The projection of authority and control into remote parts of the empire was perennially a problem for early modern politicians, who constantly debated about whether and how it should be done. They sought ways to compensate for the elements of randomness and delay which were inevitably introduced by the technological limitations of the time; solutions and workarounds for these problems were of paramount importance to imperial commentators and figured heavily in their pamphleteering. Proposed solutions were often divided along partisan lines, however, with Tories and Company men emphasizing the importance of forts and deep networks of diplomacy and engagement while Whigs and private traders focused on maximizing shipping volume and profits. Tories aimed to reserve the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the African forts in the hands of the Royal African Company, whereas Whigs proposed to transfer those assets to the Crown. This seemingly minor fiscal question was, in fact, a fight over the future of the Empire; both sides were articulating their own ideas about imperial commerce and what it should accomplish. Attention to these contradictory understandings of how the colonies should be administered and what that administration should look like is key to understanding this dispute, its myriad wide-ranging consequences, and the economic history of the empire through the eighteenth century.
Ruhi Roy (Wed,) studied this question.