Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:18.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empire Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820–1870

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ged Martin
Ged Martin
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 65 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

2 Labilliere, F. P. de, in Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, XXIV (1892–3), 99–100;Google ScholarLabilliere, de, Federal Britain; or, the Unity and federation of the empire (London, 1894), pp. 6–14;Google ScholarBurt, 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;Google ScholarBodelsen, C. A., Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism (Copenhagen and London, 1924), pp. 132–4.Google Scholar

3 Burt, A. L., Imperial Architects, pp. 14–15;Google ScholarAustin, Dennis, ‘Britain, Europe and Some Malta’, Round Table, no. 240 (Nov. 1970), pp. 397–404;Google ScholarThe 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).Google Scholar For another early discussion, see Oldmixon, J., The British Empire in America (2 vols., London, 1708), I, xxxiv–xxxv.Google Scholar

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 1040–1Google Scholar (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.Google Scholar 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, 1910–1820), III, 237, 333–5;Google Scholar 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, 333–5Google Scholar (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;Google ScholarHansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 110–24Google Scholar (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;Google Scholar[Haliburton, T. C.], The AttachÉ; or Sam Slick in England (2 vols., London, 1843), II, 86–8, 99–101, 175;Google Scholar[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;Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

8 Marryat, Captain, A Diary in America with remarks on its institutions, part second (3 vols., London, 1839), III, 184–5;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarGourlay, 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;Google ScholarTremenheere, H. S., Notes on Public subjects made during a tour of the United States and Canada (London, 1852), pp. 288–92;Google ScholarHansard, 3rd ser., CVII (18 Feb. 1850), col. 1019 (for Wyld);Google ScholarHansard, 3rd ser., VI (16 08. 1831), cols. 130–1Google Scholar (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,Google Scholar 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,Google Scholar signed ‘F. H. D.’ For Dickinson, see Venn, J., Alumni Cantabrigenses, pt. II, vol. II, 295.Google Scholar

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;Google Scholar 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),Google Scholar 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.Google ScholarSpectator, 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;Google Scholar[Wakefield, E. G.], A View of the Art of Colonization (London, 1849), pp. 309–12;Google ScholarMansard, 3rd ser., C (26 07 1848), col. 877Google Scholar (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.Google Scholar

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;Google Scholar 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. 127–8Google Scholar (for Althorp); ibid. cols. 124–6 (for Labouchere); Lewis, G. C., An Essay on the Government of Dependencies (London, 1842), pp. 296–9;Google ScholarMerivale, H., Lectures on Colonies and Colonization (2 vols., London, 1842), II, 290;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarHansard, 3rd ser., CXXVI (28 April. 1853), cols. 694–5 (for Cobden);Google ScholarMill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government, ed. McCallum, R. B. (Oxford, 1946), p. 310;Google ScholarLyttelton, Lord, The Colonial Empire of Great Britain in its religious aspect (London and Stourbridge [1850]), p. 35;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarSanderson, Charles R., ed., The Arthur Papers (3 vols., Toronto, 1957–1959), I, no. 187, 182–3,Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarTyler, , Struggle for Imperial Unity, pp. 107–8;Google ScholarMartin, A. P., Australia and the Empire (Edinburgh, 1889), pp. 6–7, 13–14Google Scholar (for Lowe); Fitzgerald, J. E., A Selection from the Writings and Speeches of John Robert Godley (Christchurch, New Zealand, 1863), p. 140;Google ScholarSpectator, no. 1357 (1 July 1854), p. 702.

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

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

15 The main overseas branch of the Imperial Federation League was at Halifax (Tyler, , op. cit. p. 113).Google Scholar For the strength of Empire federalism in the West Indies, Colonial Magazine (08.-10. 1842), I, 305–10.Google Scholar 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;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMartin, A. P., Australia and the Empire, pp. 13–14;Google ScholarColonial Magazine, VII (03. 1846), 268–70,Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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

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

19 Sun, 19 Dec. 1837.

20 Hints on the case of Canada, for the consideration of Members of Parliament (London, 1838), pp. 9–10;Google Scholar [M.N.O.], The Canadian Crisis and Lord Durham's Mission to the North American Colonies (London, 1838), pp. 42–4;Google ScholarAnnual 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,Google Scholar reprinted as Young, G. A., The Canadian Question (London, 1839), 73–4;Google ScholarMarryat, , Diary in America, III, 184–5;Google ScholarThe Colonies of Great Britain must be incorporated to form one universal and indivisible empire (London, 1839);Google ScholarColonial Gazette, no. 29 (15 June 1839), p. 457; Canadian, , British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–48.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMerivale, , Lectures on Colonies, II, 290.Google Scholar

23 Howe's letters to Russell are in Chisholm, J. A., op. cit. I, 609–31.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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);Google ScholarSpectator, 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;Google ScholarAdderley, , Review of Grey's ‘Colonial Policy’, pp. 11–12, 421.Google Scholar

28 e.g. by Robert Lowe, who spoke of ‘one mighty confederacy’ in 1844, Martin, A. P., Australia and the Empire, pp. 6–7,Google Scholar and by Simmonds, P. L. in the Colonial Magazine, x (01. 1847), v.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarWakefield, , op. cit. p. 312.Google Scholar

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

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.)Google Scholar

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

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

34 Wakefield, , op. cit. pp. 309–12.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

39 Colonial Magazine, III (09. 1840), 46.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar The proposal in this case was for representation after twenty years. For representation at a fixed population, London Quarterly Review, I (12. 1853), 551.Google Scholar

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

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

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

43 Ibid. 11, 272.

44 Carfax, , Essay, p. 10.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

49 Canadian, British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–8,Google Scholar 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.)Google Scholar

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

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

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

54 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

55 Sunday Times, 27 May 1849.

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

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.Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

64 Ibid. cols. 131–8.

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

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

67 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of the Nations (London, 1776),CrossRefGoogle Scholar 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.Google Scholar Durham himself had briefly considered colonial representation, Ed. Sanderson, , The Arthur Papers, I, no. 316, 274,Google Scholar Durham to Robinson, Castle of St Lewis, 16 Sept. 1838.

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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;Google Scholar Godley to Adderley, 25 Aug. 1854, in Extracts from the Letters of John Robert Godley, pp. 214–16.Google Scholar

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, 320–7Google Scholar. 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.Google Scholar

80 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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’.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

94 e.g. Young, G. A., op. cit. pp. 73–4;Google ScholarLucas, C. P., ed., Lord Durham's Report on the affairs of British North America, II, 317n,Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarHaliburton, T. C., The Attaché, II, 86–7;Google ScholarColonial Magazine, XVI (03. 1849), 157–9;Google ScholarShall we keep the Canadas?, pp. 23–4;Google Scholar University of Durham, Grey Papers, Russell to Grey, Pembroke Lodge, 19 Aug. 1849, Wilson, and Richards, , op. cit. p. 474.Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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

105 Haliburton, T. C., Sam Slice's Wise Saws, pp. 221–2.Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarAsiatic and Colonial Journal, I (1847–1848), 5–7, 221–5;Google ScholarMeekins, T. C., op. cit. p. 12;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarLondon Quarterly Review, I (12. 1853), 551;Google ScholarMoore, R. J., Liberalism and Indian Politics 1872–1922 (London, 1966), p. 73.)Google Scholar 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), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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

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;Google ScholarLewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 286–9.Google Scholar Other assumptions that colonial members would be open to bribery can be found in Hansard, 3rd ser., CXXVI (28 04. 1853), cols. 694–5,Google Scholar by Cobden, , and Colonial Gazette, no. 345 (12 July 1845), p. 430.Google Scholar

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

113 Standard, 17 Aug. 1831.

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

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

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

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

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

119 e.g. Colonial Gazette, no. 44 (25 Sept. 1839), pp. 689–90;Google ScholarLewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 296–9;Google ScholarMerivale, H., Lectures on Colonies, II, 290–1;Google ScholarColonial Church Chronicle, VI (02. 1853), 287;Google ScholarHincks, Francis, Reply to the Speech of the Hon. Joseph Howe, pp. 8–9;Google ScholarGlobe, 7 Nov. 1849.

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

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

122 Sanderson, Charles R., ed., The Arthur Papers, I, no. 187, 132–87,Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarLewis, G. C., op. cit. pp. 296–9.Google Scholar

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

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

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

127 Hincks, Francis, op. cit. p. 8–9Google Scholar

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

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarColonial and Asiatic Review, I, 93–107;Google ScholarChisholm, , op. cit. I, 628;Google ScholarCanadian, , British American, and West Indian Magazine, I (11. 1839), 434–48;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarColonial Gazette, no. 204 (19 10. 1842), p. 659.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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

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).Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarColonial 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;Google ScholarWeekly 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)Google Scholar. The book was dedicated to Joseph Chamberlain, a striking example of continuity in Imperial thought.

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

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;Google ScholarManchester Courier, 30 May 1849, p. 342;Google ScholarColonial and Asiatic Review, I (08. 1852), 105–7.Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar But Wakefield had earlier considered direct representation. See A Letter from Sydney, the principal town of Australasia, ed. Gonger, R. (London, 1829), p. 198.Google Scholar

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

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

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

164 Carfax, , op. cit. pp. 20–4.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

166 Tyler, , op. cit. p. 101;Google ScholarMathews, Jehu, A Colonist on the Colonial Question (London, 1872), pp. 95–100;Google ScholarGrey, Earl, ‘How Shall We Retain the Colonies?’, Nineteenth Century, V (1879), 952;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarFreeman, Edward, ‘The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity’, in Wright, A. S., ed., Britannic Confederation (London, 1892), p. 44;Google ScholarImperial Federation, VIII (1893), 172–3,Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMonypenny, and Buckle, , op. cit. III, 333–5, IV, 329, V, 194–5;Google ScholarTyler, , op. cit. p. 184;Google ScholarBoyd, C. W., ed., Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches, I, 367–8.Google Scholar

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

169 Cf. Cheng, S. C.-Y., Schemes for the Federation of the British Empire (New York, 1931), pp. 183–251,Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarImperial Federation, I (1886), 94;Google ScholarLabilliere, F. P. de, Federal Britain, pp. 6–14;Google ScholarCrofton, F. B., ‘Thomas Chandler Haliburton’, Atlantic Monthly, LXIX (1892), 355–63;Google ScholarImperial Federation, I (1886), 142, 274–5;Google Scholaribid, IV (1889), 28–9; ibid, VII (1892), 227.

171 Adderley, C. B., Review of Grey's ‘Colonial Policy’, pp. 11–12;Google ScholarNorton, Lord [Adderley, C. B.], Imperial Fellowship of Self-Governed British Colonies; Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, Grey to Elgin (copy), III (6 02. 1852), 952;Google ScholarGrey, Earl, ‘How Shall We Retain the Colonies?’, in Nineteenth Century, V (1879), 953–4;Google ScholarSaunders, E. M., op. cit. II, 170,Google Scholar 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,Google Scholar quoting lecture at St John, New Brunswick, in 1860; Westgarth, W., ‘The Administration of the Colonies’, Colonial Magazine, XVI (01. 1848), 94–101;Google ScholarWestgarth, W., ‘Our Colonial Relations’, Colonial Magazine, XVI (01. 1849), 1–12;Google ScholarWestgarth, W., ‘The Federation of the Empire’, Imperial Federation, I (1886), 272–3;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarImperial Federation, IV (1889), 77,Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar 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)Google Scholar; 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,Google Scholar summarizing Gladstone to Lyttelton, 22 Oct. 1854; Tyler, , op. cit. pp. 203–8.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMerivale, Herman, ‘The Colonial Question’, Fortnightly Review, N.S., VII (1870), 164–5.Google Scholar

173 Galbraith, J. S., ‘Myths of the Little England Era’, American Historical Review, LXVII (1961), 34–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGallagher, J. and Robinson, R. E., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., VI (1953), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar These criticisms were partly foreshadowed by Creighton, D. G. in his article, ‘The Victorians and the mpire’, Canadian Historical Review, XIX (1938), 138–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar