Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:42:39.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Ran the British Empire 1830-1850?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Helen Taft Manning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Patterns of historical writing are notoriously difficult to change. Much of what is still being written about colonial administration in the nineteenth-century British Empire rests on the partisan and even malicious writings of critics of the Government in England in the 1830s and '40s who had never seen the colonial correspondence and were unfamiliar with existing conditions in the distant colonies. The impression conveyed in most textbooks is that the Colonial Office after 1815 was a well-established bureaucracy concerned with the policies of the mother country in the overseas possessions, and that those policies changed very slowly and only under pressure. Initially Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Charles Buller were responsible for this Colonial Office legend, but it was soon accepted by most of the people who had business to transact there. Annoyed by the fact that the measures proposed by the Wakefield group did not meet with instant acceptance, Wakefield and Buller attacked the Permanent Under-Secretary, James Stephen, as the power behind the throne in 14 Downing Street and assumed that his ideas of right and wrong were being imposed willy-nilly on the unfortunate colonists and would-be colonists.

The picture of Stephen as all-powerful in shaping imperial policy was probably strengthened by the publication in 1885 of Henry Taylor's Autobiography. Taylor was one of Stephen's warmest admirers and had served with him longer than anyone else; when he stated that for a quarter of a century Stephen “more than any one man virtually governed the British Empire,” historians were naturally inclined to give credence to his words.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , November 1965 , pp. 88 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1965

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. Beaglehole, J. C., “The Colonial Office 1782-1854,” Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand, I (1940–1941), 70Google Scholar.

2. Taylor, Henry, Autobiography (London, 1885), II, 301Google Scholar. Taylor was at the head of the West Indies Division and was the ablest man in the department next to Stephen. His correspondence shows, however, that he was more interested in his own literary career than he was in matters of colonial policy, and he displays no familiarity at all with what was being done in other divisions.

3. Stephen's marginal notes written on the despatches of lieutenant governors of Upper Canada and New Brunswick are preserved in the PRO, CO 42 and 138 series. For his other memoranda and letters on the North American colonies, see Manning, H. T., “The Colonial Policy of the Whig Ministers, 1830-37,” C.H.R., XXXIII (1952), 341–68Google Scholar.

4. The amount of information available differed for different sections of the Empire. Intensive studies had been made of the administration of justice in the West Indies, but before emancipation little could be done about it. Almost nothing was known about Upper Canada, and very little about Lower Canada except that the French Canadian Assembly was not cooperating with the British businessmen. Of South Africa, where the clashes between the three races on the frontier had been the most serious problem since 1815, John Galbraith says, “The British government, before 1834, had totally misapprehended the nature of the South African frontier problem.” Galbraith, John, Reluctant Empire (Los Angeles, 1963), p. 101Google Scholar.

5. Two notable examples of popular leaders in Upper Canada who were never received at the Colonial Office were Robert Gourlay and Judge Willis. Robert Baldwin did see the Under-Secretary, E. G. Stanley, in 1829, but not William Huskisson. By contrast Archdeacon Strachan, the leader of the “family compact,” was a great favorite of Lord Bathurst.

6. Since the contrary is often stated in textbooks, reference should be made here to cases cited in Manning, H. T., British Colonial Government ajler the American Revolution (New Haven, 1933), pp. 68–73Google Scholar. In 1801 the Law Officers of the Crown called the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that an act of Parliament he had proposed would be “an interference with the internal Legislation of the Colonies, which Parliament has not of late been disposed to exercise.” [Italics are mine.]

7. 2 Hansard 9: 257-308.

8. Parliamentary Papers (1828), VIIGoogle Scholar, “Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Government of Canada.”

9. Manning, H. T., “Colonial Crises before the Cabinet, 1829-35,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXX (1957)Google Scholar.

10. Later the third Earl Grey.

11. Durham University, Entry for Mar. 27, 1833, Grey of Howick Papers, Journal of the third Earl Grey, C 3. I wish to acknowledge gratefully the grant from the American Philosophical Society which enabled me to gather materials from the Grey Papers.

12. This belief was widely held in England after the slave rising in Jamaica of 1831. The House of Commons committee which sat in 1832 asked of all witnesses the same question: “Whether the dangers of convulsion are greater from freedom withheld than from freedom granted.” The answers were overwhelmingly in the affirmative (perhaps because the witnesses were chiefly of Fowell Buxton's choosing), and they proved convincing even to such a conservative thinker as Sir James Graham, who served as the committee chairman. Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), IIGoogle Scholar, “Report from the Select Committee on the Extinction of Slavery.”

13. Durham U., Howick to Glenelg, May 2, 1838, Grey Papers, 87.

14. Durham U., Howick's letter to Wakefield refusing him an interview, Sep. 7, 1831, ibid., C 1; also Wakefield to Howick, May 3, 1837, ibid., 128, which complains that Howick has not seen him and is endorsed in Howick's hand setting time for interview. The best analysis of Wakefield's doctrine of concentration of settlements is in Pike, Douglas, Paradise of Dissent (Adelaide, 1957), pp. 52–53Google Scholar.

15. Durham U., Taylor to Howick, Aug. 15, 1832, Grey Papers, 146. Taylor had his own plan to which he hoped to convert Howick, who, as he says, was not a “convertible person.” Taylor, , Autobiography, I, 129.Google Scholar

16. Durham U., Stephen's memorandum of July 6, 1832, Grey Papers, 146.

17. This was true of Lord Brougham, to whom Howick wrote a final urgent plea in Mar. 1833. University College Library, Howick to Brougham, Mar. 21, 1833, Brougham Papers, 18371. Howick always blamed Brougham for the defeat of his bill in the cabinet. In 1838 he carried on a curious correspondence with Brougham through the medium of a third party, which was published in the Times. Brougham said he did not remember receiving the letter, but there is no question that he opposed Howick's bill.

18. Durham U., Entry for Mar. 24, 1833, Grey Papers, Journal. This entry describes Howick's final interview with Althorpe.

19. National Library of Scotland, Howick to Ellice, May 30, 1834, Ellice Papers, I, 32. The Ellice Papers are on loan to the National Library of Scotland through the generosity of Russell Ellice of Invergarry.

20. For Peel's comment on these two administrations of Canada, see Manning, , “Colonial Crises before the Cabinet,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXX (1957), 59Google Scholar. It is true that Rice wrote no important despatches, but he reversed Stanley's policy toward the French Canadians and gave the delegates Morin and Viger a reception that can only be called effusive when they arrived with the 92 Resolutions of the Assembly. They described it in letters to Montreal which were published by O'Callaghan in the Vindicator, the Irish newspaper, with the comment by the editor that Spring Rice was the greatest liar in Britain.

21. Durham U., Howick to Glenelg, Dec. 10, 1835, Grey Papers, 87.

22. Durham U., Stephen to Howick, Dec. 28, 1837, ibid., 124. In this letter Stephen speaks of having delegates from five provinces. This is almost the only instance of Prince Edward Island's being placed on an equality with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Stephen does not explain how the delegates from Lower Canada were to be chosen, but Howick assumed in a letter he wrote in January that they could be picked by district elections in the counties which had remained loyal, or chosen by the new council which was to act as a legislature temporarily. Stephen's reference to earlier proposals he had made refers to the plan which had been submitted to the cabinet by Glenelg in Jan. 1837 and which provided for a federal body, chosen by four assemblies, that would adjudicate between French and English settlements in Lower Canada and also settle matters involving all the provinces. For this see PRO 30/22, Russell Papers, III, “Resumé of Canada Bill.”

23. PRO 30/22, Russell to Melbourne, July 9, 1838, ibid. John Russell writes that Glenelg and George Grey who were with him “say they think he is doing admirably.” See also New, Chester, Life of Lord Durham (Oxford, 1939), p. 389Google Scholar.

24. Lambton Estate House, Russell to Durham, Aug. 18, 1838, Durham Papers. Indemnity Acts of this kind were frequently passed to free governors from liability when they had to act beyond their authority in an emergency. It was the weakness of Lord Melbourne's speech defending Durham from Brougham's venomous attack which caused criticism at the time and has given rise to the legend that Durham was betrayed by the Government which had sent him to Canada.

25. Kinchen, Oscar A., Lord Russell's Canadian Policy (Austin, 1945), p. 72Google Scholar.

26. PRO 30/22, Russell to Melbourne, Oct. 22 and 25, 1838, Russell Papers. Russell was in Brighton with his first wife who was dying. He drew up memoranda to be presented to the cabinet and threatened to resign unless some action were taken at once to enlarge the powers of Durham or his successor.

27. Kinchen, , Lord Russell's Canadian Policy, pp. 124–40Google Scholar. Kinchen sums up all the arguments which have arisen over this despatch and describes the circumstance under which it was sent.

28. Knaplund, Paul (ed.), Letters from Lord Sydenham to Lord John Russell (London, 1931), pp. 35–38Google Scholar, and passim.

29. PRO 30/22, Minute of cabinet meeting authorizing loan, 1839, Russell Papers, III. Poulett Thomson attended the meeting and was given complete discretionary powers to arrange for a final settlement of the terms with the province of Upper Canada or with the United Province. The minute states that the loan was made for the purpose of diminishing the debt of the Upper Province and of continuing public works.

30. The most famous case was that of Sir John Caldwell, the Receiver-General of Lower Canada, who speculated with the money paid into his hands by the Collector of Customs at Quebec and had to admit in 1823 that he was £90,000 short in his accounts. Lord Sydenham reported in 1839 that a recent investigation had shown most of the public officials to be defaulters. Knaplund, , Sydenham Letters, pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

31. 3 Hansard 52: 1332-34.

32. PRO, CO 217/175, Thomson to Colin Campbell, July 29, 1840. Enclosure in Campbell to Russell of the same date.

33. PRO, CO 217/177, Falkland to Russell, Mar. 6, 1841, with endorsements; Russell to Falkland (draft), Apr. 5, 1841. The draft which is in Russell's hand was prepared while he was spending a week end in the country.

34. 3 Hansard 38: 1766-67.

35. Lambton Estate House, Russell to Durham, Mar. 25, 1840, Durham Papers. Russell's phraseology is of interest. “You will find that all the general principles of your Report which can be embodied in a Bill are adopted. Other suggestions respecting the Legislative and Executive Councils are matters for practical consideration from week to week in reforming the lines of our colonial administration.” Quoted in New, Durham, pp. 561-62.

36. Durham U., Grey Papers, 143/4, contain several copies of this printed memorandum, which was marked private and distributed to members of the Government in 1849. It is a brief preview of his book published in 1853, but the passages quoted here were not repeated in the book. It shows clearly that the grant of “responsible government” to Canada really preceded the despatches to Sir John Harvey in Nova Scotia, which have always been regarded as the first formal step. Elgin had no reason to change his executive council during his first year in Canada, since the Draper ministry still commanded a majority in the United Assembly, and action in Nova Scotia was probably delayed until Grey knew that Elgin was ready to make the new policy generally known in Canada.

37. Netherby, Cumberland, Letters from Graham asking for advice in framing government bill, Dec. 1832 and Jan. 1833, Graham Papers; Graham to Lushington, Jan. 1833, ibid. In this letter Graham inquires whether Fowell Buxton and the antislavery men have a bill ready. How much Graham influenced Stanley is not clear because there is a gap in this collection of his letters between Feb. and July 1833. Microfilms of Graham Papers are in the Bodleian Library and the Cambridge University Library.

38. Bodleian Library, Taylor to his father, June 15, 1833, Taylor Papers; Durham U., Entry for June 3, 1833, Grey Papers, Journal.

39. Knaplund, Paul, James Stephen and the British Colonial System (Madison, 1953), pp. 107–12Google Scholar. Knaplund, following Taylor, speaks of the Act as Stephen's Act, but Stephen disapproved of apprenticeship, no matter how safeguarded, and presumably was against compensation.

40. Statutes of the Realm, 6 & 7 William IV, c. 17.

41. Mirror of Parliament, Mar. 11, 1836, pp. 579–83Google Scholar, and Apr. 29, 1836, pp. 1264-65. The ministers in presenting the bill said it was founded on reports of commissioners who had gone to the West Indies in 1822 and whose reports were published 1825-28. These commissioners found that there were no lawyers on the smaller islands except for an attorney general, and that planters serving without compensation dispensed justice in a most unsatisfactory manner. Ministers also stated that the West Indian Committee in London favored the bill on the ground that a trained judiciary would afford protection to property. For the reports see especially Parliamentary Papers (1825), XVGoogle Scholar, and (1826), XXIV.

42. Mattieson, W. L., British Slavery and Its Abolition, 1823-38 (London, 1926)Google Scholar; Burn, W. L., Emancipation and Apprenticeship in the British West Indies (London, 1937)Google Scholar; Mellor, George R., British Imperial Trusteeship, 1783-1850 (London, 1951)Google Scholar; Curtin, Philip D., The Two Jamaicas (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)Google Scholar.

43. Taylor, , Autobiography, I, 260–61Google Scholar; see also Higham, C. S. S., “Sir Henry Taylor and the Establishment of Crown Colony Government,” Scottish Historical Review, XXIII (1925–1926), 92–96Google Scholar.

44. For deterioration of economy see Curtin, The Two Jamaicas, ch. vi.

45. For an excellent treatment of the origins of the South Australia venture, see Pike, Paradise of Dissent, Pt. 1.

46. For an expose of Wakefield's method of financing the settlement of New Zealand, see Turnbull, Michael, The New Zealand Bubble (Wellington, 1959)Google Scholar. For a sweeping condemnation of the methods of the New Zealand Company in their dealings with the Maoris, see Miller, John, Early Victorian New Zealand (Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar.

47. Durham U., resumé of the Buller memorandum, Feb. 1838, Grey Papers, 145/1. This memorandum is missing in the Colonial Office correspondence according to a note in the index.

48. There is an informative and eulogistic article on Bourke in D.N.B. See also McCulloch, Samuel, “The Attempt to Establish a National System of Education in New South Wales, 1830-50,” Pacific Historical Review, XXVIII (1959), 19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. PRO, CO 201/233, Bourke to Goderich, Feb. 6 and 28, 1832.

50. Durham U., Howick to Stephen, Jan. 11, 1836, Grey Papers, 124. Durham U., Entry for Jan. 13, 1836, Grey Papers, Journal. This entry refers to the conversation in the Park: “Walked out this morning with Maria and having met Stephen walking in the Park I had a long conversation with him about the new bill for the Government of Australia.”

51. Sir George Gipps succeeded Bourke in 1837, and his administration, which was stormier than Bourke's, has been made the subject of several extensive studies.

52. The best treatment of the amazing degree of influence attained by the Wakefield group in Parliament is in Morrell, W. P., Colonial Policy of Peel and Russell (Oxford, 1930), especially pp. 6–14Google Scholar.

53. For the fluctuations in policy under the third Earl Grey, due largely to the difficulties of gauging public opinion in different parts of Australia, see Ward, John M., The Third Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846-1857 (Melbourne, 1958)Google Scholar.

54. There is a very revealing correspondence between Buller and Grey which begins as soon as Grey took office (Aug. 1846) and continues through the spring of 1847. In Feb. 1847 Grey wrote, “It is mortifying to me to the last degree that I can do nothing to promote systematic colonization. There is not a farthing to be had.” Most of the letters and memoranda concern New Zealand, although in this letter Grey suggests a plan for having Scottish proprietors buy Australian land for their tenants. Buller was not satisfied with what the Whigs did for the New Zealand Company, although it would appear that, considering the sad state of its finances, they were really very generous. Durham U., Buller to Grey, Mar. 4, 1847, Grey Papers, 79.

55. It was probably Grey's frank desire to appoint Buller to the Colonial Office which led Stephen at the time he retired to write a series of bitter complaints over the lack of appreciation of his services. Durham U., ibid., 124/12.

56. For the best discussion of Lord Grey's difficulties in Parliament, see Ward, John M., “The Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's Administration,” Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand, IX (1960)Google Scholar. Ward discusses Grey's reasons for writing the book and also its reception.

57. Reviews appeared in 1849 and 1850 in Blackwood's, Edinburgh Review, Quarterly Review, and Westminster Review, and the tone of all is unfavorable to the Colonial Office, although Blackwood's did call Wakefield's comments on Grey “malicious.” Quotes are from Quarterly Review, X (1849), 463–502.Google Scholar

58. Knaplund, James Stephen, gives an excellent survey of Stephen's views on all the subjects treated in this article and many more. Stephen's views were not always consistent, and in some crises (as in the case of the Canadian rebellion) he displayed an inability to grasp the essential factors in the colonial situation.

59. For the delays created by the lack of coordination between departments in military matters, see Galbraith, , Reluctant Empire, pp. 25–26Google Scholar.

60. Williams, E. Trevor, “The Colonial Office in the Thirties,” Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand, II (1943)Google Scholar. The building was condemned a number of times by the Board of Works, but by keeping the records in the basement which leaked, it was possible to continue work there until it was torn down in 1876.

61. PRO 30/22, Ellice to Russell, Aug. 27, 1839, Russell Papers, III. Ellice had been one of the Secretaries of the Treasury but was not necessarily right in saying the Treasury would cooperate. There was always jealousy between departments when it came to enlargement. Stephen may properly be blamed, however, because he did not make a stand for more assistance in legal matters.

62. Public Archives of Canada, Stanley to Bagot, Sep. 1, 1842, with enclosures, Bagot Papers. Stanley received Bagot's letter in the country. Before answering, he sent it to Peel, also in the country. Later he answered at length in his own hand and enclosed copies of correspondence with Peel. All these letters are in Bagot Papers but not, apparently, in PRO. Stanley took private letters away with him and later returned most of them to the Colonial Office, but he seems to have omitted the first collection of letters to Bagot. The rest may be found in PRO, CO 537/140. The need for consulting Peel explains the delay in answering Bagot, who had to make his decision before Stanley's letter arrived.

63. Galbraith, Reluctant Empire, passim.

64. Head, F. B., A Narrative (London, 1839), chs. i and iiiGoogle Scholar.

65. 3 Hansard 108: 550.