Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Empire Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820–1870

  • Ged Martin (a1)
Extract

The movement for imperial federation has traditionally been regarded as a late nineteenth century phenomenon, which grew out of a supposed reaction against earlier ‘anti-imperialism’. J. E. Tyler set out to trace its growth ‘from its first beginnings… in and around 1868’. Historians were aware of the suggestions made before the American War of Independence that the colonies should send M.P.s to Westminster, but tended to dismiss them as of antiquarian rather than historical interest. A few also noted apparently isolated discussions of some Empire federal connexion in the first half of the nineteenth century, but no attempt was made to establish the existence of a continuous sentiment before 1870. C. A. Bodelsen did no more than list a series of examples he had discovered in the supposed age of anti-imperialism. In fact between 1820 and 1870 a debate about the federal nature of the Empire can be traced. Like the movement for imperial federation after 1870, there was only the vaguest unity of aim about the mid-century projects, and before 1870, as after, the idea was never consistently to the fore, but enjoyed short bursts of popularity. It is, however, fair to think of one single movement for a federal Empire throughout the nineteenth century. There is a clear continuity in ideas, in arguments, and in the people involved. Ideas of Empire federalism were influential, not so much for themselves as for their relationship to overall imperial thinking: to ignore the undercurrent of feeling for a united Empire is to distort the attitudes of many leading men. In the mid-nineteenth century general principles of imperial parliamentary union were argued chiefly from the particular case of British North America, the closest colonies to Britain and the most constitutionally advanced. This Canadian emphasis strengthened the analogies with the United States which occurred in any case.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Tyler, J. E., The Struggle for Imperial Unity 1868–1895 (London, 1938), p. vii.

2 Labilliere, F. P. de, in Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, XXIV (1892–3), 99100;Labilliere, de, Federal Britain; or, the Unity and federation of the empire (London, 1894), pp. 614;Burt, A. L., Imperial Architects, being an account of proposals in the direction of closer imperial union made previous to the opening of the first Colonial Conference of 1887 (Oxford, 1913), pp. 103–14;Bodelsen, C. A., Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism (Copenhagen and London, 1924), pp. 132–4.

3 Burt, A. L., Imperial Architects, pp. 1415;Austin, Dennis, ‘Britain, Europe and Some Malta’, Round Table, no. 240 (Nov. 1970), pp. 397404;The Annual Register. World Events in 1969, p. 120. Joseph Hume had proposed that Malta and Gibraltar should send M.P.s to Westminster in 1831 (Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols 110–24). For another early discussion, see Oldmixon, J., The British Empire in America (2 vols., London, 1708), I, xxxiv–xxxv.

4 Cambridge Union Society, Minute Book no. 16, 11 Nov. 1856. The motion ‘That the Colonies should be represented in the Imperial Parliament’ was defeated by 38 votes to 12, a relatively well-attended debate.

5 Hansard, 3rd ser., CXII (5 07 1850), cols 1040–1 (Disraeli); ibid, cxxvi (28 Apr. 1853), c0’ s 694–5 (Cobden). Cobden's speech is given in Bright, John and Rogers, James E. Thorold, editors, Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, by Richard Cobden, M.P. (2 vols., London, 1870), I, 555–75. The debates were on the Malt Tax and the Budget.

6 University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849 (copy in Public Record Office, Russell Papers P.R.O. 30/22/8A, fos. 89–91); Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke) L(odge), 13 Oct. 1849; Disraeli to Stanley, Hughenden, 28 Dec. 1849; Disraeli to Derby, confidential, Hatfield, 9 Dec. 1851, in Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols., London, 19101820), III, 237, 333–5; Hughenden Papers, Box III B/XX/S/538, Edward Stanley to Disraeli, Madrid, 13 Nov. 1850; B.M., Gladstone Papers, Add. MS 44262, Newcastle to Gladstone, Clumber, 26 Aug. 1852, fos. 125–30; Disraeli to Derby, confidential, Hatfield, 9 Dec. 1851, in Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli, III, 333–5 (for Lyndhurst); Speech by Molesworth on the Australian Colonies Bill, 8 Feb. 1850, in Egerton, H. E., ed., Selected Speeches of Sir William Molesworth, Bart. P.C. M.P. on questions relating to colonial policy (London, 1903), pp. 314–15;Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–24 (for Hume); ibid. col. 124 (for Chandos); ibid. cols. 141–2 (for Murray).

7 Robinson to R. W. Horton, n.d. [1822], in Egerton, H. E. and Grant, W. L., Canadian Constitutional Development shown by selected speeches and despatches (London, 1907), pp. 147–8;[Haliburton, T. C.], The AttachÉ; or Sam Slick in England (2 vols., London, 1843), II, 86–8, 99101, 175;[Haliburton, T. C.], Sam Slice's Wise Saws and Modern Instances; or what he said, did or invented (2 vols., London, 1853), II, 221–3; Letters to Lord John Russell, in Chisholm, J. A., ed., The Speeches and Public Letters of Joseph Howe (2 vols., Halifax, 1909), I, 609–31.

8 Marryat, Captain, A Diary in America with remarks on its institutions, part second (3 vols., London, 1839), III, 184–5; W. H. Russell quoted with sympathy Joseph Howe's plea for colonial representation, Russell, W. H., Canada; Its Defences, Condition and Resources. Being a third and concluding volume of ‘My Diary, North and South’ (London, 1865), pp. 191–9;Gourlay, Robert, General introduction to Statistical Account of Upper Canada, compiled with a view to a grand system of Emigration in connexion with a reform of the Poor Laws (London, 1822), pp. cccxlii–cccxliii;Tremenheere, H. S., Notes on Public subjects made during a tour of the United States and Canada (London, 1852), pp. 288–92;Hansard, 3rd ser., CVII (18 Feb. 1850), col. 1019 (for Wyld);Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 130–1 (for Staunton); ibid. cols. 128–30 (for Malcolm); ibid. cols. 140–1 (for Forbes); ibid. cols. 131–8 (for Wetherell). The identification of F. H. Dickinson is less certain. A letter in the Spectator, no. 1368 (16 Sept. 1854), p. 978, is signed ‘J. H. D., Kingweston’. J. H. D. is probably a mistranscription of F. H. D. There is a similar proposal for colonial representation in The Colonial Church Chronicle and Missionary Journal, VI (Feb. 1853), pp. 286–90, signed ‘F. H. D.’ For Dickinson, see Venn, J., Alumni Cantabrigenses, pt. II, vol. II, 295.

9 Prescott to Adderley, 4 Nov. 1854, in Extracts from Letters of John Robert Godley to C. B. Adderley (ed. Adderley) (London, 1863), pp. 229–32; for Bartlett, see the prospectus of the projected Colonial Advocate (1849) in P.R.O., CO. 42/562, fo. 234.

10 Grey was opposed to direct colonial representation, but sympathetic to the idea of a colonial agent who might address the House of Commons. Public Record Office, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/8A, Grey to Russell, Howick, 23 Aug. 1849, fos. 99–101; P.R.O. 30/22/8B, Grey to Russell, CO., 21 Nov. 1849, fo. 578; Doughty, A. G., ed., Elgin-Grey Papers (4 vols., Ottawa, 1937), Grey to Elgin (copy), 6 Feb. 1852, in, 989. Elgin was prepared to consider any form of closer union. A. G. Doughty, ed., Elgin-Grey Papers, Elgin to Grey, private, Montreal, 23 May 1848, Elgin to Grey, private, Montreal, 6 June 1848, Elgin to Grey, private, Toronto, 23 Mar. 1850, 1, 177–9, 181–2, II, 608–13; Public Archives of Canada, Elgin Papers, microfilm A-396, Elgin to Grey (copy), 27 Feb. 1852; Elgin to Tremenheere, Quebec, 27 Feb. 1852, in Edmonds, E. L. and Edmonds, O. P., I Was There. Memoirs of H. S. Tremenheere (Windsor, 1965), pp. 93–5.Spectator, no. 1364, 19 Aug. 1854, p. 878; Adderley, C. B., Review of the Colonial Policy of Lord J. Russell's Administration by Earl Grey 1853 and of subsequent colonial history (London, 1869), p. 12;[Wakefield, E. G.], A View of the Art of Colonization (London, 1849), pp. 309–12;Mansard, 3rd ser., C (26 07 1848), col. 877 (for Mangles); Hinds to Durham, n.p., 19 Jan. 1838, calendared in Doughty, A. G., Report of the Public Archives for the year 1923 (Ottawa, 1924), p. 165.

11 Godley to Adderley, 19 June 1854 in Extracts from Letters of John Robert Godley to C. B. Adderley, p. 213; Knapland, Paul, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Policy (London, 1927), pp. 80–1; Hughenden Papers, Box 109 B/XX/S/9, Stanley to Disraeli, Knowsley, 8 Jan. 1850, B/XX/S/41, Derby to Disraeli, Knowsley, 11 Dec. 1851; Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 127–8 (for Althorp); ibid. cols. 124–6 (for Labouchere); Lewis, G. C., An Essay on the Government of Dependencies (London, 1842), pp. 296–9;Merivale, H., Lectures on Colonies and Colonization (2 vols., London, 1842), II, 290; University of Durham, Grey Papers, Head to Grey, private, Government House, Fredericton, New Brunswick, 28 Feb. 1852; Cobbett's Weekly Political Register, LXXIH, no. 8 (20 08. 1831), pp. 483–4;Hansard, 3rd ser., CXXVI (28 April. 1853), cols. 694–5 (for Cobden);Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government, ed. McCallum, R. B. (Oxford, 1946), p. 310;Lyttelton, Lord, The Colonial Empire of Great Britain in its religious aspect (London and Stourbridge [1850]), p. 35; Hincks to Adderley, 4 Sept. 1854, in Extracts from the Letters of John Robert Godley to C. B. Adderley, p. 220; Hincks, Francis, Reply to the Speech of the Hon. Joseph Howe of Nova Scotia on the Union of the North American Provinces, and on the Right of British Colonists to Representation in the British Parliament (London, 1855), pp. 3–23;Sanderson, Charles R., ed., The Arthur Papers (3 vols., Toronto, 19571959), I, no. 187, 182–3, Memorandum by R. B. Sullivan to Arthur, Crown Lands Office, Toronto, 16 July 1838.

12 Lecture at St John, New Brunswick, in 1860, Tupper, C., Recollections of Sixty Years (London, 1914), p. 265; letter in Halifax British Colonist, 13 Dec. 1866, in Saunders, E. M., ed., Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Tupper (2 vols., London, 1916), I, 139–40;Tyler, , Struggle for Imperial Unity, pp. 107–8;Martin, A. P., Australia and the Empire (Edinburgh, 1889), pp. 67, 1314 (for Lowe); Fitzgerald, J. E., A Selection from the Writings and Speeches of John Robert Godley (Christchurch, New Zealand, 1863), p. 140;Spectator, no. 1357 (1 July 1854), p. 702.

13 Robinson to Horton, n.d. [1822], in Egerton and Grant, Canadian Constitutional Development, pp. 147–8;Gourlay, , General introduction to Statistical Account of Upper Canada, pp. cccxlii–cccxliii.

14 Chisholm, , Joseph Howe, II, 268–95.

15 The main overseas branch of the Imperial Federation League was at Halifax (Tyler, , op. cit. p. 113). For the strength of Empire federalism in the West Indies, Colonial Magazine (08.-10. 1842), I, 305–10. The Colonial Magazine is cited here in its short title. Full titles were: 1840–2, Colonial Magazine and Commercial Maritime Journal; 1843–5. Fisher's Colonial Magazine and Commercial Maritime Journal; 1844–9, Simmonds Colonial Magazine and Foreign Miscellany; 1849–52, Colonial Magazine and East India Review.

16 Blackton, Charles S., ‘Australian Nationality and Nationalism: The Imperial Federationist Interlude, 1885–1901’, Historical Studies Australia and New Zealand, VII (1955), 1;Martin, A. P., Australia and the Empire, pp. 1314;Colonial Magazine, VII (03. 1846), 268–70, letter of Thomas McCombie, dated Port Phillip, 20 Aug. 1845; Nelson Examiner, n.d., quoted in Colonial Gazette, no. 222 (22 Feb. 1843), pp. 114–15. (After contemporary usage, McCombie spelt his name M'Combie. As this form is now obsolete I have modernized the spelling.) For a hostile Australian view, see Lang, J. D., Freedom and Independence for the Golden Lands of Australia (London, 1852), pp. 35–7.

17 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–43.

18 Hansard, 3rd ser., VII (19 09. 1831), cols. 179–91;Malcolm, Sir John, The Government of India (London, 1833), pp. 269, 274–6;Kaye, J. W., The Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir John Malcolm (2 vols., London, 1856), II, 605–6.

19 Sun, 19 Dec. 1837.

20 Hints on the case of Canada, for the consideration of Members of Parliament (London, 1838), pp. 9–10; [M.N.O.], The Canadian Crisis and Lord Durham's Mission to the North American Colonies (London, 1838), pp. 42–4;Annual Register for 1838, pp. 337–8; Spectator, no. 498 (13 Jan. 1838), p. 36; Standard, 10 Oct. 1838; British and Foreign Review, VIII (Jan. 1839), p. 328, reprinted as Young, G. A., The Canadian Question (London, 1839), 73–4;Marryat, , Diary in America, III, 184–5;The Colonies of Great Britain must be incorporated to form one universal and indivisible empire (London, 1839);Colonial Gazette, no. 29 (15 June 1839), p. 457; Canadian, , British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–48.

21 In the Colonial Gazette, I have noticed eight discussions of Empire federation between 1840 and 1846, and a further five in the Colonial Magazine.

22 Lewis, , Government of Dependencies, pp. 296–9;Merivale, , Lectures on Colonies, II, 290.

23 Howe's letters to Russell are in Chisholm, J. A., op. cit. I, 609–31. For their influence, see University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849, and Dublin University Magazine, xxv (02. 1850), 151–68.

24 Colonial Church Chronicle and Missionary Journal, VI (02. 1853), 287.

25 Edinburgh Review, XCVI (10. 1852), 500.

26 Speech of the Honorable Joseph Howe on the Union of the North American Provinces and on the Right of British Colonists to Representation in the Imperial Parliament, and to Participation in the Public Employments and Distinctions of the Empire (London, 1855);Spectator, no. 1356 (24 June 1854), pp. 666–7; ibid. no. 1357 (1 July 1854), p. 702; ibid. no. 1359 (15 July 1854), p. 754; ibid. no. 1364 (19 Aug. 1854), p. 878; ibid. no. 1368 (16 Sept. 1854), p. 978.

27 Merivale, , Fortnightly Review (Feb. 1870), pp. 164–5;Adderley, , Review of Grey's ‘Colonial Policy’, pp. 11–12, 421.

28 e.g. by Robert Lowe, who spoke of ‘one mighty confederacy’ in 1844, Martin, A. P., Australia and the Empire, pp. 67, and by Simmonds, P. L. in the Colonial Magazine, x (01. 1847), v.

29 University of Durham, Grey Papers, Stephen to Howick, Kensington Gore, 28 Dec. 1837; Stephen to Cunningham, 20 Mar. 1850, in Stephen, C. E., Sir James Stephen Letters with Biographical Notes (Gloucester, 1906), pp. 143–4;Wakefield, , op. cit. p. 312.

30 Hansard, 3rd ser., CVI (15 06 1849), col. 452.

31 Malet, Alexander, The Canadas: the onerous nature of their existing connexion with Great Britain Stated, the discontents of these Colonies discussed, and A Remedy Proposed, in a Letter to Lord Viscount Howick, Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (London, 1831), p. 19. (Malet's remedy was the creation of a Canadian Monarchy.)

32 Speech on the Australian Colonies Bill, 6 May 1850, in Egerton, H. E., Molesworth Speeches, p. 391.

33 Speech of 8 Feb. 1850, ibid. p. 303.

34 Wakefield, , op. cit. pp. 309–12.

35 Disraeli to Derby, confidential, Hatfield, 9 Dec. 1851, in Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, III, 334.Also Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 46, and W. H. Prescott to C. B. Adderley, 4 Nov. 1854, in Extracts from the letters of John Robert Godley, pp. 229–32.

36 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 130–1; see also Johnston, James F. W., Notes on North America, Agricultural, Economical, and Social (2 vols., London, 1851), pp. 347–51.

37 Spectator, no. 498 (13 Jan. 1838), p. 36.

38 Colonial Magazine, XXI (01.-06 1851), 365.

39 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 46. This article, ‘Representation of the Colonies in the Imperial Parliament’, by ‘B’, pp. 41–9, appears to have formed the basis of a pamphlet called Britain and her Colonial Dependencies; and their right to be represented in Parliament, published in 1844 by J. Hatchard & Son of London. I have been unable to trace the pamphlet, but it was quoted by the Colonial Gazette, no. 345 (12 July 1845), p. 430, and by the Eclectic Review, xxv–xxvi (04. 1849), 763–5. The proposal in this case was for representation after twenty years. For representation at a fixed population, London Quarterly Review, I (12. 1853), 551.

40 Speech of 8 Feb. 1850, in Egerton, H. E., op. cit. p. 303.

41 Carfax (pseudonym), An Essay on the Constitutional Integrity of the British Empire (London, 1857), p. 29.

42 Chisholm, J. A., op. cit. I, 623.

43 Ibid. 11, 272.

44 Carfax, , Essay, p. 10.

45 Burke, Edmund, The History of American Taxation (Dublin, 1775), pp. 52–3.

46 Meckins, T. C. M., Parliamentary Reform, Should the Colonies be Represented? (London, 1859), p. 4.

47 British Quarterly Review, x (1849), 502.

48 Annual Register for 1838, pp. 337–8.

49 Canadian, British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–8, quoting from the Jamaica Royal Gazette, n.d.

50 e.g. The Times, 18 Sept. 1844: ‘How else are we to give our colonies that voice both in their internal affairs, and also in the general concerns of the empire, which is the inalienable birthright of British blood, and without which it has never flowed in quietness?’ Joseph Howe in 1854 criticized those British statesmen who ‘still go on dreaming that they can keep continents filled with freemen, without making any provision for their incorporation into the Realm, or for securing to them any control over their foreign relations’. (Chisholm, , op. cit. II, 275.)

51 Hansard, 3rd ser., CVII (18 02. 1850), col. 1014.

52 Spectator, no. 560 (23 Mar. 1839), p. 278.

53 Colonial Gazette, no. 385 (18 Apr. 1846), p. 237.

54 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 36–7.

55 Sunday Times, 27 May 1849.

56 Illustrated London News, xv, no. 397 (3 11. 1849), 295.

57 Morning Chronicle, 17 Aug. 1831.

58 e.g. Smith, Goldwin, The Empire, a Series of Letters published in ‘The Daily News’ 1862–1863 (Oxford, 1863), pp. 85–6, 118, 200–1. Perhaps the influence of the United States federal example on imperial thinking can best be illustrated by the apparent lack of reference to France, which granted representation to her overseas territories after the revolution of 1848. The French case was much closer to Britain than that of the United States, and supporters of colonial parliamentary representation might have been expected to have examined the French experiment in some detail. The only mid-century writer who mentioned the admission of colonial representatives to the French Assembly did so apparently as an afterthought to his American discussions, and could say no more than ‘we are not aware that this measure has been opposed by any of the parties of that country’ (Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 167).

59 Colonial Gazette, no. 24 (11 May 1839), pp. 376–7.

60 Sunday Times, 4 Nov. 1849; see also T. Spicer's preface to Clinton, H., Suggestions towards the Organisation of the British Empire by realising the Parliamentary Representation of all Home and Colonial Interests (2nd ed., London, 1856), p. 5.

61 Godley to Adderley, 17 Dec. 1854, in Extracts from Letters of fohn Robert Godley, pp. 235–7;Merivale, , Fortnightly Review, N.S., VII (02. 1870), 164–5.

62 Colonial Magazine, XVI (01. 1849), p. 2.

63 Labouchere's phrase in Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 124–6.

64 Ibid. cols. 131–8.

65 British and Foreign Review, VIII (01. 1839), 328.

66 Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), pp. 156–7;Weekly Chronicle, 10 & 11 Nov. 1849 (letter from New York correspondent, 23 Oct. 1849); Meekins, T. C., Parliamentary Reform, p. 20.

67 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of the Nations (London, 1776), book IV, ch. VII, pt. III, pp. 231–2, misquoted in Lord Durham's Report on the affairs of British North America, ed. Lucas, C. P. (3 vols., Oxford, 1912), II, 312. Durham himself had briefly considered colonial representation, Ed. Sanderson, , The Arthur Papers, I, no. 316, 274, Durham to Robinson, Castle of St Lewis, 16 Sept. 1838.

68 Hantard. 2rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 138–40 (by Burge); Meekins, , op. cit. p. 61.

69 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 47.

70 Speech at the Royal Colonial Institute Dinner, 31 Mar. 1897, in Boyd, C. W., ed., Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches (2 vols., London, 1914), II, 5.

71 The colonies of Great Britain must be incorporated and form one universal and indivisible Empire (London, 1839), pp. 12, 29, 45, 47–8. Chamberlain also used the ‘bundle of sticks’ image. Amery, J., The Life of Joseph Chamberlain, IV (London, 1951), 424.

72 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 47.

73 Colonial Gazette, no. 421 (26 Dec. 1846), pp. 813–14.

74 e.g. Public Archives of Canada, Elgin Papers, microfilm A-397, Grey to Elgin, Datchet, 6 Sept. 1848; B.M., Aberdeen Papers, Add. MS 43070, Memo from Gladstone, n.d., fos. 183–4, enclosing Bartlett to Gladstone, private, New York, 30 May 1846, fos. 185–6.

75 e.g. Bourne, Kenneth, Britain and the balance of Power in North America, 1815–1908 (London, 1967), pp. 182–3; Godley to Adderley, 25 Aug. 1854, in Extracts from the Letters of John Robert Godley, pp. 214–16.

76 Spectator, no. 1356 (24 June 1854), pp. 666–7.

77 Ibid. no. 1364 (19 Aug. 1854), p. 878.

78 Howe's reply to Hincks is in Chisholm, op. cit. II, 320–7. His 1866 paper, The Organisation of the Empire is in ibid. 11, 492–505; Speech of the Honourable Joseph Howe, p. 3.

79 Meekins, T. C., op. cit. p. 6.

80 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 36–7.

81 Ibid. p. 37 and Froude, J. A., Short Studies on Great Subjects, second series (London, 1871), p. 176n.

82 Saunders, E. M., ed., Life of Tupper, I, 139–40.

83 Smith, Goldwin, The Empire, p. 86.

84 e.g. [M.N.O.] The Canadian Crisis, pp. 43–4;Annual Register for 1838, pp. 337–8; Sun, 19 Dec. 1837; Young, G. A., The Canadian Question, pp. 73–4; Colonial Gazette, no. 345 (12 July 1845), p. 430; Shall We Keep the Canadas? (London, 1849), pp. 23–4;Wilson, F. A. and Richards, A. B., Britain Redeemed and Canada Preserved (London, 1850), p. 474;Dublin University magazine, xxv (02. 1850), 167–8;Colonial Church Chronicle, VI (02. 1853), 287.

85 Chittick, V. L. O., Thomas Chandler Haliburton ('Sam Slick'), A Study in Provincial Toryism (New York, 1924), pp. 218–19. Chittick calls the steamship the ‘Syrius’.

86 University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849.

87 The Colonies of Great Britain must be incorporated, pp. 45–6. Joseph Howe put it at ten days (Letters to Lord John Russell, 1839, in Egerton and Grant, Canadian Constitutional Development, p. 203).

88 [M.N.O.] The Canadian Crisis, p. 43n.

89 Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 157–9. A less optimistic view was taken by Edward Stanley (Hughenden Papers, Box III, B/XX/S/538, E. Stanley to Disraeli, Madrid, 13 Nov. 1850).

90 Wilson, and Richards, , Britain Redeemed and Canada Preserved, p. 489.

91 Fletcher, Robert, England and her Colonies, or progress in unity; a plea for individual rights and imperial duties (London, 1857), pp. 196–7;Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 159.

92 Spectator, no. 1364 (19 Aug. 1854), p. 878.

93 See Map No. 2 in endpapers of Woodward, E. L., Age of Reform, 1815–1870 (Oxford, 1938).

94 e.g. Young, G. A., op. cit. pp. 73–4;Lucas, C. P., ed., Lord Durham's Report on the affairs of British North America, II, 317n, quoting III, 237, and ibid. 11, 202–3, quoting address of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland (Parliamentary Papers 1839, XVII, Report on the Affairs of British North America from the Earl of Durham, Appendix A, p. 52); Howe's letters to Russell, 1839, in Egerton and Grant, op. cit. p. 203; [M.N.O.] The Canadian Crisis, pp. 43–4; The Colonies of England must be incorporated, pp. 45–6; Merivale, H., Lectures on Colonies, II, 290;Haliburton, T. C., The Attaché, II, 86–7;Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 157–9;Shall we keep the Canadas?, pp. 23–4; University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849, Wilson, and Richards, , op. cit. p. 474.

95 Shall we keep the Canadas?, p. 21.

96 Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 155–6.

97 Robinson to Horton [1822] in Egerton and Grant, op. cit. p. 147.

98 Sunday Times, 4 Nov. 1849.

99 Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, LXVI (10. 1849), 481–2.

100 Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, pp. 231–4.

101 University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849.

102 Public Archives of Canada, Elgin Papers, A-396, Elgin to Grey (copy), Quebec, 27 Feb. 1852.

103 Elgin to Tremenheere, Quebec, 27 Feb. 1852, in Edmonds, E. L. and Edmonds, O. P., I Was There, pp. 93–5.

104 Haliburton, T. C., Bubbles of Canada, pp. 322–3.

105 Haliburton, T. C., Sam Slice's Wise Saws, pp. 221–2. What is striking about these arguments is the considerable influence which even a token representation was expected to have on the communities represented. Some of the proponents of colonial parliamentary representation were even prepared to include non-European territories and voters. This appears to have been the intention of Joseph Hume, and directly elected Indian M.P.s were called for in an article in the Asiatic and Colonial Journal in 1847. A scornful riposte followed, asserting that East India Company directors already in parliament were ‘far better and more extensively acquainted with the wants and requirements of their people, than any native can possibly be’. Nonetheless, T. C. Meekins ‘with the utmost diffidence’ revived the idea after the mutiny, arguing that half a dozen Indian members - ‘natives, who could speak the English language’ - with a few Indian princes in the House of Lords, might help to anglicize India. Not all agreed- Edward Stanley ruled out Ceylon as ‘exclusively native’ and most proposals for Indian parliamentary representation were for election by Europeans. Even so, eventual Indian electorates were not ruled out, even if not expected in the near future. Certainly it was easier to fit Indian representation more easily into parliament than any other scheme of a federal Empire. The Rev. William Arthur hoped that non-European territories might eventually take an equal part in his ‘Imperial Federation’ ‘though the distance seems all but endless …” This problem was to recur later in the nineteenth century and was never satisfactorily solved. That representation at Westminster was the only remotely workable solution was shown by G. K. Gokhale's request for the creation of six Indian seats in the House of Commons in 1895. (Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–24;Asiatic and Colonial Journal, I (18471848), 57, 221–5;Meekins, T. C., op. cit. p. 12; Hughenden Papers, Box III, B/XX/S/538, Edward Stanley to Disraeli, Madrid, 13 Nov. 1850; Morning Star, 10 Sept. 1858; Malcolm, Sir John, The Government of India, p. 269;London Quarterly Review, I (12. 1853), 551;Moore, R. J., Liberalism and Indian Politics 1872–1922 (London, 1966), p. 73.) For a discussion of the problem in a later period, Mehrotra, S. R., ‘Imperial Federation and India, 1868–1917’, Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, I (1961), 2940.

106 Fletcher, R., op. cit. p. 123.

107 The Times, 31 Oct. 1849.

108 Morning Chronicle, 17 Aug. 1831.

109 Cobbett's Weekly Political Register, LXXIII, no. 8 (20 08. 1831), 483–4.

110 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), col. 125.

111 Labouchere's phrase, ibid. Other suggestions that colonial members would prove a nuisance are found in Colonial Gazette, no. 44 (25 Sept. 1839), pp. 689–90;Lewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 286–9. Other assumptions that colonial members would be open to bribery can be found in Hansard, 3rd ser., CXXVI (28 04. 1853), cols. 694–5, by Cobden, , and Colonial Gazette, no. 345 (12 July 1845), p. 430.

112 Annual Register for 1838, pp. 337–8.

113 Standard, 17 Aug. 1831.

114 Dublin University Magazine, XXXIV (09. 1849), 316.

115 e.g. The Asiatic Journal, N.s. VI (09. 1831), 4–5.

116 Chisholm, , op. cit. I, 630.

117 Disraeli to Derby, Hatfield, 28 Dec. 1851, in Monypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit. III, 333–5.

118 Letter of ‘Mandeville’ in The Times, 28 July 1848.

119 e.g. Colonial Gazette, no. 44 (25 Sept. 1839), pp. 689–90;Lewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 296–9;Merivale, H., Lectures on Colonies, II, 290–1;Colonial Church Chronicle, VI (02. 1853), 287;Hincks, Francis, Reply to the Speech of the Hon. Joseph Howe, pp. 89;Globe, 7 Nov. 1849.

120 e.g. Chisholm, , op. cit. I, 628.

121 e.g. Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 161.

122 Sanderson, Charles R., ed., The Arthur Papers, I, no. 187, 132–87, Memorandum by Sullivan to Arthur, Crown Lands Office, Toronto, 16 July 1838, esp. pp. 182–3; University of Durham, Grey Papers, Head to Grey, private, Government House, Fredericton, New Brunswick, 28 Feb. 1852.

123 Merivale, H., Lectures on Colonies, II, 290–1;Lewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 296–9.

124 e.g. William Westgarth in Colonial Magazine, XIII (1848), 103;Godley, J. R. in Spectator, no. 1357 (1 July 1854), p. 702;Dublin University Magazine, xxv (02. 1850), 167–8.

125 Hansard, 3rd ser., CXXVI (28 04. 1853), cols. 694–5.

126 Ibid. VI (16 Aug. 1831), cols. 130–1.

127 Hincks, Francis, op. cit. p. 8–9

128 e.g. Colonial Gazette, no. 161 (22 Dec. 1841), pp. 801–2.

129 Tupper, C., Recollections of Sixty Years, p. 26, quoting a lecture given in 1860.

130 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), p. 47.

131 e.g. Morning Post, 28 May 1849; Shall we keep the Canadas?, p. 19.

132 Hansard, 3rd ser., CXII (5 07 1850), cols. 1040–1.

133 Hughenden Papers, Box 109, B/XX/S/41, Derby to Disraeli, Knowsley, 11 Dec. 1851.

134 It would almost certainly have proved impossible to allocate members to the colonies without leaving them dissatisfied. In 1831 Joseph Hume had asked for 19 seats. By 1852 the Colonial and Asiatic Magazine was dividing up thirty. Hume proposed to give British North America four seats. Joseph Howe thought ‘a moderate degree of moral and intellectual communication between North America and the Imperial Parliament’ would require ten members. Hume assigned one seat to Jamaica; Jamaicans spoke of six or nine. Constituencies would have been impossibly large, and the problem of distance - manageable in the case of the Atlantic colonies - was insurmountable for those in the Antipodes, as Edward Stanley was obliged to admit. Indeed, the very attempt to draw up a scheme of representation seems to have persuaded him of the impossibility of the scheme. In 1884 he privately confessed that he had never seen a plan for imperial federation which would bear argument. (Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–24;Colonial and Asiatic Review, I, 93107;Chisholm, , op. cit. I, 628;Canadian, , British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–48; Hughenden Papers, Box III, B/XX/S/538, Edward Stanley to Disraeli, Madrid, 13 Nov. 1850; Public Archives of Canada, Derby Papers, microfilm A-31, Derby to Lansdowne (copy), private, Colonial Office, 20 Nov. 1884.)

The arrangement of constituencies suggested was: Hume, 1831, British North America and Bermuda - 3, West Indies - 5, British India and Singapore - 4, Ceylon - 1, Australia - 1, Cape - 1, Mauritius - 1, Malta - 1, Gibraltar - 1, Channel Islands - 1; Stanley, 1850, British North America - 6, West Indies - 4, Cape - 1, Mauritius - 1, Malta - 1, Heligoland - 1; Colonial and Asiatic Review (1852), British North America - 6, West Indies - 4, India and China settlements - 10, Ceylon - 1, Australia - 5, New Zealand - 1, Cape - 2, Mauritius - 1. A marked lack of agreement about the territories to be represented illustrates the impracticability of the scheme.

135 Hughenden Papers, Box 109, B/XX/S/41, Derby to Disraeli, Knowsley, 11 Dec. 1851. Most proposals were for indirect election by the local legislature, where the mode of election was made specific at all, e.g. Colonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 166;Colonial Gazette, no. 204 (19 10. 1842), p. 659.

136 e.g. Colonial Gazette, no. 204 (19 Oct. 1842), p. 659.

137 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–24;Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 47;ibid, xvi (Mar. 1849), 166.

138 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 47.

139 Spectator, no. 1357 (1 July 1854), p. 702.Also Colonial Gazette, no. 44 (25 Sept. 1839), p. 689.

140 Morning Star, 10 Sept. 1858.

141 Spectator, no. 164 (20 Aug. 1831), p. 793; Morning Herald, 17 Aug. 1831; Asiatic Journal, N.s., VI (09. 1831), 4.

142 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 143ft.

143 Hughenden Papers, Box III, B/XX/S/538, Edward Stanley to Disraeli, Madrid, 13 Nov. 1850.

144 Cf. Sir George Staunton's address to the Freeholders of the County of Southampton, 24 Apr. 1831 (newspaper dipping in the Staunton papers, Xerox copy kindly supplied by the Librarian, William R. Perkins Library, Duke University, North Carolina).

145 Hansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), col. 124 (Althorp), cols. 124–6 (Labouchere).

146 Hansard, 3rd ser., CLXXXIII (14 05 1866), cols. 877–88.

147 Russell, Earl, Selections from the Speeches of Earl Russell, 1817–1841 and from Despatches 1859–1865 (2 vols., London, 1870), I, 152–3;Monypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit. v, 194–5.

148 Articles giving information about colonial agents were published in the Colonial Magazine, IX (Sept.-Dec. 1846), 303–19, and ibid, XIII (Feb. 1848), 131–7. For Henry Bliss, see The Times, 20 Jan. 1838.

149 Colonial Gazette, no. 105 (25 Nov. 1840), p. 778.

150 Morning Herald, 26 Jan. 1849.

151 Samuel Hinds to Durham, n.p., 19 Jan. 1838, in the Calendar of Durham Papers, Doughty, A. G., Report of the Public Archives for 1923, p. 165;Colonial Gazette, no. 25 (18 May 1839), pp. 392–3; ibid. no. 44 (25 Sept. 1839), pp. 689–90; Morning Herald, 25 May 1849; Manchester Courier, 30 May 1849, p. 342.

152 Hansard, 3rd ser., CIV (16 04. 1849), col. 363;Weekly Chronicle, 26 May 1849; Spectator, no. 1364 (19 Aug. 1854), p. 878. As an ennobled octogenarian, Adderley was still attracted to the idea of a ‘Council of the Indies’ (Norton, Lord, Imperial Fellowship of Self-Governed British Colonies (London, 1903), p. 54). The book was dedicated to Joseph Chamberlain, a striking example of continuity in Imperial thought.

153 Examiner, no. 2151 (21 Apr. 1849), p. 241.

154 Prescott to Adderley, 4 Nov. 1854, in Extracts from the Letters of John Robert Godley, pp. 229–32.

155 Shall we keep the Canadas?, pp. 22–3;Manchester Courier, 30 May 1849, p. 342;Colonial and Asiatic Review, I (08. 1852), 105–7.

156 Cf. McCombie's letter in Colonial Magazine, VII (03. 1846), 268–70, dated from Port Phillip, 20 Aug. 1845 and his Essays in Colonization (London and Aberdeen, 1850), p. 33.

157 Colonial Magazine, VI (03. 1846), 269n.

158 ibid. IX (Sept.-Dec. 1846), 303–19. Stanley's dispatch to Sir George Gipps is printed on pp. 310–11.

159 Ibid. x (Jan.-Apr. 1847), preface, p.v.

160 Wakefield, , op. cit. pp. 309–12. But Wakefield had earlier considered direct representation. See A Letter from Sydney, the principal town of Australasia, ed. Gonger, R. (London, 1829), p. 198.

161 Colonial Gazette, no. 45 (25 Sept. 1839), pp. 689–90.

162 Spectator, no. 1368 (16 Sept. 1854), p. 978.

163 London Quarterly Review, I (12. 1853), 550.Burt, A. L., Imperial Architects, pp. 103–14, ascribes this article to Arthur.

164 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 20–4.

165 The Times, 18 Sept. 1844; Morning Post, 30 May 1849, quoting speech of Sir Richard Broun to the Committee of the Baronets of Scotland. For a discussion of the relationship between Irish separatism and a federal Empire, see Kendle, J. E., ‘The Round Table Movement and “Home Rule All Round”’, The Historical Journal, XI (1968), 332–53.

166 Tyler, , op. cit. p. 101;Mathews, Jehu, A Colonist on the Colonial Question (London, 1872), pp. 95100;Grey, Earl, ‘How Shall We Retain the Colonies?’, Nineteenth Century, V (1879), 952; Public Record Office, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/8A, Grey to Russell, Howick, 23 Aug. 1849, fos. 99–101; Smith, Goldwin, Canada and the Canadian Question (London, 1891), p. 266;Freeman, Edward, ‘The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity’, in Wright, A. S., ed., Britannic Confederation (London, 1892), p. 44;Imperial Federation, VIII (1893), 172–3, letter from J. Van Sommcr, Toronto, 3 July 1893. See also The Integration of the British Empire from an American standpoint (London, 1875), esp. p. 19.

167 University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849; Russell, Earl, Selection from the Speeches of Earl Russell, I, 172–3;Monypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit. III, 333–5, IV, 329, V, 194–5;Tyler, , op. cit. p. 184;Boyd, C. W., ed., Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches, I, 367–8.

168 Tyler, , op. cit. pp. 109–10, 203–8;Kendle, J. E., The Colonial and Imperial Conferences, 1887–1911 (London, 1967), p. 6n.

169 Cf. Cheng, S. C.-Y., Schemes for the Federation of the British Empire (New York, 1931), pp. 183251, for an analysis of late nineteenth century arguments for and against a federation of the Empire.

170 Mathews, Jehu, A Colonist on the Colonial Question, pp. 70–3;Imperial Federation, I (1886), 94;Labilliere, F. P. de, Federal Britain, pp. 614;Crofton, F. B., ‘Thomas Chandler Haliburton’, Atlantic Monthly, LXIX (1892), 355–63;Imperial Federation, I (1886), 142, 274–5;ibid, IV (1889), 28–9; ibid, VII (1892), 227.

171 Adderley, C. B., Review of Grey's ‘Colonial Policy’, pp. 1112;Norton, Lord [Adderley, C. B.], Imperial Fellowship of Self-Governed British Colonies; Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, Grey to Elgin (copy), III (6 02. 1852), 952;Grey, Earl, ‘How Shall We Retain the Colonies?’, in Nineteenth Century, V (1879), 953–4;Saunders, E. M., op. cit. II, 170, Tupper to Casimir Dickson, 10 Feb. 1893; ibid. I, 139–40, quoting letter in Halifax British Colonist, 13 Dec. 1866; Tupper, C., op. cit. p. 26, quoting lecture at St John, New Brunswick, in 1860; Westgarth, W., ‘The Administration of the Colonies’, Colonial Magazine, XVI (01. 1848), 94101;Westgarth, W., ‘Our Colonial Relations’, Colonial Magazine, XVI (01. 1849), 112;Westgarth, W., ‘The Federation of the Empire’, Imperial Federation, I (1886), 272–3; other contributions by Westgarth are at ibid. II (1887), 47; III (1888), 114, 138 and see obituary at ibid. IV (1889), 289; Hamilton, P. S., Observations upon a Union of the Colonies of British North America (Halifax, 1855), p. 51;Imperial Federation, IV (1889), 77, letter from P. S. Hamilton, Halifax, N.S., 26 Feb. 1889, titled ‘A Progenitor of Imperial Federation'; Smith, Goldwin, Commonwealth or Empire (New York, 1902), pp. 63–4; Goldwin Smith, The Empire, esp. letter X, New Zealand, 13 Sept. 1862, p. 147; on 17 Jan. 1838 Gladstone had read Hints on the Case of Canada for the Consideration of Members of Parliament, which proposed colonial representation in parliament at pp. 9–10 (Foot, M. R. D., ed., The Gladstone Diaries, II, 366); Extracts from Letters of John Robert Godley, Godley to Adderley, 19 July 1854, p. 213; Knaplund, Paul, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Policy, pp. 80–1, summarizing Gladstone to Lyttelton, 22 Oct. 1854; Tyler, , op. cit. pp. 203–8.

172 Duke University, Helps Papers, Froude to Arthur Helps, Derseen, Kenmare, Ireland, 3 Oct. [1868] (Xerox copy kindly supplied by the Librarian, William R. Perkins Library, Duke University); Adderley, C. B., Review of Grey's ‘Colonial Policy’, pp. 11–12;Merivale, Herman, ‘The Colonial Question’, Fortnightly Review, N.S., VII (1870), 164–5.

173 Galbraith, J. S., ‘Myths of the Little England Era’, American Historical Review, LXVII (1961), 3448;Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R. E., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., VI (1953), 115. These criticisms were partly foreshadowed by Creighton, D. G. in his article, ‘The Victorians and the mpire’, Canadian Historical Review, XIX (1938), 138–53.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Historical Journal
  • ISSN: 0018-246X
  • EISSN: 1469-5103
  • URL: /core/journals/historical-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed