law

Course work

Discipline: History of state and law of foreign countries

Topic: British colonial empire. Colonial Administration

Completed by: student gr. 6110

Ilyukhin I.S.

Syktyvkar 2015

Introduction

Colonization

The emergence and development of the British colonial empire

Conclusion

Introduction

The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary interstate association of independent territorial sovereign states. The head of the Commonwealth was the monarch of Britain, but at the same time, in matters of domestic and foreign policy, the states included in the Commonwealth remained sovereign. The Commonwealth (formally previously known as the British Commonwealth of Nations) emerged from the British colonial empire.

The Commonwealth began with a colonial conference held in London in 1887, at which the foundations of a new colonial policy were consolidated: from now on, the most developed colonies were granted the status of dominions - autonomous quasi-state entities (later - actually independent states), while all of them became part of the British Commonwealth of Nations - an association designed to unite the vast British Empire. These dominions were Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of Newfoundland, Ireland and India.

At the 1926 Conference of Prime Ministers of Great Britain and the British Dominions, the Balfour Declaration was adopted, in which Great Britain and the Dominions recognized that these states had “equal status and are not dependent on each other in any aspect of their domestic or foreign policy, despite the fact that they are brought together by a common loyalty to the Crown and free membership in the British Commonwealth of Nations."

The formal legal status of the Commonwealth was established by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Under this statute, the Commonwealth was understood as a voluntary association of self-governing states united by allegiance to the crown.

The Commonwealth included Great Britain, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominions of Newfoundland, Ireland and India. South Africa. By the London Declaration of 1949, members of the Commonwealth accepted the British Crown as the symbol of their organization, as well as the head of the association.

The purpose of this work is to study the prerequisites for the emergence of the British Commonwealth of Nations and its development, as well as to consider the role of this association at the present stage of development of humanity and the state as a whole.

To achieve the above goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1. Consider the era of colonization, its origins, and its development;
2. The role of Great Britain in the era of colonization, the emergence of the British colonial empire.
3. Study the national liberation revolutions and the collapse of the British colonial empire, the emergence of the British Commonwealth of nations.
4. Consider the role and significance of the British Commonwealth nation in the modern world.

Since this topic of work concerns the historical aspects of the development of the British state, the most used sources for studying this topic were: “History of the State and Law of Foreign Countries” and “History of the Legal System of England”.

1. Colonization

In the capitalist era, colonialism becomes a worldwide phenomenon. Its growth began at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. and is associated with historical changes in Europe, which are commonly called the transition from feudal to capitalist relations. These changes spanned decades. Their manifestations were the growth of industrial production, the development of science, the expansion of trade, and the increase in demand for labor and gold. The latter circumstance played a particularly important role in the desire of Europeans to search for new lands.

Only in ancient times were gold and other metals, now called precious, simply a material for the manufacture of any products. Gradually, gold became a kind of universal commodity for which any other commodity could be exchanged. As production and trade grew, so did the need for gold.

In North and Central America, the main colonial competitors were Spain, England and France. The intensification of colonial competition was associated with the development in Europe from the middle of the 16th century. a new form of capitalist entrepreneurship - manufacturing. In the 17th century in England, Holland and France, the so-called East India Companies arose (British, 1600-1858; Dutch, 1602-1798; French, 1664-1770 and 1785-1793), which received the right to seize new lands in the East, their virtually uncontrolled exploitation and monopoly trade. Colonial rivalry became one of the main reasons for the fiercest wars between European countries: for the “Spanish inheritance” (1701-1714), for the “Austrian inheritance” (1740-1748), the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), Napoleonic wars. More often than not, England won the colonial rivalry, taking away from France its largest possessions in Canada and territories on the east coast of Hindustan. In the 50-60s. XVIII century The British East India Company captured Bengal, one of the most economically developed parts of India, thereby marking the beginning of the complete colonial subjugation of this great Asian country.

A fierce struggle for the possession of Indonesia, one of the richest regions of the East, unfolded between the Dutch and British East India Companies. Here the British had to give in. By the middle of the 18th century. Almost all of Java and a number of other islands fell into the hands of the Dutch, but the country was finally conquered only in the 19th century.

The colonization of Australia followed a different path. After James Cook explored the eastern coast of the fifth continent in 1770, the English government decided to make the new lands a place of exile for convicts, because the former places of exile for convicts from England, Scotland and Ireland - the American colonies - were “closed” after the start of their war for independence. Meanwhile, English prisons were overcrowded and crime continued to rise. The first British colony in Australia - New South Wales - was formed in February 1788. Its initial population was 1018 people: officials, soldiers and exiles. Among the latter there were only 12 carpenters, one mason and not a single person familiar with peasant labor...

An important milestone in the development of colonialism were the events of the late 18th century: the industrial revolution in Europe, the war of independence in North America 1775 - 1783. and the French Revolution 1789 - 1794. Europe sought to transform its overseas possessions into markets for industrial products, a source of raw materials and food. Thus began the gradual involvement of the colonies in the emerging world capitalist market relations.

The War of Independence in North America was a direct consequence of the growing contradictions between the mother countries and the colonies, especially settler colonies, such as the American colonies of England. The colonies quickly gained strength, striving for economic and political independence, while the metropolises continued to see in them only sources of raw materials and huge incomes, and not equal partners. In 1763, England banned, for example, independent resettlement to lands seized from France in the west of the country; the colonists could obtain manufactured goods only from England, at prices set by England, and sell raw materials only to England. The war, which broke out in 1775, ended with the Treaty of Versailles in 1783; England recognized the independence of its American possessions, which soon formed a single independent state - the United States of America.

After North and South America won independence, the colonial interests of European powers focused on the East and Africa. It was there that colonialism reached its greatest flowering and power, and it was there that the collapse of the colonial system began and ended.

In the 40s XIX century The British East India Company, after a bloody war, conquered the principality of Punjab and other still independent parts of India, thereby completing its complete subjugation. Active colonial development of the country began: the construction of railways, reforms of land ownership, land use and the tax system, which were aimed at adapting traditional methods of farming and way of life to the interests of England.

The subjugation of India opened the way for the British to the north and east, to Afghanistan and Burma. In Afghanistan, the colonial interests of England and Russia collided. After the Anglo-Afghan wars of 1838-1842 and 1878-1881. The British established control over the foreign policy of this country, but were unable to achieve its complete subordination.

As a result of the first (1824-1826) and second (1852-1853) Anglo-Burmese wars, which were waged by the East India Company, its army, consisting mainly of mercenary Indian sepoy soldiers under the command of English officers, occupied a large part of Burma. The so-called Upper Burma, which retained its independence, was cut off from the sea in the 60s. England imposed unequal treaties on her, and in the 80s. completely subjugated the entire country.

In the 19th century British expansion in Southeast Asia intensified. In 1819, a naval base was founded in Singapore, which became England's main stronghold in this part of the world. The long-standing rivalry with Holland in Indonesia ended less successfully for the British, where they managed to establish themselves only in the north of Borneo and small islands.

In the second half of the 19th century. all colonies in Australia achieved self-government at the beginning of the 20th century. they united to form the Commonwealth of Australia, which received dominion rights. At the same time, the colonization of New Zealand and other nearby islands took place. In 1840, New Zealand became a colony, and in 1907, another white dominion of England.

In 1882, Egypt was occupied by British troops, and in 1914 England established its protectorate over it. In 1922, the protectorate was abolished, Egypt was declared an independent and sovereign state, but it was independence on paper, since England completely controlled the economic, foreign policy and military spheres of its life. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. colonial rivalry and the struggle for spheres of influence in the world intensified. Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902 completed the “gathering” of lands in southern Africa by England. European powers actively intervened in the economic and political life of the countries that were part of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire.

After the First World War, one of the main causes of which was colonial rivalry, a territorial redistribution of the world took place. In 1919, the League of Nations was created, on behalf of which guardianship over the possessions of Germany and Turkey was established. The colonies of the vanquished were taken over by the victors. Australia received German possessions in New Guinea, Germany's African colonies were given to England (Tanganyika, part of Togo and Cameroon).

Colonialism left the liberated countries with a legacy of serious socio-economic, political and ethnic problems, on the solution of which their future largely depends. Border disputes, interstate and interethnic conflicts, which have claimed many millions of lives in Asian and African countries in recent decades, most often have their roots in the colonial past.

Europe, with its vast scientific, technical, cultural experience and capital, and the energy of European settlers created in the colonies the foundations of modern transport and communications, mining and manufacturing and agriculture, education and medicine, and new forms of economic activity. The foundation of modern statehood was laid - legislative, executive and judicial powers. The colonial powers were guided, first of all, by their own interests, but as a result, the formation and development of new social relations also occurred, new socio-political forces emerged - mass parties, organizations, trade unions, capable of leading the struggle of the colonies for political liberation. Thus, colonialism, against its own will, accelerated the political awakening of the peoples of the colonies, the rise of national liberation movements, the collapse of the world colonial system and the emergence of dozens of new independent states.

2. The emergence and development of the British colonial empire

England's colonial policy dates back to the era of feudalism. But only the bourgeois revolution of the 17th century marked the beginning of widespread colonial expansion. Already in the middle of the 17th century, England, as a result of Cromwell’s aggressive wars, captured a number of islands in the West Indies, strengthened and expanded its possessions in North America, and carried out the final annexation of Ireland. the revolution created the preconditions for the economic and political superiority of Great Britain among the colonial countries: Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. Having gained the upper hand over their European rivals, the English bourgeoisie in the 17th - 19th centuries. significantly ahead of them in colonial conquests.

By the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain had captured vast territories in all parts of the world. She owned: Ireland in Europe; Canada, Newfoundland, British Guiana and the West Indies Islands in America; Ceylon, Malaya, parts of Burma and India in Asia; Cape Land, Natal, British Gambia and Sierra Leone in Africa; the entire Australian continent and New Zealand. In 1875, the possessions of the British Empire amounted to 8.5 million square meters. miles, and the population of the empire is about 20% of the total population of the globe.

For most of the 19th century, Great Britain was the world's leading country in terms of economic development. The leadership gained during the industrial revolution was manifested primarily in industrial superiority; in 1870, England accounted for 32% of industrial production (USA - 26%, Germany - 10%, France - 10%, Russia - 4%, etc. countries - 18%).

England firmly held a leading position in trade, where it held first place, and its share in world trade turnover was about 65%. For quite a long time, it pursued a policy of free trade. Due to their quality and cheapness, British goods did not need protectionist protection, and the government did not prohibit the import of foreign goods.

Using open robbery of the colonial peoples, unequal trade, practicing the slave trade, various forms of forced labor and other means of colonial exploitation, the English bourgeoisie accumulated enormous capital, which became the source from which they fed the labor aristocracy in England itself. The colonial empire played a significant role in the fact that England in the 19th century turned into an industrialized capitalist country - “the workshop of the whole world.”

Great Britain also ranked first in the export of capital, and London was the financial center of the world. The English currency played the role of world money, acting as a unit of account in world trade transactions.

As the struggle for economic leadership in the world intensified between the old industrial countries (England and France) and the young rapidly developing countries (the USA and Germany), Great Britain could not maintain its dominance for an indefinitely long time after other less developed but abundant ones countries endowed with resources began to industrialize. In this sense, Britain's relative decline was inevitable.

Reasons for the slowdown in economic development:

1. The growth of colonial power and the outflow of capital from the country;
2. Moral and physical aging of production facilities and limited use of electrical energy;
3. Strengthening the policy of protectionism in the USA, Germany, France and other countries;
4. Archaic education system;
5. Insufficient entrepreneurial activity of English industrialists and the slow introduction of new technologies.

The loss of world hegemony occurred slowly and almost imperceptibly to contemporaries. Despite the slowdown in economic development, Great Britain remained a highly developed and richest country in the world.

As the empire was created, a system and skills for managing colonies were developed. For a long time, the general administration of the colonies passed from one department to another in the British government. It was only in 1854 that a special Ministry of Colonies was created in England, which was entrusted with the following responsibilities:

1. Management of relations between the metropolis and the colonies;
2. Maintaining the rights and supremacy of the metropolis and protecting its interests;
3. Appointment and removal of governors and senior officials of the colonies;
4. Issuance of orders and instructions for the management of colonies.

In addition, the Ministry of Colonies, together with the Ministry of War, distributed armed forces to protect the colonies and controlled the armed forces of the colonies, which had their own armies. The highest court of appeal for the colonial courts was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain.

Since the 18th century. a general division of all colonies into “conquered” and “settled” colonies developed, in relation to which two types of British colonial administration gradually developed. The “conquered” colonies, as a rule, with a “colored” population, did not have political autonomy and were governed on behalf of the crown through the authorities of the metropolis by the British government. Legislative and executive functions in such colonies were concentrated directly in the hands of the highest government official - the governor (governor general). The representative bodies created in these colonies actually represented only a small layer of local residents, but even in this case they played the role of an advisory body under the governors. As a rule, a regime of national and racial discrimination was established in the “conquered” colonies.

Another type of governance developed in the colonies, where the majority or a significant part of the population were white settlers from Britain and other European countries (North American colonies, Australia, New Zealand, Cape Land). For a long time, these territories were not much different in form of government from any other colonies, but gradually acquired political autonomy.

The creation of representative bodies of self-government began in the settler colonies in the mid-18th century. However, the colonial parliaments had no real political power, because the highest legislative, executive and judicial powers remained in the hands of the British governors-general. In the middle of the 19th century. In a number of provinces in Canada, the institution of “responsible government” was established. As a result of a vote of no confidence passed by the local assembly, the appointed Governor's Council, which acted as the colonial government, could be dissolved. The most important concessions to the settler colonies were made in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, when, one after another, they achieved further expansion of self-government and, as a result, received the special status of dominions. In 1865, the Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed, which invalidated acts of colonial legislatures in two cases:

1. If they were in any respect contrary to the Acts of the British Parliament extended to that Colony;
2. If they contradicted any orders and regulations issued on the basis of such an act or having the force of such an act in the colony. At the same time, the laws of the colonial legislatures could not be invalidated if they did not comply with the norms of English “common law”. The legislative bodies of the colonies received the right to establish courts and issue acts regulating their activities.

After the formation of the Dominions, their foreign policy and “matters of defense” remained under the purview of the British government. Since the end of the 19th century. One of the forms of relations with the dominions were the so-called colonial (imperial) conferences, held under the auspices of the Ministry of Colonies. At the 1907 conference, at the request of representatives of the dominions, new organizational forms for their conduct were developed. Imperial conferences were henceforth to be chaired by the British Prime Minister with the participation of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. simultaneously with the seizure of vast territories in Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Somalia, etc.), British expansion in Asia and the Arab East intensified. The sovereign states that existed here were actually turned into semi-colonies-protectorates (Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iran, etc.), their sovereignty was limited by treaties imposed by England and the presence of British troops.

Colonial law in the British possessions consisted of acts of the British Parliament ("statutory law"), "common law", "equity", as well as decrees and orders of the Ministry of Colonies and regulations adopted in the colony itself. The widespread introduction of English law in the colonies began in the second half of the 19th century, when the colonies became trading “partners” of the mother country and it was necessary to ensure the stability of trade exchange, the security of the person and property of British subjects.

Intertwined with traditional institutions, local law of conquered countries, reflecting both its own and externally imposed social relations, colonial law was a complex and contradictory phenomenon. In India, for example, the law-making practice of British courts and colonial legislation created extremely complex systems of Anglo-Hindu and Anglo-Muslim law that applied to local residents. These systems were characterized by an eclectic mixture of English, traditional, religious law and judicial interpretation. Colonial law in Africa also artificially combined norms of European law, local customary law, and colonial laws that copied the colonial codes of India. English law applied to English settlers in all parts of the world. At the same time, in the settler colonies, “common law” was applied primarily, and English legislation could not be applied unless it was specifically stated in an act of the British Parliament.

Several types of colonial possessions developed in the British Empire. The “white” dominions (“dominion” in English means “possession”) - Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa - enjoyed independence, which was constantly increasing. Not only did they have their own parliaments, governments, armies and finances, but sometimes they themselves owned colonies (for example, Australia and the Union of South Africa). Colonial countries with relatively developed state power and social relations usually became protectorates. There were, as it were, two levels of colonial administration. Supreme power belonged to the British governors-general; they, unlike the governors of the dominions, who rather represented the interests of the British crown than ruled on its behalf, were the sovereign masters of the subject countries. The so-called native administration (local rulers, leaders) enjoyed limited independence, was endowed with certain judicial and police powers, the right to collect local taxes, and had its own budgets. The native administration acted as a buffer between the supreme power of the Europeans and the oppressed local population. This control system is called indirect or indirect. It was most common in the British possessions, and English colonial policy began to be called the policy of indirect (indirect) control.

The British also practiced so-called direct rule in some colonies. Such colonies were called crown colonies, i.e. were directly subordinate to London, with minimal or no rights to self-government. The exception was the crown colonies with a significant layer of white population who had great privileges and even their own colonial parliaments. Sometimes both direct and indirect methods of government were used in the same country. For example, India before World War II was divided into the so-called British Colony of India, which consisted of 16 provinces and was governed from London, and a protectorate, which included over 500 feudal principalities and in which a system of indirect government operated. Different forms of government were simultaneously used in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and other countries.

3. Organization of management in the colonies of England

England's colonization of the Atlantic coast of North America began almost a century after the seizure of vast territories of Central and South America by Spain and Portugal. The history of British colonial rule dates back to 1607, when Fort Jamestown was founded by English settlers.

The population of the first British colonies founded by trading companies consisted of indentured servants (paupers and prisoners), i.e., individuals obliged to pay the company the cost of their passage to the New World within three to four years, and their “stewards.” In 1619, the first black slaves appeared. Then the wave of political and religious dissidents and other free migrants grows.

American colonial society from the moment of its inception was by no means homogeneous or egalitarian. It included planters and bourgeois, free small farmers and paupers, merchants, shipowners and servants. Superimposed on social contradictions were religious contradictions that existed between different directions of Protestantism (Calvinists and Lutherans), Catholics, as well as other beliefs and sects. Sharp contradictions existed between the plantation South, whose economy was based on slavery, and the industrial-agrarian North, where capitalist relations developed.

The first colonies (Virginia, Plymouth, Massachusetts) were purely commercial enterprises, and their legal status was determined by colonial charters, which were unique agreements between the British Crown and the shareholders of a particular company. In its subsequent development, relations between the crown and the colonies increasingly acquired a political character.

The system of British colonial administration in its main features developed by the end of the 17th century. By this time, there were 13 colonies, which, according to their legal status, were divided into three groups. Rhode Island and Connecticut, which had charters of self-governing colonies, actually represented a kind of republic, since all governing bodies on their territory were elected. Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland were privately owned. The remaining eight - Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia - were possessions of the British Crown. In these colonies, government was carried out by governors, but bicameral legislatures were also created. Decisions of colonial legislatures could be overturned either by crown-appointed governors with absolute veto power, or by the king through the Privy Council.

The royal charters granted to the colonists represented the rights, freedoms and guarantees that were in force in the metropolis itself. These include equality of all before the law, the right to a fair trial by jury, the principle of adversarialism in criminal proceedings, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, guarantees against cruel and barbaric punishments, etc.

Political and legal institutions and views in the English colonies developed under the influence of England, but naturally, they primarily expressed the economic needs of colonial society. From the very beginning, two opposing tendencies were revealed in the emerging colonial constitutionalism - reactionary and democratic. The first received its fullest expression in Massachusetts, where a theocratic oligarchy was established, suppressing any manifestation of democracy, free thought and religious tolerance. Power in this “Puritan republic” belonged to aristocratic and bourgeois elements.

The bearer of the second trend was the colony of Connecticut, formed by religious and political dissidents expelled from Massachusetts. The governing bodies of Connecticut - the governor and the General Court (a representative institution) were elected, and the provision of active voting rights to the residents of the colony was not associated with any religious requirements.

The self-governing colony of Rhode Island was even more democratic. In this “little republic,” as it is called in American historiography, a representative form of government with a unicameral legislature was introduced, the separation of church and “state” was carried out, frequent elections were provided for, the right of collective and individual legislative initiative of citizens endowed with equal rights, and the holding of referendums .

The political and economic relations of the colonies with the mother country from the beginning of the 17th century until the declaration of independence in 1776 were determined by the policy of artificially restraining the development of capitalist relations, limiting the economic activity of the bourgeoisie of the colonies, whose foreign trade was completely placed under the control of England.

During the first six decades of the 18th century, immediately preceding the American Revolution, the English Parliament passed laws that stifled industry and commerce in the colonies. The Navigation Act, the laws on trade in essential goods, the stamp duty and many others, adopted in London without the participation of representatives of the colonies, caused indignation in all layers of colonial society. At the same time, the military and administrative oppression of the metropolis increased. At the same time, significant political and ideological changes were taking place in the colonies themselves—the desire to free themselves from British colonial oppression was growing, and unifying tendencies were making their way, expressed in the actual establishment of confederal relations between the colonies.

4. The collapse of the British colonial empire, the formation of independent states and the British Commonwealth of Nations

The Great October Socialist Revolution marked the beginning of a powerful upsurge of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries. It drew the colonial peoples of Asia and Africa into the general flow of the world revolutionary movement. In some countries, the driving force of this movement was the working class, which created its own political parties. But in most countries, the leadership of the anti-colonial movement was in the hands of the national bourgeoisie (in India, Indonesia, countries of the Arab East).

Under the pressure of the national liberation movement, the colonial powers made a number of concessions. In 1919, England recognized the independence of Afghanistan, in 1922 it changed the form of colonial rule in Egypt, in 1932 it declared the sovereignty of Iraq, etc. In 1926, at the imperial conference in London, England was forced to recognize the new status of dominions. According to the decisions of the conference, the dominions received independence in both internal and external affairs. The conference documents stated that England and the Dominions constituted "autonomous public units within the British Empire... freely united as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." Governors-General in the Dominions lost real power, as they were now seen as representatives of the crown rather than the English government. Legal formalization of new ties between England and the dominions was carried out by the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which became a kind of constitution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The statute emphasizes that “the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” England was deprived of the right to make laws for the dominions, except in those special cases when “the given dominion requested and agreed to introduce it.” On the other hand, no laws of the dominions could be declared invalid by England under the pretext of contradicting its legislation. After the Statute of Westminster, the dominions finally turned into independent states, being subjects of international relations, having the right to conclude treaties, declare war, etc. But the Statute of Westminster did not apply to the colonies, which until the end of the Second World War were governed mainly by old methods. Only from time to time new “constitutional laws” were introduced in these colonies, which were used by the British colonialists to split the national liberation movement.

After the Second World War, which led to the emergence of the world socialist system, to the weakening of the position of imperialism, to the powerful rise of the labor and democratic movement, new favorable conditions were created for the deepening of national liberation revolutions. Under the blows of the national liberation movement, the colonial system of imperialism collapsed. However, imperialism used all means, including direct military suppression, in order to delay the collapse of the colonial empires. However, under the pressure of the national liberation movement, imperialism was forced to retreat, expand the degree of self-government of the colonies, introduce new constitutions and ultimately recognize the independence of the majority of colonial possessions.

British imperialism was forced to reckon with the promises made during the war to the peoples of the colonies, to which the mother country had to turn for help when the empire was in dire straits. He also had to reckon with the national liberation movements that unfolded in the colonies after the war, which could no longer be suppressed by force. When Indonesia declared its independence in August 1945, the Attlee government sent an army of one hundred thousand people there to help the Dutch colonialists, but under pressure from world public opinion and protests in England itself, this army was withdrawn from Indonesia in mid-1947. Attempts to provide military assistance were also unsuccessful. assistance to the French imperialists in Indochina.

In its own colonial empire, British imperialism had to face the greatest difficulties in India. The independence movement paralyzed the actions of the Anglo-Indian administration, and on March 15, 1946, Attlee officially recognized India's right to independence in Parliament. But, having agreed to this serious concession, British imperialism began to seek ways to resolve the issue that would enable it to maintain its dominance by other means. India was divided along religious lines into two states, which remained part of the British Empire as dominions. Nevertheless, the Indian Union and Pakistan ceased to be colonies and received, albeit limited, state independence. Ceylon also received independence and dominion status. Burma achieved independence but abandoned its dominion status. Only in Malaya did British imperialism stubbornly strive to completely preserve its positions; British troops mercilessly suppressed the national liberation movement in this area.

British imperialism was forced to give up some of its positions in the Middle East. In 1946, England withdrew its troops from Syria and Lebanon, and in 1948 abandoned its mandate for Palestine.

The national liberation movement in England's African colonies had not yet developed enough to force it to make serious concessions. But here too, British imperialism had to maneuver. The goal of the Attlee government's colonial policy remained to increase the production of raw materials in the colonies, necessary to resolve England's economic difficulties. It achieved this with special zeal in the African colonies.

There were also some changes in relations between the Dominions and Great Britain. Since 1947, in documents, press and literature, the term British Empire gave way to the name British Commonwealth of Nations , which was sometimes used even before the war (at imperial conferences in 1926, 1931, etc.).

The Dominion of Newfoundland joined Canada as a result of a referendum on March 31, 1949. On April 18, 1949, the Irish Republic officially left the Commonwealth. In 1957, the colonies of the Gold Coast (Ghana) and the Federation of Malaya achieved independence, and in 1960, Cyprus and Nigeria. However, Britain's colonial empire, especially its possessions in Africa, still remained significant, and the process of its collapse unfolded in full force in the next decade.

The British Commonwealth and British imperialism managed to make new attempts at reform. The composition of the commonwealth expanded to include new states that gained political independence. Since 1948, in official documents the British Commonwealth of Nations has been referred to simply as the Commonwealth. Some members of the Commonwealth refused to accept dominion status and declared themselves a republic with an elected head of state (Ceylon, India). These states refused to participate in the traditional meetings of the Commonwealth, at which military issues were discussed, and began to pursue an independent foreign policy course.

Conclusion

Today, the Commonwealth includes 54 independent states, representing 30% of the world's population (1.7 billion people), working together for development, democracy and peace.

The official language of the Commonwealth of Nations is English. Members share historical ties. The Commonwealth is headed by a Secretary General, who is responsible for the administration and organization of the Commonwealth. The Secretary General is elected by the heads of the Commonwealth Government.

The administrative management of the Commonwealth is carried out by the Secretariat, whose headquarters have been located in London since 1965. Since 2008, the head of the Secretariat has been Kamalesh Sharma (India).

Many have "Westminster" parliaments and common judicial and educational systems.

The states belonging to the Commonwealth maintain ordinary diplomatic relations among themselves through high commissioners with the rank of ambassador. Diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth countries and other states are carried out as usual.

Members of the Commonwealth under the 1991 declaration must follow the following rules, which are the purpose of the Commonwealth:

1. Developing democracy and better government;
2. Respect for human rights;
3. Following the law;
4. Economic and social development of countries included in the Commonwealth.

In the Commonwealth and throughout the world, the use of scientific knowledge and technology plays a huge role in social development.

Modern medicine has allowed it to challenge health, such as with new pharmaceuticals, genetic testing, biotechnology, diagnostics and advanced processing.

Technological advancement has changed the way in which we provide ourselves with information and education, and conduct business. Other improvements have allowed us to improve both the quality and quantity of food we have available. New solar, wind and other technologies allow us to harness carbon-neutral energy. It is clear that one of the greatest services that science and technology can provide to humanity will be in providing the environmental security that all countries of the world strive to achieve, and the Commonwealth can play a role in helping developing countries access that assistance, especially through mutual cooperation .

Having considered the sequential tasks, I drew conclusions and achieved my goal, studied the history of the British colonial Empire, revealed the essence of the creation of the British Commonwealth of Nations and revealed the role of this association at the present stage of development of humanity and the state as a whole.

colonization empire britain administration

List of sources and literature

1. Gratsiansky P.S. History of bourgeois constitutionalism of the 19th century. / P.S. Gratsiansky, S.A. Egorov, V.S. Nerseyants.-M.: Nauka.-1986.- 281 pp.
2. Gromyko A.Al. Great Britain: the era of reform / Ed. A.Al. Gromyko. - M.: The whole world, 2007. - 365 pp.
3. Zhidkova O.A. History of state and law of foreign countries./Ed. prof. P.N. Galanzy, O.A. Zhidkova.-M.: “Legal Literature”.-1969.- 485 pp.
4. Kashnikova T.V. History of Economics / T.V. Kashnikova, E.P., Kostenko E.P. - Rostov n/d. - 2006. - 515 pp.
5. Konotopov M.V. History of the economy of foreign countries / M.V. Konotopov, S.I. Smetanin.-M.-2001- 384 pp.
6. Krasheninnikova N.A. History of state and law of foreign countries. Part 2: Textbook for universities Ed. ON THE. Krasheninnikova and prof. O.A. Zhidkova - M.-2001. - 704 pages
7. Omelchenko O.A. General history of state and law / O.A. Omelchenko. - M.: Ostozhye, 1998. - 448 pp.
8. Romanov V.A. Legal system of England: textbook / V.A. Romanov. - M.: Delo, 2002. - 343 pp.
9. Yakovets Yu.V. History of Civilizations / Yu.V. Yakovets. - M., 1995. - 420 pp.
10. Commonwealth of the Nation / Development of the Commonwealth of the Nation.
11. Economic history of foreign countries / History of European countries.
12. Commonwealth / What is the Commonwealth.
13. Commonwealth Secretariat/History.
14. Commonwealth Secretariat/ Member States.- Electronic data.
15. Commonwealth Secretariat/News release. A Message from Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Preview:

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com

Slide captions:

Where there was once plenty of laughter, the Shepherd wanders sadly until dawn. These are the times! Where you once celebrated Christmas cheerfully, You will find sheep droppings and nothing more. These are the times! A) In what country and in what century could this poem be written? B) What phenomenon made the poet write it? Q) How does the poet himself feel about changes in agriculture?

Select the correct answer To carry out the industrial revolution in England, the following conditions were required: A) free people deprived of property B) the presence of free money in the hands of rich people C) the existence of parliament D) a two-party political system E) a market for the sale of goods

Write down the words that need to be inserted in place of the gaps in the diagram: _______________________ Technical side The transition of manual labor to…. From manufacture to... Social side Formation of two classes...

Great Britain and its dominions

Lesson plan: 1. The British Empire in the mid-19th - early 20th centuries. 2. “Era of Reform” in England. 3. Features of the development of Canada 4. Commonwealth of Australia 5. New Zealand

Great Britain is a leading industrial power with extensive colonial possessions. DOMINION (English dominion, from Latin dominium - possession) is a virtually independent state within the British Empire, recognizing the British monarch as head of state

Dominion Monarch of Great Britain Governor General

Australia New Zealand Burma Canada West Africa India

Possession of colonies Positive impact Negative impact Fill out the chart:

England "workshop of the world" "world cabman" "world banker"

Reasons for the slowdown in industrial development: - outdated equipment; - export of capital to the colonies; - competition with young industrial states (Germany, USA)

Parliament of England House of Lords House of Commons

Fill out the table: “Era of Reform” in England Date of reform reform

Fill out the table: Features of the development of the English dominions Canada Australia New Zealand

Test 1. The Whig Party united: A) Liberals B) Republicans C) Democrats D) Conservatives 2. The Tory Party united: A) Liberals B) Republicans C) Democrats D) Conservatives 3. Which of the proposed combinations is correct? A) Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral parliament B) Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy with a unicameral parliament C) Great Britain is a republic with a bicameral parliament D) Great Britain is a republic with a unicameral parliament

Test 4. Which of the proposed combinations is correct? A) both chambers played an equal role B) the main role belonged to the lower house C) the main role belonged to the upper house D) the role of parliament was purely decorative 5. In England, the second electoral reform with the granting of voting rights to the petty bourgeoisie and skilled workers was carried out in: A) 1866 B) 1867 C) 1868 D) 1869 6. England’s foreign policy was A) peaceful B) colonial 7. The first British dominion was: A) Australia B) India C) Canada D) China

Test G A A B b B c

Homework Study paragraph 12, answer the questions on page 129

At the end of the 19th century, England began to lag behind in industrial development. - The political reforms carried out contributed to the development of civil society and the rule of law in England. - The social reforms carried out contributed to the stabilization of society. - The British colonial empire emerged, which became one of the largest states in the world.

First you need to understand what “white” dominions are. These are the colonial possessions of Great Britain, which acquired independence in matters of foreign and domestic policy and relative equality with the mother country. This term originated in 1867, when at the London Conference of representatives of British self-governing colonies in North America, the question of the name of the federation of these colonies was raised. And then the British government proposed calling Canada not the “Kingdom of Canada”, but the “Dominion of Canada”. So Canada became the first "white" dominion.

Representative bodies were created in the dominions, which copied the Parliament of England, and governors-general appointed from London took the place of the king. However, unlike the King of Great Britain, they had real power. Colonial parliaments had the right to adopt their own laws that did not contradict the laws of the mother country. In the future, the rights of the dominions only expanded.

If we talk about France, there were no “white” dominions here as such, but a policy of assimilation was pursued, which proclaimed the equality of the colonies and metropolises. The colonies were considered as the territory of France itself. Few, however, enjoyed the benefits of assimilation.

Direct control of England and France

In addition to the “white” dominions, Great Britain also had so-called crown colonies. Here direct control from the metropolis was used. In France, "direct rule" was dominant and was used most often. Under direct control, both Great Britain and France had colonies subordinated to the metropolis and were completely or almost completely deprived of independence, had only minimal rights to self-government or had none at all. The colonies were governed by governors who were appointed from the center. However, if we talk about the English colonies, then when a large white population lived in the crown colonies, they had certain privileges, and sometimes there was a colonial parliament. But England predominantly used indirect control rather than direct control (direct control was usually used in those countries where the population was most rebellious). And in France, as mentioned above, “direct rule” was mainly used. With the help of the police and army, France suppressed uprisings caused by dissatisfaction with its colonial policies. The official language in such colonies was French.

Protectorates

Let's start with the concept of protectorates. So, protectorates are one of the forms of colonial dependence, in which the protected state retains some independence in internal affairs, and its foreign policy, defense, and the like are carried out by the metropolis. Both Great Britain and France had their own protectorates. But France had few protectorates, it preferred direct control, but still they existed (for example, Tunisia, Madagascar, Annam), and in the English colonies this form of control was the most common. As a rule, states with relatively developed state power and social relations became protectorates. Usually in such states there were two levels of government: supreme power was in the hands of governors-general, and in addition to them there was also a native administration. It should be noted that in the English colonies, governors-general in protectorates were the rightful masters of the country, in contrast to governors in the dominions, who represented the interests of the British crown. The so-called native administration, and these are the leaders and elders, were endowed with certain judicial and police powers, also had the right to collect taxes, and accordingly had their own budgets. The native administration acted as a buffer between the supreme power of the Europeans and the oppressed local population.

English colonial policy began to be called the policy of indirect or indirect control precisely because it mainly practiced precisely this method of governing the colonies.

So, we looked at the methods of managing colonies inherent in Great Britain and France. We carefully studied their features, as well as looked at the similarities and differences in methods and found out which of the above methods these two countries considered the most attractive for themselves.

The work was added to the site website: 2015-07-05

Order writing a unique work

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Table of Contents.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Introduction

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Chapter 1. Colonial policy as a sign of the dominance of a group of industrialized countries over the rest of the world

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">1.1 The concept and essence of colonialism and colonial policy

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">1.2 Purposes of acquisition of colonies by states

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">1.3 Signs of colonies

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">2.1 Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt in the 19th century

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">2.2" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The policy of Great Britain and France on the Arabian Peninsula in the 90s of the XIX century. Muscat crisis of 1898

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.1 “White” dominions of Great Britain

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.2 Direct control of England and France

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.3 Protectorates

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Conclusion

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">List of sources and literature

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Introduction.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">This research work will examine the colonial policies of Great Britain and France in the Middle East in the 19th century. At that time, there was active rivalry between these two powerful powers in this region.We will consider the clash of their interests in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula (Sultanate of Muscat).

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The relevance of this topic is due to the fact that the Anglo-French colonial rivalry is one of the most important components of the history of international relations of the 19th century. The relationship between England and France was a key a factor in both European and world politics, this topic is one of the traditional topics of historiography.After all, this rivalry largely determined both the foreign policies of the two states and their domestic political situation.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The purpose of the study: to study the history of the confrontation between Great Britain and France in the Middle East in the 19th century.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">To achieve the stated goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- study the concepts of colonialism, colonial policy, understand what the colonies themselves were.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- consider the goals of acquiring colonies by the metropolises

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- study the common characteristics that united almost all colonies

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- trace the course of the confrontation between the two powers in Egypt, and also look at the results of this confrontation

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- trace the course of the confrontation between Great Britain and France on the Arabian Peninsula (in Muscat) and identify the results of this confrontation

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- explore the activities of the British and French governments during the years of military conflicts

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">- study the methods by which England and France administered the colonies; see which methods they considered most attractive to themselves

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The scientific novelty of this work lies in the fact that for the first time in Russian historiography an attempt has been made to comprehensively analyze Anglo-French colonial rivalry in the Middle East in the 19th century. A generalizing study on this problem has not yet existed in Russian historical science.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The object of my research is the colonial policy of Great Britain and France in the Middle East in the 19th century, therefore, the subject of my research is a comparative description of the colonial policies of these two powers in the process of studying their confrontation.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The chronological framework of my research work covers the period from 1839, when Great Britain captured Aden, securing positions south of the Red Sea, to 1899, when Great Britain forced The Sultan of Muscat terminated the treaty with France; moreover, the 19th century ended in 1899.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The geographical scope of my research work directly covers the territories of England and France, the territory of Egypt (mainly the Upper Nile) and the territory of the Arabian Peninsula (mainly the Sultanate of Muscat The territory of Sudan is also slightly affected.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The work is based on the principle of historicism, which requires the study of phenomena and processes in connection with the specific conditions that gave rise to them, highlighting both common and unique features inherent in these phenomena, revealing objectively existing connections between facts and clarifying their specificity, taking into account spatio-temporal connections.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">A number of scientific works presented in the bibliography will help us understand the issues of colonial policy of both Great Britain and France. Works were used to write this research work domestic scientists such as I. D. Parfenov, N. A. Erofeev, G. A. Nersesov, V. K. Lomakin. In their works, they largely studied the colonial policy of Great Britain. In my opinion, the most valuable in this regard is the work of I. D. Parfenov “Colonial expansion of Great Britain in the last third of the 19th century.” In this work, the author, relying on a variety of numerous sources, including textbooks and teaching aids, reveals the driving forces of colonial policy, its causes and the nature of penetration On the foreign policy of France there are several classic works by A. Z. Manfred. For example, “The Foreign Policy of France 1871-1897.” And also A. Z. Manfred is one of the authors of the “History of France” in three volumes. But, in the works This author examines French foreign policy until 1891-1893, in other words, before the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance. Therefore, unfortunately, the further course of events did not receive sufficiently wide study in his works. In addition to the above-mentioned scientific works concerning France, I would also like to note the work of P. P. Cherkasov “The Fate of the Empire: An Essay on the Colonial Expansion of France.”" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">This book is a brief outline of the history of the French colonial empire and covers a fairly large period of time (almost 500 years). Consequently, Cherkasov P.P. focuses his attention on the most basic and significant aspects of the topic. In addition, in my course work, materials from various textbooks and teaching aids were used. For example, “New History. 1871-1917.” (this is a textbook for students of pedagogical institutes specializing in history.) In addition, I used materials from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. This is an electronic resource (URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/). The information is presented here quite briefly, but despite this, very succinctly, I often turned to it when writing this research work.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a list of sources and literature.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The first chapter consists of three paragraphs. The first paragraph simply examines the concepts of colonialism, colonial policy and colonies, giving a brief description of them. Also here we see the difference between these concepts. The second paragraph examines in detail the goals of acquiring colonies by the metropolises. After all, in order to study the colonial policies of Great Britain and France, we need to understand why the metropolises were so eager to have colonies. This paragraph examines in some detail the main goals in the economic, social, military and scientific spheres. And, finally, the last paragraph also examines in some detail the common features that united almost all colonial possessions. In addition, it mentions the ways in which the mother countries deprived the colonies of an independent legal status. These methods are considered as another feature that unites the colonies. In In general, the first chapter of my research work is introductory; it simply introduces the basic concepts of the stated topic, so that in the future it will be easier to study the colonial policies of Great Britain and France in the 19th century in the Middle East.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The second chapter consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph examines the confrontation between Great Britain and France in Egypt, the apogee of which was the Fashoda crisis. This paragraph examines the priorities of these two countries in Egypt. It also traces the process of the enslavement of Egypt, first jointly by England and France (dual control over Egypt), and then examines the course of the rivalry between Great Britain and France in Egypt after the enslavement of the latter by England. The Fashoda crisis, its causes, course, attempts to resolve it, how on the spot (in the town of Fashoda, in the Upper Nile Valley), and by British and French diplomats.And finally, the paragraph ends with a summary of this colonial rivalry, which almost led the two powerful powers to war.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The next paragraph examines in detail the confrontation between Great Britain and France on the Arabian Peninsula, in particular in Muscat. The study of this rivalry, just as in the previous paragraph, begins with , that we find out why the Sultanate of Muscat was so necessary for Great Britain and France. Next, the paragraph examines the process of the enslavement of the Sultanate by England. Then the process of penetration of Muscat by France. The rivalry between states is studied in detail (the uprising in Dhofar, the desire of France to get a coal mine in Muscat and the conclusion secret treaty, the entry of the English fleet into Muscat Bay).The following briefly describes the resolution of the conflict and the results of the rivalry between Great Britain and France for the Sultanate of Muscat in the 19th century.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">And in the last chapter I examined the methods by which Great Britain and France administered the conquered territories. This chapter, like the first, consists of three paragraphs. In the first paragraph we study the so-called "white" dominions of Great Britain. In this paragraph, the concept of "white" dominions is first given, then the history of their emergence is briefly described. Next, the principle of management of the "white" dominions is described. And, finally, in the same paragraph the French policy of assimilation is mentioned and its essence is revealed. In the second paragraph of this chapter, direct administration of the colonies is studied. Both the common features of direct administration of England and France are considered here, as well as the features inherent in these two states under direct administration. And in the final paragraph of the third chapter we We explore protectorates. First, a definition of protectorates is given, then a brief mention is made of the French protectorates, but mainly the story is about the British colonies, since Great Britain used this method of government more often than others. Naturally, the paragraph describes the principle of managing protectorates. And the chapter ends with a summary of the methods of managing colonies.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Chapter 1. Colonial policy as a sign of the dominance of a group of industrialized countries over the rest of the world.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">1.1. The concept and essence of colonialism and colonial policy.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Colonialism is considered to be the established system of domination of a group of developed countries over other countries of the world. So, colonialism is the foreign policy of the state, which is aimed at seizing the territories of other, less developed countries and peoples for the purpose of economic exploitation, which usually develops into robbery and actual enslavement of the local population by the aggressor.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">So, what were the colonies themselves? These were dependent territories that were under the authority of a foreign state (it was called the metropolis), which had neither economic, nor political independence. They were governed by a special regime (methods of management differed among different aggressors). It should be noted that the formation of colonies is the main instrument for expanding the influence of imperialist states.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Next we move on to the concept of colonial policy. Colonial policy is understood as the policy of conquest and exploitation of conquered peoples by the conquerors using economic, political and military methods. The policy was aimed at usually on states with a foreign population, which were much weaker economically.It must be said that today colonial policy is considered illegal, all colonies gained independence by the middle of the twentieth century.

1. " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Goals of acquisition of colonies by states.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Naturally, when acquiring new colonies, the metropolitan countries pursued a number of specific goals. We will consider the goals of states in the economic sphere, social sphere, in the military sphere and in the field of science. And We will start with the economy. First of all, this is, of course, the exploitation of natural and human resources, the desire to gain access to the rarest resources that can ensure the monopolization of world trade. In economic terms, this is perhaps the main goal that the metropolises set for themselves. In addition, it is worth noting such economic goals as the emergence of new sales markets, optimization of trade routes, as well as the elimination of inconvenient or unnecessary foreign-cultural intermediary states, achieving security in trade.It should also be noted better legal protection of the trade sector through the unification of legal fields, the organization of imperial standards legal and unified trade culture.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">If we talk about goals in the public sphere, then we cannot fail to mention the sale in the colony of prisoners, disadvantaged people, that is, those who cannot find employment in life, and also persons who are dissatisfied with the customs and traditions that have developed in society or with their social role. In addition, the colonial administration is an excellent school for managers. The ruling elite has always been interested in the school of experienced civil and military bureaucracy. And the use of military force in the resolution of any local conflict helps to keep the troops in good shape.Also an extremely important goal is to obtain cheap and disenfranchised labor, including exportable labor to those places where there is the greatest need for it.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In the military sphere, colonies are necessary to obtain strongholds in various parts of the world in order to increase the mobility of the armed forces.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In the field of science, colonies also play a certain role. They are used to test new civil and military technologies, to conduct dangerous scientific experiments that could endanger local population of the metropolis.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In addition, colonies were acquired to achieve imperial prestige, to control other colonial empires.

1. " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. Signs of colonies.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Colonial possessions had a number of features that were characteristic of almost all colonies. These include, of course, political lack of independence, because the colonies were completely or partially subordinated to the metropolises In addition, a sign of colonies is geographical isolation, most often the colonies were significantly removed from the metropolises. Economic exploitation of natural resources, the labor of the local population in favor of the aggressor, which invariably led to the inhibition of the development of the occupied territories. In most cases, religious, cultural, ethnic, ideological difference between the aborigines and the inhabitants of the metropolis. It is worth mentioning the immigration to the colonies of a fairly large number of residents of the metropolis, who formed local authorities, the political, economic and cultural elite, therefore, the rights and interests of the indigenous population were infringed in comparison with the inhabitants of the metropolis, this sometimes it went as far as imposing a foreign culture, customs, religion, lifestyle, language, and even segregation, apartheid, expulsion from the land, deprivation of livelihood, and genocide on local residents. From all of the above, another sign of colonies follows: the struggle of the local population for their rights, for independence. These uprisings, naturally, were forced to suppress the invading states. In addition, signs of colonies include possible long-term claims to this territory by other, economically developed states.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The colonies are also united by the ways in which the invader states usually deprived them of their independent legal status. The metropolises often imposed enslaving, unequal vassalage and lease agreements on the local authorities of the captured lands , protectorate, ransom, trusteeship. In addition, the colonies were deprived of independence by imposing military force or inspiring the coming to power in the colony of a dependent, so-called puppet regime, by annexing territory when the metropolis formed its own colonial administration, and even by direct control of the colony from the very metropolis.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">To summarize, we can say that we examined the concepts of colonialism, colonies, colonial policy, found out the goals of acquiring colonies by economically developed states, carefully examined the features that were characteristic colonies. All this will help us in the future when studying the colonial policies of Great Britain and France in the 19th century.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Chapter 2. Colonial interests of Great Britain and France in the Middle East.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">2.1. Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt in the 19th century.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Here we will talk about the confrontation between Great Britain and France in Egypt in the 19th century, the culmination of this rivalry was the so-called Fashoda crisis, which almost led these two states to war. But Let's start with everything in order.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">To consider the colonial policy of England and France in Egypt, you must first study their priorities, see why they considered Egypt so attractive to them. For Great Britain, the Suez Canal is this is the way to Australia, to India, to the Far East, to East Africa. Suez was supposed to become the axis of the British colonial system. So England began to approach Egypt in the first half of the 19th century. Having captured Aden in 1839, it secured its position to south of the Red Sea. Naturally, the strengthening of England by France was extremely disadvantageous. The aggravation of the confrontation between them occurred after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. England's position was complicated by the fact that the same Suez Canal was in the hands of a French company. Consequently, Great Britain was forced to buy shares of the Suez Canal, which she did in 1875, taking advantage of the bankruptcy of the Ottoman Empire.Since 1876, dual control over the Egyptian economy was established (the English commissioner was in charge of controlling finances, and the French “public works,” that is, the entire system of irrigation and canals , including Suez). 1 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> English and French representatives unceremoniously ruled in Egypt, their capital entangled the entire country, they received huge profits, while the level of the local population was very low. This could not but cause a wave of national liberation movement, in which not only the common people, but also the bourgeoisie, feudal lords, and officers participated.The British and French governments began preparations for intervention after Colonel Arabi Pasha, who spoke with slogans of reforms, became the de facto head of government. In May 1882, the Anglo-French squadron appeared in the port of Alexandria. And the subsequent protests against foreigners in Alexandria were used as a pretext for intervention. However, France, fearing conflicts with other powers, at the last moment abandoned the intervention. And England bombarded Alexandria, its landing force occupied the city: the British occupation of Egypt began.On September 13, at the Battle of Tel el-Kebir, the troops of Arabi Pasha were defeated, and the Egyptian army was practically destroyed. The British became masters of the country. Because of the war in Tonkin, France was unable to do anything, but it did not reconcile itself with the seizure of Egypt by England and tried to create all possible obstacles to British policy in Egypt, primarily through the “Egyptian National Debt Cashbox” 2 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. The French government stated that the Egyptian issue remains open, because the interests of France were openly ignored. It is worth saying that England itself did not know whether it was worth keeping Egypt in in her own hands, as her financial situation left much to be desired.In 1883, the British government promised to take steps to withdraw troops from Egypt “as soon as the situation at home would permit” and reforms were completed, but even the expected date was not given 3 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. In 1887, England proposed to adopt a convention according to which troops should be withdrawn from Egypt within three years from the date of its adoption. However, the convention stipulated that in the event of an internal or external threat, Great Britain has the right to retain troops in Egypt. In addition, in the event of any unrest, England was allowed to re-occupy the country with troops. Naturally, France was deeply outraged by these reservations in the convention, and it began to persuade the Sultan to abandon ratification of this convention. The French government guaranteed that "His Majesty will be protected and guaranteed from any consequences that may arise from refusal to ratify" 4 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. The Sultan agreed. And then England, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Turkey. Germany, the Netherlands and Spain signed the Suez Canal Convention, according to by which the canal was to be open for the passage of any vessel without distinction of flag, both in peacetime and in wartime.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Back in 1881, a powerful Mahdist uprising began in Sudan, neighboring Egypt. British troops were defeated. In 1893, France again decided to raise the Egyptian question with England. So, we come to the Fashoda Crisis. In 1898, there was a decisive battle between Great Britain and France for possession of the upper Nile. In 1897, France sent a military expedition to the Upper Nile. It was led by Captain Marchand. The expedition consisted of only 8 officers and 150 Senegalese riflemen On July 10, 1898, the expedition reached the city of Fashoda, where Marchand hoisted the French tricolor over the Egyptian fortress. Meanwhile, General Kitchener's expeditionary force was moving from the north towards the French. But it acted on behalf of both Egypt and England. On September 19, a meeting between Marchand and Kitchener took place. Marchand declared that his country had entrusted him with the occupation of the Bahr el-Ghazal region and the country of the Shilouks along the left bank of the White Nile to Fashoda.To which Kitchener objected to him that he could not recognize the French occupation of any area in the Nile Valley, because the country be under British command. In other words, Kitchener told Marchand to go home. Of course, the situation was unequal, because England had huge troops here, and France only a detachment of more than 100 people. Marchand hoped for help from Ethiopia, but it did not come: Negus Menelik sent too few forces.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In fact, the conflict was resolved not by Marchand and Kitchener, but by English and French diplomats. The French Foreign Minister, Delcasse, did not want the situation to aggravate. The British government decided completely expel France from Egypt, completely taking possession of the upper reaches of the river that feeds the country. It refused to conduct any negotiations regarding Fashoda. And the French government was ready to give Fashoda, but demanded in exchange another site in the Nile Valley, since it wanted to have access to the river and the region Bahr el-Ghazal, which connects the Upper Nile region with French possessions along the Ubangi and Congo rivers.However, France was well aware that England was almost 2 times stronger at sea 5 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. And besides, for France, a war with England carried the potential risk of an attack by Germany. So France retreated and recalled Marchand, abandoning the Bahr el-Ghazal region and from the Upper Nile.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Now let's move on to the results of the confrontation between Great Britain and France in Egypt, which almost turned into war for these two countries (after all, the Fashoda crisis put Great Britain, which began military preparations, "... on the verge of war with France") 6 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. Having achieved its goal, London nevertheless entered into negotiations with France, which it had refused to do for so long. As a result, France received some compensation (a significant piece of Sudan to west of Darfur, which made it possible to territorially connect France's possessions in West and North Africa with its Central African colonies.) But, it must be said that in France itself this defeat caused strong discontent in society and the press.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">To top it off, I would like to note that scientists usually see the reason for England’s activity in the Fashoda crisis only in the extreme importance of the White Nile basin for the British Empire, and yet there was still one reason: Great Britain, humiliating France," xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">pursued another goal - by “lowering” the rival country, later making it an obedient ally.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">2.2. The policy of Great Britain and France on the Arabian Peninsula in the 90s. XIX. Muscat crisis of 1898.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The clash of interests between Great Britain and France occurred not only in Egypt. The struggle also took place on the Arabian Peninsula. The reason for the confrontation was that Muscat was very important to both England, and France as a strategic point on the way to India and the Far East.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Great Britain was the first to penetrate into Muscat. It is worth noting that this expansion was financed by the Anglo-Indian government, the territory was developed by Anglo-Indian capital. England monopolized shipping and trade in Persian Gulf by the middle of the 19th century (expansion took place under the slogan of the fight against piracy and the slave trade).In 1862, an Anglo-French declaration was signed, according to which both sides pledged to respect the independence of Muscat 7 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. However, in the 70s, England continued to increase its penetration into the Sultanate of Muscat. In 1871, the British protege of Turku even became the Sultan of Muscat. It must be said that he was largely supported by English bayonets. And in February 1886, the English resident of the Persian Gulf, Ross, issued a declaration in which it was directly stated that the Anglo-Indian government intended to “support the Sultan by armed force.” 8 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. In February 1890, the British representative in Muscat expressed the idea of ​​a protectorate. And in March 1891, Great Britain imposed a secret Anglo-Muscat treaty on the Sultan, according to which the Sultanate Muscat was turning into an English protectorate. It is worth noting that such a British policy could not but cause discontent among the population. In 1865, 1886, 1890, 1895, there were a number of uprisings against the British colonialists. But, where by bribery, and where by direct intervention, Great Britain suppressed these uprisings

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">France began active penetration into Muscat in the mid-90s of the 19th century. At the same time, the struggle against the English invaders intensified. In March 1896, Great Britain decided to suppress the uprising in Dhofar, declaring that this was help to Sultan Faisal. However, the Sultan suspected Great Britain of trying to establish his protectorate in Dhofar and refused help. France was also against sending British troops. This could not but cause indignation among British representatives in the Persian Gulf, she began demand the establishment of a protectorate over Muscat 9 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. In May 1897, England suppressed the uprising, with its help the conflict was resolved. In 1898, tensions between Great Britain and France increased due to the latter's desire to get coal station in Muscat. A secret agreement was concluded between France and Muscat to provide France with a coal base in Bandar Issa. In February 1899, British warships appeared in Muscat Bay. She demanded the termination of the above agreement. London in this case did not seek to aggravate crisis and was ready to make certain concessions to France. Another thing is that the position of Paris, which sought revenge for Fashoda, made these concessions unnecessary. The Sultan capitulated when the fleet aimed its guns at his palace. Naturally, the treaty was terminated.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Now let's look at the results of the confrontation between Great Britain and France in Muscat. We can say that it ended in a compromise; France still received one of the British coal depots. However, we cannot say that this was the end of the struggle between the two powers for Muscat; it continued in the future.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Chapter 3. Methods of managing colonies.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.1. “White” dominions of Great Britain

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">First, you need to understand what the “white” dominions are. These are the colonial possessions of Great Britain, which have acquired independence in matters of foreign and domestic policy and relative equality with the mother country. This term originated in 1867, when at the London Conference of representatives of British self-governing colonies in North America, the question of the name of the federation of these colonies was raised, and then the British government proposed calling Canada not the “Kingdom of Canada”, but the “Dominion of Canada.” 10 "xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">. So Canada became the first “white” dominion.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In the dominions, representative bodies were created that copied the Parliament of England, and governors-general appointed from London took the place of the king. However, unlike the king of Great Britain, they had real power The parliaments of the colonies had the right to adopt their own laws that did not contradict the laws of the mother country.In the future, the rights of the dominions only expanded.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">If we talk about France, there were no “white” dominions here as such, but a policy of assimilation was pursued, which proclaimed the equality of colonies and metropolises. Colonies were considered as territory France itself, but only a few enjoyed the benefits of assimilation.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.2. Direct control of England and France.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">In addition to the “white” dominions, Great Britain also had so-called crown colonies. Direct control from the metropolis was used here. In France, “direct rule” was dominant, it was used most often. Under direct rule, both in Great Britain and in France, the colonies were subordinate to the metropolis and completely or almost completely deprived of independence, had only minimal rights to self-government or did not have any at all. The colonies were governed by governors who were appointed from the center. However, if we talk about the English colonies, when the crown colonies had a large white population, they had certain privileges, and sometimes there was a colonial parliament.But England predominantly used indirect control rather than direct (direct control was usually used in those countries where the population showed the greatest rebellion) And in France, as mentioned above, “direct rule” was mainly used. With the help of the police and army, France suppressed uprisings caused by dissatisfaction with its colonial policies. The official language in such colonies was French.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3.3 Protectorates.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Let's start with the concept of protectorates. So, protectorates are one of the forms of colonial dependence, in which the protected state retains some independence in internal affairs, and its foreign policy, defense and the like are carried out by the metropolis. Both Great Britain and France had their own protectorates. Only France had few protectorates, it preferred direct control, but still they existed (for example, Tunisia, Madagascar, Annam), and in the English colonies such form of government was the most common. As a rule, states with relatively developed state power and social relations became protectorates. Usually in such states there were two levels of government: supreme power was in the hands of governors-general, and in addition to them there was also a native administration. It is necessary It should be noted that in the English colonies, governors-general in protectorates were the rightful masters of the country, in contrast to governors in the dominions, who represented the interests of the British crown. The so-called native administration, and these are the leaders and elders, were endowed with certain judicial and police powers, also had the right to collect taxes, and accordingly had their own budgets." xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The native administration acted as a buffer between the supreme power of the Europeans and the oppressed local population.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">English colonial policy began to be called the policy of indirect or indirect control precisely because it mainly practiced exactly this way of managing colonies.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">So, we looked at the methods of managing colonies inherent in Great Britain and France. We carefully studied their features, and also looked at the similarities and differences in the methods and found out which of them These two countries considered the above methods the most attractive for themselves.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Conclusion.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">So, Great Britain and France in the 19th century were the largest and strongest European powers. As we found out, their relationship in the Middle East during the colonial division of the world was very difficult. There was constant rivalry between them, and frequent conflicts occurred.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The purpose of this course work is to study the history of the confrontation between Great Britain and France in the Middle East in the 19th century. In order to achieve this goal, a number of tasks were stated in the introduction, which we completed in the course of the work. We studied the concepts of "colonialism", "colonial policy" and "colonies", then looked at the goals of the acquisition of colonies by the mother countries and the characteristics inherent in the colonies. We also traced the process of rivalry between Great Britain and France in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula ( in Muscat), examined the activities of the governments of England and France during the conflicts.And, finally, we compared the methods of colonial administration inherent in France and Great Britain.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">When comparing the colonial policies of Great Britain and France, one can see their common and distinguishing features.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">I would include the general features of the desire to establish one’s control in Egypt and Muscat, to weaken the opponent if possible or to prevent his excessive strengthening. Also, France and England sought to impose some secret treaties in these countries and with the help of them increase their influence.In addition, general characteristics include the involvement of an army and readiness for a possible war.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">But I would say that the colonial policies of these countries have more differences. It is worth saying that I see the difference primarily in the fact that the first penetration , both in Egypt and in the Sultanate of Muscat, England began. Of course, France also had its own interests in these territories, but last but not least, it sought to prevent the strengthening of its rival and the establishment of complete control of England in these territories. Also, I would also note , that during the Fashoda crisis France was ready to make concessions, negotiations and some kind of compromise, and England was categorically against these negotiations. But during the Muscat crisis the opposite is true: London is ready to make concessions, and Paris is eager to get revenge on Fashoda and refuses. I also see a certain difference in this. And I also drew my attention to the fact that Great Britain emerged victorious from both the first and second confrontations.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Now I would like to touch upon the results for each chapter. Since the first chapter is rather introductory in nature and contains only the theory we need when considering our topic, then the results for it will not. I will start with the second chapter. The rivalry in Egypt for the Upper Nile Valley ended in the defeat of France, she received some compensation, but the French society was dissatisfied with this end to the conflict, and England achieved sole influence in Egypt and relegated the rival country. Rivalry in Muscat also ended in the defeat of France, but I mentioned that the struggle for Muscat did not end there, it continued later. The victory of Great Britain was that it disrupted the treaty with Muscat, which was beneficial for France, by using military forces. And again it gave France some consoling compensation.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Now we move on to summing up the methods of managing colonies. Considering these methods, we saw that the so-called “direct rule” prevailed in the French colonies, and Great Britain preferred protectorates. Of course, France also had protectorates, just like England had crown colonies. However, even when using the same method of government, England and France had certain differences, which are discussed in the chapter.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Thus, in this research work I studied the colonial policies of Great Britain and France in the 19th century and conducted a comparative analysis of it.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">List of sources and literature.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">1) Aizenshtat M.P., Gella T.N. English parties and the colonial empire of Great Britain in" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">XIX"xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> century (1815 - mid-1870s) M.: Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999. - 217 p.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">2) Foreign policy of France 1871-1897./ Manfred, Albert Zakharovich. - M.: Publishing House of Akkadian Sciences of the USSR, 1952

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">3) Vipper R.Yu. History of modern times.// M., 1999

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">4) Davidson A.B. Cecil Rhodes and his time M.: Mysl, 1984 367 p.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">5) Diplomatic Dictionary (URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_diplomatic/)

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">6) Erofeev N.A. English colonialism in the middle of the 19th century. Essays. M., Nauka, 1977. - 256 p.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">7) Erofeev N.A. Essays on the history of England 1815-1917. M.: IMO Publishing House, 1959. 263 p.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">8) Zhukovskaya D. The Collapse of Colonial Empires: [Electronic resource]. URL:" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">http" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">://" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">www" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">historicus" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">ru" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">Krushenie" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">_" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">kolonialnyh" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">_" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">imperij" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/ (Date of access: 11/10/2014.)

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">9) Lenin V.I., Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 27, p. 41810

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">10) Lomakin V.K. Foreign economic policy of Britain. M.:" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">UNITY Publishing House, 2004.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">11)" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">12) New history. 1871-1917. Textbook. For students of pedagogical institutes in history / Edited by N.E. Ovcharenko M.: Education, 1984.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">13) Parfenov I.D. Colonial expansion of Great Britain in the last third of the 19th century. M.: Nauka, 1991.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> 14) Subbotin V.A. Colonialist movement in France and Tropical Africa 1870 1918 // Problems of colonialism and the formation of anti-colonial forces. M., 1979 - p.37.

;color:#000000;background:#ffffff" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">16);font-family:"Helvetica";color:#000000;background:#ffffff" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">;color:#000000;background:#ffffff" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Utilov V.A.;color:#000000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Great Britain (state)://Great Soviet Encyclopedia." xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> [Electronic resource]." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">URL" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">:;color:#000000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">http" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">://" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">dic" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">academic" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">ru" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">dic" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">nsf" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">bse" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/73427 (Date of access: November 26, 2014.)

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">17)" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Quoted from: Rotshtein F.A. Capture and enslavement of Egypt. M., 1959. P. 276

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">18) Cherkasov P. P. The fate of the empire: an essay on the colonial expansion of France in" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">XVI" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">XX" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> centuries. M.: Nauka, 1983.

" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">19) Ella Mikhailenko Colonies of Great Britain: [Electronic resource]." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">URL" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">:" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">http" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">://" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">fb" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">." xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">ru" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">article" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">/46479/" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">kolonii" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">-" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">velikobritanii" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> (Date of access: 10.28.2014.)

1 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Erofeev N.A. English colonialism in the middle of the 19th century. Essays. M., Nauka, 1977. - 256 p.

2 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> “Egyptian Public Debt Cashier” body of Anglo-French control over Egyptian finances, created in 1876 after the Khedive government announced the financial insolvency of Egypt.

3 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Nersesov G. A. Diplomatic history of the Egyptian crisis of 1881-1882 (in the light of Russian archival materials). M., 1979. P. 228-229 .

4 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Quoted from: Rotshtein F.A. Capture and enslavement of Egypt. M., 1959. P. 276.

5 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> According to the French naval attaché on October 18, 1898 in London

6 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Lenin V.I., Complete collected works, 5th ed., vol. 27, p. 418

7 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> From the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (URL: http://www.otvety-reshebniki.ru/print/enc_sovet/Maskat-63368.html)

8 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Parfenov I.D. Colonial expansion of Great Britain in the last third of the 19th century. P.79

9 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Lomakin V.K. Foreign economic policy of Britain.

10 " xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Diplomatic Dictionary (URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_diplomatic/)

The terms “Dominion” and “British Commonwealth” are used quite often in history books containing information about the political aspects of the development of European states. Let's take a closer look at the meaning of the definitions.

What is dominion

In history textbooks, dominions are states that in the 19th-20th centuries. were part of the British Empire. The accession took place on a voluntary-compulsory basis. Dominion countries were dependent colonies before receiving status, but became self-governing, while England was a sovereign state. The dominions (former colonies) recognized the ruling English king (queen) as the head of the empire and were subject to the laws of England.

History of the British Colonies

The British state is a conquering country. In the 13th century, England was a powerful power. The state wanted to expand its own territory. Then the country took over Ireland. And in the 16th century, Newfoundland became part of the empire.

In 1588, England defeated the Spanish fleet and subjugated America and then Portugal. The American city of Virginia was founded by the British, and New Amsterdam was renamed New York.

Seeking independence, the English settlements in America fought a successful war of liberation, and England lost 13 colonies.

In 1926, a conference of prime ministers of the British government and the governments of the Dominions of England was held in Great Britain. At the meeting, the Balfour Declaration was signed on equal membership of the Dominions and Great Britain based on dependence on each other in political decisions and loyalty to the crown.

In December 1931, the status of the "British Commonwealth" was finally secured by the signed Statute of Westmin.