Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:11:49.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emigration and the State, 1803–1842: the Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government reconsidered*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Peter Dunkley
Peter Dunkley
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some years ago in this journal, Oliver MacDonagh suggested a general framework for the study of administrative growth and change in nineteenth century Britain. The chief significance of this work is that it views the transformation of executive government as ‘a genuine historical process’. In the peculiar circumstances of the nineteenth century, he argues, administration was’ creative and self-generating’ in the sense that its functional and structural elaboration operated ‘beyond the control or comprehension of anyone in particular’. To this extent, administrative development is depicted as having remained remarkably free from the influence of ‘external forces’, while breeding and feeding off its own internal momentum.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 353 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 MacDonagh, O., ‘The nineteenth-century revolution in government: a reappraisal‘, Historical Journal, I, 1 (1958), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid. pp. 53–4.

3 Ibid. pp. 57–61, 65.

4 MacLeod, R. M., ‘Statesmen undisguised’, American Historical Review, LXXVIII, 5 (1973), 1392.Google Scholar

5 Gillian, Sutherland (ed.), Studies in the growth of nineteenth-century government (Totowa, NJ., 1972), intro., p. 8.Google Scholar

6 MacDonagh's most important contributions on the emigration service are ‘Emigration and the state, 1833–55: an essay in administrative history’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, v (1955), 133–59; and A pattern of government growth, 1800–60: the passenger acts and their enforcement (London, 1961).

7 MacDonagh, ‘The nineteenth-century revolution in government’, p. 61.

8 Parris, H., ‘The nineteenth-century revolution in government: a reappraisal reappraised’, Historical Journal,iii, 1 (1960), 29;Google ScholarHart, J., ‘Nineteenth-century social reform: a story interpretation of history’, Past and Present, xxxi (1965), 41.Google Scholar See the review by Moore, D. C. in American Historical Review, LXXXIII, 1 (1978), 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See MacLeod, ‘statesmen undisguised’, p. 1391.

10 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, pp. 133–4; idem, A pattern of government growth, pp. 7–8.

11 MacDonagh, ‘ Emigration and the state’, p. 134; idem, A pattern of government growth, pp. 66–8.

12 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 138; idem, A pattern of government growth, p. 98.

13 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, pp. 144–5; idem, A pattern of government growth, pp. 138–47.

14 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 141.

15 Ibid. p. 134.

16 Ibid. pp. 158–9; idem, A pattern of government growth, p. 9.

17 Prouty, R., The transformation of the board of trade,1830–55 (London, 1957), p. 77.Google Scholar

18 Johnston, H.J.M., British emigration policy, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1972), p. 2;Google ScholarCowan, H. I., British emigration to British North America, 1783–1837 (Toronto, 1928), p. 234;Google ScholarShepperson, W. S., British emigration to North America (Oxford, 1957), p. 192. MacDonagh believes that the act was essentially humanitarian in intent. A pattern of government growth, pp. 55–8. Its absurdly stringent standards, however, argue against this. If adequately enforced, the act would certainly have ruined the passenger trade altogether, precisely what groups such as the Highland Society most desired.Google Scholar

19 Johnston, British emigration policy, pp. 25–6, 119–20; Adams, W. F., Ireland and Irish emigration to the New World from 1815 to the Famine (New Haven, 1932), p. 144.Google Scholar

20 A. C. Buchanan to R. W. Horton, 21 Apr. 1828, C.O. 384/20, fo. 204 (Public Record Office).

21 Johnston, British emigration policy, pp. 122–4; MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 66; Walpole, K. A., “The humanitarian movement of the early nineteenth century to remedy abuses on emigrant vessels to America’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, xiv (1931), 204–5. The committee concluded that restrictions raised the cost of passage and thereby discouraged emigration. A wish to attack ‘mercantilist’ statutes was also apparent in the committee.Google Scholar

22 Burroughs, P., The Canadian crisis and British colonial policy, 1828–1841 (London, 1972), pp. 63, 95.Google Scholar

23 Johnston, British emigration policy, pp. 29–30.

24 Burroughs, The Canadian crisis, p. 96.

25 Buchanan to Horton, 11 Sept. and 12 Sept. (copy) 1827, 21 Apr. 1828, C.O. 384/20, fos. 202,216–7. Buchanan was a prominent merchant in the Londonderry - North America trade and with his brother owned a grist and saw mill near Sorel in Lower Canada.

26 Buchanan to Lord Howick, 9 Mar. 1833, C.O. 384/32, fos. 73–4.

27 A. Wedderburne, Annual report to the St John's (Mew Brunswick) Agricultural and Emigration Society, 5 Oct. 1827; quoted in Buchanan, A. C., Emigration practically considered… (London, 1828), p. 57. Johnston, British emigration policy, p. 124; Cowen, British emigration, pp. 207–8. In Halifax alone, more than 800 persons out of a population of 11,000 had died of the disease before the end of the year.Google Scholar

28 Adams, Irish emigration, p. 288; Martin, G., The Durham report and British policy (Cambridge, 1972), P. 5.Google Scholar

29 Buchanan to Horton, 21 Apr. 1828, Buchanan to R. W. Hay, 24 Apr. 1828, C.O. 384/20, fos. 203, 205, 210–1.

30 Buchanan to Horton, 11 Sept. 1827 (copy), C.O. 384/20, fo. 216.

31 Johnston, British emigration policy, p. 125; MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 76. Although Horton was officially replaced by E. G. Stanley at the colonial office in October 1827, for some months afterwards Horton continued to consult frequently with Huskisson. It was Horton who moved the revival of passenger legislation in the House of Commons in early 1828.

32 Buchanan to Horton, 21 Apr. 1828, C.O. 384/20, fo. 204.

33 The act permitted three passengers for every four tons burden and required a minimum height of 5 1/2 feet between-decks and 50 gallons of water and 50 pounds of breadstuff's for every passenger aboard. Enforcement was left to customs officers. The act, in fact, was somewhat more ineffectual than Buchanan desired. He had originally suggested a numbers ratio of 2:3, but for some reason this was changed to 3:4 before the bill reached the House of Commons. In addition, Lord Tenterden successfully demanded rejection of a clause that would have permitted penalties under the act to be summarily recoverable before two magistrates. Buchanan had to be satisfied with a promise from Huskisson that the government would attempt to rectify these deficiencies in the following session. MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 76.

34 Adams, Irish emigration, p. 161; Johnston, British emigration policy, p. 126. Horton may also have been interested in keeping fares down so as to reduce the cost of his own schemes for government-assisted emigration.

35 W. Todhunter to Huskisson, 1 Apr. 1828, C.O. 384/20, fo. 185; Johnston, British emigration policy, p. 126.

36 Buchanan's views on emigration will be discussed later. Unless otherwise noted, all statements in this paragraph are based on ibid. pp. 118–26.

37 See Horton to Howick, 8 Apr. 1831, box 111/file 7, Grey papers (University of Durham).

38 Before 1827, the Treasury had drafted changes in passenger legislation without any clear conception of policy. Walpole, ‘The humanitarian movement’, p. 206.

39 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 79.

40 Reporting directly to that department of state, he remained financially free from colonial government, his pay coming out of the Crown land and timber fund. Buchanan to Hay, 30 May 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 141.

41 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 79.

42 Report of the commissioners for emigration to Viscount Goderich, MS, 15 Mar. 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 16.

43 Buchanan to Hay, 16 June 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 378. Before it had run its course, one-tenth of the population of Quebec had died of the disease. Adams, Irish emigration, p. 185.

44 Copy of the report of Mr [John] Richards to the colonial secretary, respecting the waste lands in the Canadas, and emigration, 12 Mar. 1832, pp. 23–4, C.O. 384/26, fo. 17; Buchanan to Howick, 10 Aug. 1832, C.O. 384/30, fos. 386–7. The protests of 1832 were the culmination of a growing agitation directed against British immigration and the lax enforcement of the passenger act. See Buchanan to [Hay?], 26 May 1831, C.O. 384/28, fo. 165; Jos. Bouchette to Howick (and enclosure), 6 Aug. 1831, C.O. 384/28, fo. 133; ‘Memoir [sic] and petition of the Quebec Emigrant Society, to Lord Viscount Goderich’, 30 Nov. 1831, C.O. 384/27, fos. 295–7; ‘Address from the Quebec Emigrant Society, to His Excellency Lord Aylmer, Governor General’, 5 Dec. 1831, C.O. 384/27, fo. 297.

45 Aylmer to Goderich, 12 Oct. 1831, C.O. 384/27, fos. 80–1.

46 Lord Howick, draft dispatch, Jan. 1831, Colonial Papers, Emigration, no. 1, box 144/file I, Grey papers.

47 Goderich to Maj. Gen. Bourke, 9 July 1831, C.O. 384/27, fo. 59.

48 See Report of the commissioners for emigration, 15 Mar. 1832, pp. 4–5, C.O. 384/27, fos. 73–4. 49 Ibid. pp. 6, 19, C.O. 384/27, fos. 74, 81.

50 Mayor of Liverpool, et al. to Goderich, 19 June 1832, C.O. 384/30, fos. 437–8; Mayor of Liverpool to Howick, 21 July 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 569; Mayor of Liverpool to Goderich, 4 Jan. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fos. 316–9.

51 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 135;idem, A pattern of government growth, pp. 91–2.

52 Low was not assigned to Liverpool until May 1833.

53 See Howick to T. W. Evans, 2 July 1832 (copy) and T. F. Elliot to Mayor of Liverpool, 30 July 1832 (copy), C.O. 385/6, fos. 100–1, 108.

54 Burroughs, The Canadian crisis, p. 54. The Howick Act unconditionally transferred to the assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada the right of appropriating duties levied under the Quebec Revenue Act of 1774. It was hoped that this C.Oncession would move the legislatures to adopt adequate civil lists for the salaries of British colonial officials.

55 See Edward Smith to Howick, 27 Feb. 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 558.

56 See Howick's endorsement: C. Bowley to Hay, 11 July 1832, C.O. 384/30, fos. 528–9. In the early 1830s, the two under-secretaries divided the colonies between them and administered their responsibilities almost as though they were ‘in different Offices’. Memo by J. Stephen, 30 Mar. 1832, C.O. 537/22, fo. 12.

57 See Hay's endorsement: Lord Sandon to Hay, 6 Jan. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fo. 388.

58 In response to Canadian pressures in 1831, Goderich had pressed the customs to enforce more rigorously the passenger act. Commissioners of Customs to Lords of the Treasury, 19 Aug. 1831, enclosed in J. Stewart to Hay, 3 Sept. 1831, C.O. 384/27, fo. 215. See Goderich to Howick, 1 Oct. 1832, box 121/file 7, Grey papers.

59 Hay to Stewart, 11 Mar. 1833 (draft), C.O. 384/33, fos. 391–2 (final letter dated 13 Mar. 1833; see T.2/143, pt. 2, 708).

60 E. G. Stanley to Lord Althorp, 20 Apr. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fo. 318.

61 Howick, son and heir of the prime minister, was accustomed to exercising a good deal of influence over the weak-willed Goderich. Lord Holland to Lord Brougham, 6 Jan. 1834, Brougham papers (University College, London). Burroughs, The Canadian crisis, p. 43.

62 Stanley to Althorp, 20 Apr. 1833 and Stewart to Hay, 3 May 1833, C.O. 384/33, fos. 54, 318.

63 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, pp. 85, 327.

64 Manning, H. T., ‘Who ran the British empire 1830–1850?‘, Journal of British Studies, v, 1 (1965), 97. See also Burroughs, The Canadian crisis, p. 44.Google Scholar

65 See Stanley to Althorp, 20 Apr. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fos. 317–8.

66 Hay to Stewart, 11 Mar. 1833 (draft), C.O. 384/33, fos. 391–2.

67 See below, p. 367. Hay was given responsibility for working out with the Treasury the details of Low's assignment. Later in the same year, he conducted negotiations with the Treasury concerning the appointment of additional emigration officers. Stewart to Hay, 3 May 1833, C.O. 384/33, fo. 54; Hitchins, F. H., The colonial land and emigration commission (Philadelphia, 1931), p. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 Knaplund, P., James Stephen and the British colonial system (Madison, 1953), p. 40;Google ScholarSnelling, R. C. and Baron, T. J., ‘The colonial office and its permanent officials, 1801–1914’, in Sutherland, (ed.), Studies in government, p. 147.Google Scholar

69 See Hay to Stewart, 11 Mar. 1833 (draft), C.O. 384/33, fos. 391–2. Stanley believed the Liverpool request was ‘worthy of attention’. Stanley to Althorp, 20 Apr. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fos. 317–18.

70 Hay to Stewart, 11 Mar. 1833 (draft), C.O. 384/33, fos. 391–2.

71 Among Hay's correspondents at this time was John Richards, whom the colonial office had sent out to Canada in 1830 to report on ‘bringing emigration and colonization into useful connection’. His reports never failed to stress the ‘great dissatisfaction’ that unregulated British emigration caused in Canada. See Richards to Hay, 23 Dec. 1830, 4 Mar. 1831, 17 June 1831, C.O. 384/26, fos. 34, 64, 83; and Copy of the report of Mr Richards to the colonial secretary, 12 Mar. 1832, pp. 23–4, C.O. 384/26, fo. 117.

72 Buchanan to [Hay?], 26 May 1831, C.O. 384/28, fos. 161–2; Buchanan to Lt. Col. Craig, 18 Aug. 1832 (copy), C.O. 384/30, fo. 392; Buchanan to Hay, 12 July 1833, C.O. 384/32, fo. 111.

73 Endorsement: Buchanan to Howick, 11 Sept. 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 408; Buchanan to Howick, 9 Mar. 1833, C.O. 384/32. fo. 76; Buchanan to Hay, 16 May 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 101.

74 Buchanan to Horton, 23 May 1827, in Buchanan, Emigration practically considered, app. 1, pp. 107–16.

75 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 76.

76 See, for example, Buchanan to [Hay?], 26 May 1831, C.O. 384/28, fos. 161–2.

77 Buchanan to Howick, 7 July 1831, box 79/file 9, Grey papers.

78 J. Buchanan to Hay, 8 Nov. 1831, C.O. 384/28, fos. 226–8. The two brothers maintained close contact on emigration affairs through A.C.'s use of James’ family in overseeing Canadian immigration. From the onset of greatly increased immigration in 1830–1, A.C. regularly used one and sometimes two of his brother's sons as assistant agents at Quebec. Following an illness in 1835, A.C. was succeeded as resident agent by James's son, A. C. Buchanan, Jr. A. C. Buchanan to Hay, 4 Oct. 1831, C.O. 384/28, fo. 207; A. C. Buchanan to Hay, 28 Dec. 1833, C.O. 384/32, fo. 128; A. C. Buchanan to Lord Glenelg, 18 July 1836, C.O. 384/41, fos. 59–60.

79 MacDonagh notes the curious duality of Low's original responsibilities at Liverpool. ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 136. This ambiguity is more understandable if it is remembered that Buchanan's plan of 1827 had called for intervention in both public and voluntary emigration. Subsequent developments, such as the government's abandonment of plans to subsidize emigration and the near collapse of all emigrant protection, forced him to reorient his scheme to include the encouragement of privately assisted emigration and to encompass more explicitly the regulation of the passenger trade.

80 Buchanan to Glenelg, 18 July 1836, C.O. 384/41, fos. 54, 66, 68–9.

81 Buchanan to [?], Sept. 1833, C.O. 384/32, fo. 114; Buchanan to Hay, 28 Dec. 1833, C.O. 384/32, fo. 125; Buchanan to Hay, 16 and 30 May 1834, C.O. 384/35, fos. 101, 139; Buchanan to Stanley, 12 June 1834, C.O. 384/35, fos. 145–6; see also C.O. 384/35, fos. 165–6.

82 Unidentified newspaper cutting, dated Quebec, Aug. 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 173. The meeting endorsed Buchanan's recommendations, which included portions of his 1828 proposals that had been deleted or modified by Huskisson and parliament.

83 Buchanan to Hay, 23 Sept. 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 159.

84 Among other things, the passenger act of 1835 reduced the numbers ratio to three passengers for every 5 tons burden, and the minimum breadstuffs for each passenger was increased from 50 to 70 pounds. For the other chief provisions, see note 89 below.

85 Gladstone was appointed parliamentary under-secretary at the colonial office on 26 January 1835; Stephen was legal adviser to the department at the time. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in March 1835.

86 ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 136.

87 See Low to Hay, 12 Apr. 1834 [sic], C.O. 384/35, fo. 311; endorsement by Hay: E. Stanley [sic] to E. G. Stanley, 8 Aug. 1833, C.O. 384/33, fo. 404.

88 Endorsement by T. F. Elliot: Buchanan to Hay, 23 Sept. 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 160.

89 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, pp. 88–9. This included provisions concerning compensation for delayed sailings, the maintenance of arriving passengers, the posting of the act on vessels, the prevention of fraud in the sale of supplies while at sea, and the limitation of spirits on board.

90 Low to T. Foster, 4 Apr. 1835, and Low to Hay, 25 Apr. 1835, C.O. 384/38, fos. 18, 219; MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 144.

91 Ibid. p. 140; see above, p. 355.

92 See C.O. 384/41, relevant sections.

93 See MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 116.

94 MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 136.

95 Snelling and Barron, ‘The colonial office’, p. 150.

96 The views discussed here are found in Stephen's memo on colonial office reorganization, 30 Mar. 1832, C.O. 537/22, fos. 3–14.

97 The validity of Stephen's analysis is confirmed by Young, D. M., The colonial office in the early nineteenth century (London, 1961), pp. 3–5, 56.Google Scholar

98 At the very time he was devising his reorganization plan, Stephen told Howick that Elliot's elevation to a position of ‘great trust’ was ‘an object of national importance’. Stephen to Howick, 10 Feb. 1832, box 126/file 11, Grey papers.

99 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 124.

100 Snelling and Barron, ‘The colonial office’, pp. 147–50. Elliot had counterparts in James Spedding, who was placed in charge of parliamentary correspondence and relations, and Peter Smith, who was given responsibility for all military matters and colonial honors. Legal business, too, was made a separate division, although Stephen himself continued to handle it until 1846.

101 Knaplund, James Stephen, pp. 79–82.

102 Burroughs, P., Britain and Australia, 1831–1855 (Oxford, 1967), p. 176.Google Scholar

103 Stephen had to wait for the departure of Lord Glenelg (colonial secretary, 1835–9), who had, according to Stephen, ‘the most unreserved confidence’ in the commissioners. Minute by Stephen, 15 Nov. 1839, C.O. 13/15. Quoted in Hitchins, The colonial land and emigration commission P.38.

104 Minute by Stephen, 10 Dec. 1839, C.O. 13/15. Quoted in Burroughs, Britain and Australia, pp. 217–18.

106 See ‘Copy of instructions’, Russell to emigration commissioners, I4 Jan. 1840, C.O.384/62, fos. 17–8.

106 Hitchins, The colonial land and emigration commission, p. 62.

107 Stephen to Elliot, 31 July 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 193.

108 Endorsement: Gladstone to Stephen, 16 Mar. [1835], C.O. 384/35, fo. 163; Stephen to Gladstone, 15 Apr. 1835, C.O. 384/38, fos. 216–17.

109 Stephen to A. Y. Spearman, 9 Jan. 1837, in Correspondence: emigration (Australia), 1 June 1837, p. 66, C.O. 384/43, fos. 433–5. Stephen did mention the emigration agents, but he seems to have envisioned using them chiefly to assist in the selection of emigrants for the government's ships bound for Australia.

110 Copy in C.O. 384/62, fo. 17.

111 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, pp. 127–8.

112 See Spearman to Stephen, 3 May 1837 (and endorsements), C.O. 384/43, fo. 292; Elliot to Stephen, 21 Aug. 1839, C.O. 384/52, fo. 144.

113 See C.O. 384/43, relevant sections. A tenth agent was assigned to London on 17 February 1837.

114 MacDonagh believes the report was ‘partially responsible’ for the appointment of the commission. A pattern of government growth, p. 136.

115 ‘Copy of instructions’, Russell to emigration commissioners, 14 Jan. 1840, C.O. 384/62, fo.19.

116 Emigration commissioners to Stephen, 12 Mar. 1840, C.O. 384/62, fo. 86. No new agent was appointed to Bristol when the officer there, Lt. Henry, was transferred to Liverpool following Low's death in March 1840. Moreover, the commissioners rejected a request from the Liverpool authorities to enlarge Henry's establishment at the port. Emigration commissioners to Stephen, 13 Apr. 1840, C.O. 384/62, fo. 108.

117 MacDonagh attributes this to the complexities and difficulties of reform, as well as the pressure of work on Elliot. A pattern of government growth, p. 128.

118 See Elliot to E. Chadwick, 4 Jan. 1839, M.H. 19/22.

119 Although A. C. Buchanan Jr. did not officially take his uncle's position until 1838, illness effectively removed the senior Buchanan from immigration affairs after 1835.

120 See Elliot's endorsements: J. Mewburn to Howick, 12 Nov. 1831, C.O. 384/28, fos. 447–8, and N. Gould to Goderich, 17 Feb. 1832, C.O. 42/239, fos. 350–4; memo by Elliot, 20 Mar. 1832, C.O. 42/239, fos. 356–7; Elliot to R. Symes, 29 Mar. 1832 (copy), C.O. 385/6, fos. 21–2.

121 Elliot to Stephen, 5 Jan. 1839, C.O. 384/52, fo. 14.

122 In Russell's initial instructions to the commissioners, the order to propose new legislation was the only reference to emigrant protection in seven folio pages of closely-printed text. See ‘Copy of instructions’, Russell to Emigration commissioners, 14 Jan. 1840, C.O. 384/62, fos. 20–1.

123 Emigration commissioners to Russell, 21 Apr. 1840 (copy), C.O. 384/61, fo. 38.

124 Emigration commissioners to Stephen, 2 July 1840, C.O. 384/61, fos. 89–90. My emphasis.

125 See MacDonagh, ‘Emigration and the state’, p. 146.

126 The agents actually drove the commissioners on to propose measures more sweeping than they had originally intended. This was especially true of Elliot, the dominant commissioner, who at the time and for many years afterwards considered the 1842 act to be the extreme limit of his willingness to interfere with the passenger trade. MacDonagh, O., ‘Delegated legislation and administrative discretions in the 1850's: a particular study‘, Victorian Studies, 11, 1 (1958), 35, 39; idem, A pattern of government growth, p. 208.Google Scholar

127 The main provisions of the 1842 act included the allotment of 10 square feet of deck space and 9 square feet of berthing space for each passenger. Seven pounds of prescribed foodstuffs were to be provided for each passenger weekly. The emigration agents were named for the first time as executors of the act and their powers carefully specified. Special summary processes were instituted to deal with offenders.

128 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 330.

129 M. D. Loundes to Stanley, 18 Mar. 1834, C.O. 384/36, fo. 356. He stated that Low's activities had ‘greatly relieved’ the parish.

130 Copy of resolutions, 21 June 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 140.

131 Stewart to Hay, 27 Jan. 1834, C.O. 384/36, fo. 37.

132 Resolution, finance committee of the corporation of Liverpool, 1 Feb. 1839 (copy), C.O. 384/52, fo. 84.

133 Cf. the complaint of the grand jury of Quebec that victimized emigrants ‘become burthensome to the country, and endanger the health and safety of its inhabitants’. Aylmer to Goderich, 12 Oct. 1831, C.O. 384/27, fos. 80–1. W. F. Adams attributes the founding of emigrant societies in Canada mainly to the desire to protect the community from disease and the destitute rather than to provide aid to new arrivals per se. Irish emigration, p. 146.

134 B. Hawke to Sir John Colborne, c. 25 Aug. 1835, Correspondence respecting emigration, 4 Mar. 1836, C.O. 384/41, fo. 404. Burroughs, The Canadian crisis, p. 63.

135 Buchanan to Stephen, 25 May 1837, C.O. 384/43, fos. 129–30; Walpole, ‘The humanitarian movement’, p. 211.

136 J. Buchanan to Lord Castlereagh, 12 Nov. 1816, F.O. 5/116. Quoted in Adams, Irish emigration, p. 264.

137 A. C. Buchanan to Stephen, 25 May 1837, C.O. 384/43, fos. 129–30; A. C. Buchanan to Horton, 11 Mar. 1827, in Buchanan, Emigration practically considered, app. III, p. 124.

138 A. C. Buchanan to Craig, 18 Aug. 1832 (copy), C.O. 384/30, fo. 392.

139 See, for example, A. C. Buchanan to Aylmer, 12 Dec. 1833, C.O. 384/35, fos. 113–4; J. Buchanan to Stanley, 14 June 1834, C.O. 384/35, fo. 178.

140 See, for example, endorsement by Hay, 10 July 1832, C.O. 384/30, fos. 158–9; memo by Elliot, 20 Mar. 1832, C.O. 42/239, fo. 356; Elliot to R. Symes, 29 Mar. 1832 (copy), C.O. 385/6, fos. 21–2; Stephen to Elliot, 31 July 1832, C.O. 384/30, fo. 193.

141 Memo, 30 Mar. 1832, C.O. 537/22, fos. 8–9; Manning, H. T., ‘The colonial policy of the whig ministers, 1830–37: I‘, Canadian Historical Review, xxxIII, 3 (1952), 223.Google Scholar

142 Memo on colonial office reorganization, 30 Mar. 1832, C.O. 537/32, fos. 11–2.

143 See Buchanan to [Hay?], 26 May 1831, C.O. 384/28, fos. 168–9.

144 See Buchanan to Horton, 23 May 1827, in Buchanan, Emigration practically considered, app. 1, pp. 107–16.

145 Most recently, Harold Perkin, relying on MacDonagh's interpretation, has referred to the development of the service as a ‘classic’ case of non-Benthamite reform. ‘Individualism versus collectivism in nineteenth-century Britain: a false antithesis‘, Journal of British Studies, xvII, 1 (1977). 107.

146 Johnston, British emigration policy, p. 144. It has been suggested that in revamping the internal structure of the colonial office in 1821, Horton may have relied on Benthamite administrative models. Young, The colonial office, pp. 54–8.

147 S. E. Finer considers Mill, McCulloch, Tooke, and (with a certain query) Senior to have been ‘first-degree Benthamites’. See ‘The transmission of Benthamite ideas, 1820–50‘, in Sutherland, (ed.), Studies in government, p. 16. McCulloch and Senior were among those who supported Horton's election to the Political Economy Club. Adams, Irish emigration, p. 284.Google Scholar

148 Buchanan to Glenelg, 18 July 1836, C.O. 384/41, fo. 67; see Buchanan to Horton, 12 Sept. 1827 (copy), C.O. 384/20, fo. 217.

149 Cowan, British emigration, p. 164.

150 Quoted in E. Chadwick, ‘Claims for the recognition of services in the preparation of legislation, and for executive administration’, app. C, MS, Jan. 1886, item 128, Chadwick papers (University College, London).

151 Stephen to Howick, 11 Jan. 1836, box 126/file 11, Grey papers.

152 Stephen's most recent biographer argues that he was, in fact, a utilitarian, one ‘evidently affected by Benthamism’. Knaplund, James Stephen, p. 15.

153 Stephen to M. Napier, 13 Aug. 1841; quoted in Levy, S. Leon, Nassau W. Senior, 1790–1864 (Newton Abbot, 1970), p. 126;Google ScholarParris, H., Constitutional bureaucracy (London, 1969), p. 250. Senior actually recommended Stephen to be one of the new commissioners under that arch-Benthamite reform, the New Poor Law; this was a position that Stephen was anxious to secure. Senior to Lord Melbourne, 30 June 1834 (copy), item 20, Chadwick papers; Howick to Lord Grey, 8 June 1834, box 24/file 2, Grey papers.Google Scholar

154 S. E. Finer has lately reminded us to what extent the various circles of intellectuals and civil servants formed a very confined and familiar society. ‘The transmission of Benthamite ideas’, p. 19.

155 MacDonagh, A pattern of government growth, p. 328.

156 Ibid. p. 346.