score:4
Regardless of the time period, though I believe that the question refers to the 20th, not the 12th Century, what is paradoxical about Britain's advocacy of free trade is the very existence of the British Empire. While by the 20th Century economics had shifted away from mercantilism in favor of capitalism, those running the empire still treated their overseas colonies in the same manner as they had in the late 16th Century under the rule of Elizabeth I.
In an empire, colonies are permitted to be established largely for the purpose of economic exploitation by the parent nation. The parent nation determines for the colonies what they will focus on producing, be it cotton, indigo, sugar, etc. The colonies are largely restricted from doing business outside the empire without the express permission of the government.
Therefore when Britain would advocate for free trade, only those with imperial permission could take advantage of opportunities for trade with foreign groups. Unfortunately, this often meant those in the dominant social and/or ethnic group, such as Englishmen/Scots/Welsh/Protestant Northern Irelanders in the UK, or whites in South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. With such restrictions on their colonies, free trade in the Empire on the whole did not exist. Thus, their advocacy for free trade was both ironic and paradoxical.
Upvote:2
Wikipedia, which the question quotes, is of course not guaranteed flawless.
Africa was actually mostly partitioned in the late nineteenth century, not the twentieth. There was though some adjustment of colonial boundaries partly in Britain's favour, at the expense of Germany, after the First World War.
I do not think there was necessarily any contradiction between this and Britain's then policy of free trade.
Things did change in 1931 in response to the Depression and resort of other countries to protective tariffs. Britain then abandoned its long-standing policy of free trade to impose a 10% tariff (customs duty) on imports from outside the British Empire.
From then on this to some extent skewed colonial markets in favour of British manufacturers as people living in British colonies had to pay a 10% higher price if they preferred to buy say German or Japanese manufactured goods compared to British ones.
This was to some extent to the colonies' disadvantage. However, not entirely so; it also meant that the colonies gained the same price advantage selling their produce within Britain and the British Empire, as any competitors from outside the Empire had a 10% tariff slapped on their produce.
Upvote:3
In partitioning Africa with France, Belgium, Germany, and others, Britain basically subdivided the Continent into "national" spheres of influence. These were colonies that were not always allowed to engage in "free trade" with other nations, and such rights as they had could be revoked at any time. This was "paradoxically" inconsistent with a free trade stance.
These Europeans wanted to subdivide China in similar spheres of influence, except that they were thwarted by America's Open Door Policy.