Study this source. Source A (your primary source for this question) The following data shows the value of British trade with selected colonial territories i...

This is a source utility question worth [8 marks]. You must evaluate what the source reveals about the economic reasons for imperial expansion, then assess its limitations.

Analysing the source content [up to 4 marks]:

The source shows the value of British trade with five colonial territories in 1900, from official Board of Trade statistics. It provides useful evidence that colonies were economically significant to Britain:

• India generated by far the highest trade value at 154 million pounds, reflecting its status as the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. India was a vast market for British manufactured goods (especially textiles) and a source of raw materials including cotton, tea, jute, and spices.
• South Africa (62 million pounds) had become economically important following the discovery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886), which attracted massive British investment and was a direct cause of the Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1899-1902).
• Australia (48 million pounds) contributed through wool, wheat, and mineral exports, while also serving as a market for British goods.
• The variation between territories - from 154 million (India) to 18 million (Malaya) - shows that economic benefit varied greatly across the empire, suggesting that economic motives alone cannot explain why all territories were acquired.

Evaluating limitations [up to 4 marks]:

• Correlation vs. causation: The source shows that trade existed with colonies in 1900, but cannot prove that the desire for trade caused the original decision to colonise. Trade may have grown as a consequence of colonisation rather than being the reason for it.
• Only economic data: The source cannot reveal non-economic motives for imperial expansion. Strategic reasons (controlling the Suez Canal, establishing naval bases), the "civilising mission" ideology, missionary activity, national prestige, and the desire to prevent rival powers from gaining territory were all important drivers of imperialism that trade statistics do not capture.
• Only British data: The source covers only British colonies and cannot explain the imperial expansion of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, or other European powers, each of which had its own mix of motives.
• Snapshot in time: The data is from 1900, a single year near the height of the British Empire. It cannot show how trade values changed over time or whether some colonies were actually unprofitable despite being retained for strategic reasons.
• Provenance: Board of Trade statistics are likely accurate as raw data from an official government body, though they may not capture informal or unofficial trade.

Exam technique: When evaluating statistical sources, always consider whether the data proves what the question asks. Here, trade figures show that colonies were economically valuable, but they cannot prove that economic value was the reason for acquiring them. This distinction between demonstrating a fact and explaining a motive is essential for reaching the highest marks.