Beasley E. Empire as the Triumph of Theory: Imperialism, Information and the Colonial Society of 1868 (British and Foreign and Colonial Policy)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Columbia, Vancouver’s Island’, Fraser’s Magazine, 57 (March 1858), pp. 493–504—
this article was largely about the Gold Rush on the Fraser River, and territorial
disputes with the United States.
61 Robert A.Stafford, Scientist of Empire: Sir Roderick Murchison, Scientific
Exploration, and Victorian Imperialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989), pp. 76–7.
62 DNB.
63 London: Henry Coulburn, 1827.
64 George Thomas Keppel [6th Earl of Albemarle], Personal Narrative, pp. 3–4.
65 There was still much affection for the Mughal form of Persian among the older
British officials—C.A.Bayley, Empire and Information; Intelligence Gathering and
Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), pp. 285–7. On when it was abolished see T.O. Lloyd, The British
Empire, 1558–1983 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 151.
66 George Thomas Keppel [6th Earl of Albemarle], Personal Narrative, p. 4.
67 George Thomas Keppel [6th Earl of Albemarle], Speech of the Earl of Albemarle
on Torture in the Madras Presidency, delivered in the House of Lords, 14th April
1856 (London: James Ridgway, 1856), p. 21,
68 Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Keppel, A Sailor’s Life under Four Sovereigns, 3
vols (London: Macmillan, 1899), vol. I, p. 254.
69 SarDesai, British Trade and Expansion in Southeast Asia, p. 64, n. 91; DNB; Henry
Keppel, The Expedition to Borneo of H.M.S. Dido for the Suppression of Piracy:
With extracts from the joumal of James Brooke, Esq., of Sarawak, 2 vols (London:
Chapman and Hall, 1846); idem., A Sailor’s Life.
70 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 493–6.
71 On this balance, see George Armstrong Kelly, The Humane Comedy: Constant,
Tocqueville, and French Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), pp. 232–5.
72 Bury, Exodus, vol. I, pp. 32–53.
73 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 1–12.
74 Bury, Exodus, vol. I, p. 32.
75 Ibid., p. 26.
76 Ibid., p. 5. See also vol. I, pp. 11–15, and Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp.
39–52.
77 Jardin, Tocqueville, pp. 107–10.
78 Bury, Exodus, vol. I, pp. v–vi.
79 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 31–57, 417; Bury, Exodus, vol. I, pp. vi,
3–5.
80 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p. 12; Mill, ‘Democracy in America’, pp. 2–3.
81 Bury, Exodus, vol. I, pp. 7–9.
82 Ibid., p. 8; citing Voltaire, ‘Essai sur les Moeurs’, p. xxxi.
83 Clippings, Albemarle Scrapbook, fos 1–11, RCSA.
84 Athenaeum, 961 (27 May 1865), pp. 713–14.
85 Morning Post, Albemarle Scrapbook, fos 9–11,
86 Bury, Exodus, vol. I, p. 7. Recall Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s assertion less
Notes 174
than four decades later that the new century would belong to Canada.
87 Ibid., pp. 7–8. The book’s reviewers tended to agree that the project was an urgent
one. See The Times, 14 June 1865, p. 6, cols 1–4,
88 Bury, Exodus, vol. II, p. 333.
89 Ibid., p. 403.
90 The idea of North America being reformed into a larger number of states, of
whatever kind, and thus looking more like Europe, seems to have blossomed during
the US Civil War
,
and even Adderley played with it then, See Ged Martin, Britain
and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837–67 (Vancouver: UBC Press,
1995), p. 183.
91 William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], Manual of Rifling and
Rifle Sights (London: National Rifle Association, 1864),
92 Bury, Exodus, vol. II, pp. 487–92.
93 Ibid., vol. I, pp. vi–vii.
94 Reese, History of the Royal Commonwealth Society, p. 18; Avaline Folsom, The
Royal Empire Society, formerly the Royal Colonial Institute: Formative Years
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1933), p. 38.
95 Quoted in Reese, History of The Royal Commonwealth Society, pp. 65–9.
96 Bury, Exodus. For Colonial America, vol. II, pp. 302–3, 309, 312–14; for Canada,
vol. I, p. 349.
97 Albemarle Scrapbook, fo 12, RCSA.
98 The lecture was held on the evening of 15 February 1866, under the auspices of the
London and Southwestern [Railway] Literary and Scientific Institution, Brunswick
House, Wandsworth Road, and admission was charged, Bury was a director of the
railway, Albemarle Scrapbook, fo 31, RCSL.
99 Albemarle Scrapbook, fo 23, RCSA.
100 Albemarle Scrapbook, fo 12, RCSA.
101 Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil [3rd Marquess of Salisbury], ‘Sir Henry
Holland’s Essays’, Saturday Review, 13 (3 May 1862), pp. 503–4.
102 Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams [1918], in Henry Adams: Novels,
Mont Saint Michael, The Education, Library of America (New York: Literary
Classics of America, 1983), p. 896, It is not clear that Adams had read Tocqueville;
for example, he was unaware of Tocqueville’s prediction of the 1848 upheaval in
France (p. 750). Paul Crook has shown that the Social Darwinism that Adams
embodied had no real existence in England until sometime after the turn of the
century, if then; it existed chiefly in the minds of its anti-imperialist critics, while
most of the actual imperialists who might be thought to have grounded their thinking
in Darwinism seldom referred to Darwin or Darwinian thinking—Paul Crook,
‘Historical Monkey Business: The Myth of a Darwinized British Imperial
Discourse’, History, 84, 276 (October 1999), pp. 633–57.
Notes 175
7
Adderley discovers the pattern of the world
1 Under the name ‘systematic colonization’, Wakefield also provided a coherent view
of emigration and how it might be accomplished, unlike a number of earlier authors
dealing with the subject. They are quoted in Klaus E.Knorr, British Colonial
Theories, 1570–1850 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1944), pp. 269–94.
2 The plan is elaborated in Edward Gibbon Wakefield, England and America: A
Comparison of the Social and Political State of Both Nations [1833] (New York:
Harper & Bros, 1834; reprint, New York: Augustus M.Kelley, 1967), pp. 261–331.
3 Edward Gibbon Wakefield, A Letter from Sydney (1829; London: J.M.Dent & Sons,
1929), pp. 192–7.
4 Wakefield, England and America, pp. 260–74, 320–9.
5 On the condition of the lower-middle class, see Wakefield, England and America,
pp. 71–4.
6 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 50–5. Tocqueville did go on to look at town
government, but only as a microcosm for state and national government—pp. 50–6,
61–80.
7 Edward Gibbon Wakefield, A View of the Art of Colonization (London: John
W.Parker, 1849), pp. 224–321. Both Wakefield’s romanticism and his romantic
adventures are detailed in Paul Bloomfield, Edward Gibbon Wakefield: Builder of
the British Commonwealth (London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1961).
8 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 200, 397.
9 See Richard Maltby and Peter Quartermaine (eds), The Commonwealth: A Common
Culture? (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1989).
10 W.J.Gardner, ‘A Colonial Economy’, in W.H.Oliver and B.R.Williams (eds), The
Oxford History of New Zealand (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 57–86 at pp.
59–61.
11 Raewyn Dalziel, ‘The Politics of Settlement’, in W.H.Oliver and B.R.Williams
(eds), The Oxford History of New Zealand (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 87–
111 at p. 92.
12 Clark, A History of Australia, vol. III, pp. 42–50; Mel Davies, ‘Establishing South
Australia’, in Pamela Statham (ed.), The Origin of Australia’s Capital Cities
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Pike, Paradise of Dissent. For the
complicated business history of the more famous New Zealand Company, see
Patricia Burns, Fatal Success: A History of the New Zealand Company (Auckland,
NZ: Heinemann Reed, 1989).
13 See Richard Mackie, ‘The Colonization of Vancouver Island, 1849–1858’, BC
Studies, 96 (winter 1992–93), pp. 3–40.
14 For an extended analysis of Wakefield’s arguments and his influence, see the final
third of Winch, Classical Political Economy and the Colonies, pp. 90–155. See also
A.G.L.Shaw, ‘British Attitudes to the Colonies, ca. 1820–1850’, Journal of British
Notes 176
Studies, 9 (November 1969), pp. 71–95; and Burroughs, Britain and Australia, pp. v.,
8–9, 382. For Wakefield’s place at the end of an earlier tradition of thinking, see
Bernard Semmel, ‘The Philosophical Radicals and Colonialism’, Journal of
Economic History, 21, 4 (December 1961), pp. 513–25; and Erik Olssen, ‘Mr
Wakefield and New Zealand as an Experiment in Post-Enlightenment Experimental
Practice’, New Zealand Journal of History, 31, 2 (October 1997), pp. 198–218. For
his place at the beginning of a later tradition, see H.O.Pappé, ‘Wakefield and Marx’,
Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 4, 1 (1951), pp. 88–97. While the surplus capital
that Europe needed to export was, for Wakefield, people, for Marx it was money and
manufactures. For emigration agents, see Paul Hudson, ‘English Emigration to New
Zealand, 1839–1850: Information Diffusion and Marketing a New World’,
Economic History Review, 54, 4 (November 2001), pp. 680–98.
15 For his time and influence in Canada, see J.M.S.Careless, The Union of the
Canadas: The Growth of Canadian Institutions 1841–1857 (Toronto: McClelland &
Stewart, 1967), pp. 72–3, 83–5; for New Zealand see Peter Stuart, Edward Gibbon
Wakefield in New Zealand: His Political Career, 1853–4 (Wellington, NZ: Price
Milburn for Victoria University of Wellington, 1971); and Edward Jerningham
Wakefield, The Founders of Canterbury: Volume I, being letters from the late
Edward Gibbon Wakefield to the late John Robert Godley, and to other well-known
helpers in the foundation of the settlement of Canterbury in New Zealand
(Christchurch, NZ: Stevens & Co, 1868), p. xiii.
16 Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, 2nd Bart., Greater Britain: A Record of Travel in
English-speaking Countries (London: Macmillan 1869), p. 116.
17 Sir Frederick Young, ‘Memoirs’, p. 42, Young Papers, RCSL. See also Dorothy
Thompson, The Chartists (London: Temple Smith, 1984), pp. 321–7. Miles Taylor
has argued that the reason why the 1848 disturbances in the British world were
relatively mild was the empire itself, with its stock of land and its revenues—
alongside a less militaristic response to those crises that did break out (from Ceylon
to Canada) than was in evidence on the European continent—see Taylor, ‘The 1848
Revolutions in the British Empire’, Past & Present, 166 (February 2000), pp. 146–
80.
18 C.B.Adderley, Europe Incapable of American Democracy: An Outline Tracing the
Irreversible Course of Constitutional History (London: Edward Stanford, 1867), p.
3.
19 R.B.Pugh (ed.), A History of the County of Warwick, vol. 7 (London: Oxford
University Press, 1964), pp. 19, 40, 341.
20 Asa Briggs, Victorian Cities (London: Odhams Books, 1963), p. 217; Hazel
Conway, People’s Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in
Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 66,246.
21 C.B.Adderley, Essay on Human Happiness: The Second Part (London: Bickers and
Bush, 1860), p. 97.
22 C.E.Carrington, John Robert Godley of Canterbury (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1950), pp. 10–11. Adderley does not seem to have visited North America, and
the party of young travellers with whom John M.Ward says Adderley went to
America would seem to have included Lord Stanley of Alderley instead. Cf. the
Notes 177
relevant DNB entries and John M.Ward, Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846–
1857: A Study of Self-government and Self-interest (Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press, 1958), p. 178, n. 52.
23 Carrington, John Robert Godley of New Zealand, pp. 12–13.
24 John Robert Godley, Letters from America (London: John Murray, 1844), vol. I, pp.
iii, viii, xiv, and vol. II, pp. 182–7; Godley to Adderley, 27 November 1843, given
in C.B.Adderley (ed.), Extracts from Letters of John Robert Godley to C.B.Adderley
(London: Savill & Edwards, 1863), p. 80. See Godley to Adderley, 9 October 1842,
given in Adderley (ed.), Extracts from Letters of Godley, p. 27. Godley first
mentions ‘the arbitrary power of a democracy’ in a letter that he sent to Adderley
from Dublin on 23 November 1840 (p. 7). See also a very Tocquevillean letter on
the links between equality and democracy, Godley in Dublin to Adderley, 21
January 1843, pp. 33–9. See also Adderley to Peel, 8 March 1844, Peel Papers, vol.
CCCLXI, BL Add. MS. 40541, fo 99; Adderley to Gladstone, 21 March 1844, GP
vol. CCLXXXVI, BL Add. MS. 44361, fo 82.
25 Adderley to Peel, 8 March 1844, Peel Papers, vol. CCCLXI, BL Add. MS. 40541,
fo 99; Adderley to Gladstone, 21 March 1844, GP vol. CCLXXXVI, BL Add. MS.
44361, fo 82.
26 Monsell to Peel, 1 December 1839, Peel Papers, Vol. CCCCXXII, BL Add. MS
40602, fo 287.
27 J.B.Conacher, The Aberdeen Coalition: 1852–1855: A Study in Mid-nineteenth-
Century Party Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 31,
108–10.
28 For his presence at colonial reform meetings see Carrington,
J
ohn Robert Godley o
f
New Zealand, p. 169. Monsell joined the Colonial Society on 8 February 1869.
29 When the Society was founded, Monsell was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for the Colonies. In one publication he had argued that Pius IX should retain
temporal power in the face of Napoleon III. Rt. Hon. William Monsell, MP, A
Lecture on the Roman Question, delivered at Limerick December 1st, 1859
(London: Burns & Lambert, 1860).
30 Carrington, John Robert Godley of New Zealand, p. 32.
31 John Robert Godley, Observations on an Irish Poor Law: Addresses to the
Committee of Landed Proprietors Assembled in Dublin, January, 1847 (Dublin:
Grant & Bolton, 1847).
32 Carrington, John Robert Godley of New Zealand, pp. 12–13, 32–9.
33 Ibid., p. 39.
34 Ibid., p. 44.
35 Carrington, John Robert Godley of Canterbury, p. 82.
36 For Wakefield’s closeness to these later colonies, and for more than a bit of
Colonial Reform venom against the Greys, see the pious Introduction by
Wakefield’s son to a collection of his father’s letters: Wakefield (ed.), The Founders
of Canterbury, pp. iii–viii. For Adderley’s role in the Colonial Reform Society, see
William S.Childe-Pemberton, Life of Lord Norton (Right Hon. Sir Charles Adderley,
KCMG, MP) 1814–1905, Statesman and Philanthropist (London: John Murray,
1909), pp. 69, 81.
Notes 178
37 Adderley was a member of the Canterbury Association itself, as well—Carrington,
John Robert Godley of Canterbury, pp. 68–9.
38 Norman Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel: A Study in the Technique of
Parliamentary Representation, 1830–1850 [1953] (New York: W.W.Norton & Co,
1971), pp. 181–2 and 253–6; idem., Sir Robert Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel
after 1830 (London: Longman, 1972), p. 170; Adderley to Peel, 12 December 1842,
Peel Papers, vol. CCCXC, BL Add. MS. 40520, fos 214–15.
39 In the debates on emancipation in 1833, the young Gladstone might have been
counted as another such member, He was a spokesman for his father’s slave
interests in the Caribbean. He based his pro-slavery arguments on the need to
accommodate the independence of colonial legislatures, since they might one day
control important British markets: ‘it [may] be by the colonies, and by the colonies
alone, that the country may yet flourish,’ Of course he would change his mind about
slavery, See Peter Stansky, Gladstone: A Progress in Politics (New York: Little,
Brown & Co, 1979), pp. 27–33; and Paul Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain’s
Imperial Policy [1927] (New York: Archon Books, 1966), pp. 23–7, 39–47.
Gladstone later maintained an intellectual interest in empire, but not a primary
interest, even when he was Colonial Secretary, Therefore he cannot be put into
Adderley’s camp of colonial reformer MPs. Someone who was in that camp, but
who died young, was the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Buller, MP. Adderley’s chief allies in
the House were therefore the Rt. Hon. Sir William Molesworth, Bart., who would
die in 1855, and the Rt. Hon. John Arthur Roebuck, both authors.
40 A decade later, Lord Grey would himself write at length about Wakefield’s works
and the Tocquevillean issues that pervaded them. Childe-Pemberton, Norton, pp. 68,
73–6; Cell, British Colonial Administration, pp. 88–9,
41 Sir George Grey (1812–98) was educated at Sandhurst. In the 1830s, he achieved
fame as an explorer of the coasts of Australia—Cameron, ‘Agents and Agencies in
Geography and Empire: The Case of George Grey’, in Morag Bell, Robin Butlin,
and Michael Hefferman (eds), Geography and Imperialism 1820–1940 (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1995), p. 13. Grey was Governor of South Australia
(1840–45), then Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand from 1845, when the colony
was subordinate to New South Wales, and Governor-in-Chief of New Zealand from
1848 until he took a leave of absence in 1852. He was for a time Governor of the
Cape Colony and High Commissioner for South Africa (1854–59). From 1861 to
1868, he was again Governor of New Zealand, which by then had responsible
government. He was elected to the New Zealand House of Representatives in 1875,
holding the office of Prime Minister from 1877 to 1879. He remained active in New
Zealand politics for another decade. He became a Privy Councillor in 1894, See
J.Rutherford, Sir George Grey, KCB, 1812–1898: A Study in Colonial Government
(London: Cassell, 1961), pp. 659–70. One reason the colonial reformers hated him
was that as Governor of New Zealand in 1847, he had refused to implement
Parliament’s plan for self-government there, saying that the indirect electoral system
was too complicated, and objecting that the plan favoured the colonists over the
Maori; Lord Grey in London had the enabling act suspended, Rutherford, Sir
George Grey, pp. 149–53, Self-government was not finally instituted until 1854.
Notes 179
42 Dalziel, ‘The Politics of Settlement’, p. 91.
43 See the record of an almost disloyal meeting held on 4 July 1849, given in Bell and
Morrell (eds), Select Documents, pp. 312–14.
44 Adderley to Gladstone, 24 November 1849, GP vol. CCLXXXIII, BL Add. MS.
44368, fos 278–81.
45 Adderley to Gladstone, enclosure, 20 December 1849, GP vol. CCLXXXIII, BL
Add MS. 44368, fo 309.
46 Ward, Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, pp. 160–3, 168, 186–8.
47 Adderley to Gladstone, enclosure, 20 December 1849, GP vol. CCLXXXIII, BL
Add MS. 44368, fo 309.
48 Ibid., fos 303–8.
49 Adderley kept attacking Grey in a tone that Gladstone did not much like, Adderley
to Gladstone, 20 December 1849, GP vol. CCLXXXIII, BL Add. MS. 44368, fos
303–9; Adderley to Gladstone, 25 June, 26 June, and 1 July 1851, GP vol.
CCLXXXV, BL Add. MS. 44370, fos 167–8 and 175–8. Adderley to Gladstone, 19
January and 26 January 1852, GP CCLXXXVI, BL Add MS. 44371, fos 127–8 and
144–5, In 1861, Adderley wrote to Gladstone in the same anti-Grey vein, even
though the purpose of the letter was to entice Gladstone to lay politics aside and
testify before the Colonial Committee—Adderley to Gladstone, 14 May 1861, GP
vol. CCCXI, BL Add MS. 44396, fos 78–9. See also Knaplund, Gladstone’s
Imperial Policy, pp. 55–8 and 81–3. Gladstone went on to speak for Colonial
Reform measures as late as 1852. See Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. I, pp. 360–4,
645.
50 For Gladstone’s contacts with Lyttelton and Wakefield, see H.C.G.Matthew,
Gladstone, 1809–1974 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 74–5.
51 Adderley to Lyttelton, 22 October 1855, GP vol. CLIII, BL Add. MS. 44238 fos
313–15.
52 Quoted in Knaplund, Gladstone and Imperial Policy, p. 81. The matter of
appointments concerned the selection, supported by Adderley, of the Canadian
Francis Hincks for a colonial governorship in the West Indies. See Adderley to
Lyttelton, 22 October 1855, GP vol. CLIII, BL Add. MS. 44238, fos 313–15.
Hincks, the first colonial Colonial Governor in the mid-nineteenth century, was
himself to be a founder of the Colonial Society.
53 London: Savile & Edwards, Printers, 1849.
54 Ibid., p. 32. He made the same points in Some Reflections on the Speech of the Rt.
Hon. Lord John Russell on Colonial Policy (London: Published for the Society for
the Reform of Colonial Government by John W.Parker, 1850).
55 Adderley to Peel, 11 December 1849, Peel Papers, vol. CCCCXXXII, BL Add. MS.
40602, fos 337–8.
56 Edward Brynn, ‘The Emigration Theories of Robert Wilmot Horton, 1820–1841’,
Canadian Journal of History, 4, 2 (September 1969), pp. 45–65.
57 Peel to Stanley, 13 August 1845, quoted and put into context in John S.Galbraith,
‘France as a Factor in the Oregon Negotiations’, Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 44, 2
(April 1953), pp. 69–73.
58 Peel to Adderley, 13 December 1849, Peel Papers, vol. CCCCXXXII, BL Add. MS.
Notes 180
40602, fos 339–40.
59 Adderley to Peel, 14 December 1849, Peel Papers, vol. CCCCXXXII, BL Add. MS.
40602, fos 342–3.
60 Adderley to Gladstone, 20 December 1849, GP vol. CCLXXXIII, BL Add. MS.
44368, encl., fo 309.
61 Tamworth Manifesto. Given in Peel, Memoirs, vol. II, pp. 58–67.
62 Philip Bell and Roger Bell, Implicated: The United States in Australia, Australian
Retrospectives (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 19–22; Bell and
Bell cite Alan Frost, ‘“As it were another America”: English Ideas of the First
Settlement in New South Wales at the End of the Eighteenth Century’, Eighteenth-
Century Studies, 7 (spring 1974), pp. 255–73.
63 Headrick, Tools of Empire, pp. 157–61.
64 Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, pp. 336–42.
65 Adderley set forth a scheme for classifying colonies in Some Reflections, p. vii.
66 Cell, British Colonial Administration, pp. 211–12; Cell’s observation was in turn
quoted in Eldridge, England’s Mission, p. 39.
67 For Grey’s support of federalism and self-government around the British world
during the six years of his colonial secretaryship, and even before, and for the details
of how Grey and the recently retired James Stephen drafted self-government plans
in the Privy Council ‘Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations’, dusted off for
the occasion, see John M.Ward, ‘The Third Earl Grey and Federalism, 1846–1852’,
Australian Journal of Politics and History, 3, 1 (November 1957), pp. 18–32; and
idem., Colonial Self-government, pp. 247–50, 268–96.
68 For Elgin’s alacrity, see Ward, Colonial Self-government, pp. 277–83.
69 A convenient précis of these developments is in David Lindsay Keir, The
Constitutional History of Modern Britain since 1485, 9th edn (New York: W.W.
Norton, 1967), pp. 445–8; a précis of the thinking behind the original act is
W.A.Townsley, ‘English Opinion on the Australian Colonies Government Act
(1850)’, Historical Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 5, 17 (November 1951),
pp. 38–46. For a good analytical review, see Burroughs, Britain and Australia, pp.
373–9. For in-depth analysis, see John Ward, Colonial Self-government; idem., ‘The
Responsible Government Question in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania,
1851–1856’, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, 63 (March 1978),
pp. 221–47; and idem., Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies. The exception to the
spread of responsible government was the Cape of Good Hope, which refused
responsibility because it did not want to pay for its own defence from the natives.
The Cape received representative but not responsible government in 1854, and
responsible government itself only in 1872. For the history of the idea of responsible
government, and reflections on whether the colonists who received it in the 1850s
knew what they were getting, see Graeme Patterson, ‘An Enduring Canadian Myth:
Responsible Government and the Family Compact’, Revue d’études
canadiennes/Journal of Canadian Studies, 12 (spring 1977), pp. 3–16; and J.P.Main,
‘Making Constitutions in New South Wales and Victoria, 1853–1854’, Historical
Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 7, 28 (May 1957), pp. 369–86. T.H.Irving
argues that a rough but serviceable definition of responsible government emerged in
Notes 181
New South Wales only in 1853—Irving, ‘The Idea of Responsible Government in
New South Wales before 1856’, Historical Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 11
(April 1964), pp. 192–205. W.P.Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Age of Peel
and Russell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), is still useful as a unified narrative of
the British colonial policies around the world from 1841 to 1852, although its larger
judgements about popular movements to or from imperialism have been superseded.
70 Donald Creighton, A History of Canada, Dominion of the North, rev. edn (Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1958), pp. 280–1; Mansergh, The Commonwealth
Experience, vol. I, pp. 57–8.
71 For a ready example, see Stansky, Gladstone: A Progress in Politics, p. 103.
72 See Susan H.Farnsworth, The Evolution of British Imperial Policy During the Mid-
Nineteenth Century: A Study of the Peelite Contribution (New York and London:
Garland Publishing, 1992), pp. 333–4; Wakefield to Godley, published in the
Lyttelton Times, 30 October 1852, quoted in J.S.Marais, The Colonisation of New
Zealand (1927; London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1968), p. 293.
73 Charles Stuart Blackton, ‘The Australasian League, 1851–1854’, Pacific Historical
Review, 8 (1939), pp. 385–400.
74 C.B.Adderley, Transportation not Necessary (London: John W.Parker, 1851), pp.
7–8.
75 Ibid., p. 10.
76 J.R.Godley, ‘Self-government for New Zealand: Extract from Mr. Godley’s Speech
at the Public Meeting at Lyttelton, on Thursday, August 14, 1851, as Reported,
along with Mr. Fitzgerald’s and several other Gentlemen’s Speeches on that
occasion, in the ‘Lyttelton Times’ of August 16. With Remarks by C.B. Adderley, MP
and An Epitome of New Zealand Politics, with dates and references’ (printed in
London for private circulation by Savile & Edwards, Printers, Chandos Street,
Covent Garden, 1852).
77 Adderley in Godley, ‘Self-government for New Zealand’, p.18.
78 Hansard, 10 April 1851, quoted in Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Age of
Peel and Russell, p. 498.
79 C.B.Adderley, Statement of the Present Cape Case (London: John W.Parker, 1851),
p. 36.
80 John M.Ward, ‘The Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell’s Administration’,
Historical Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 9 (November 1960), pp. 244–62.
81 C.B.Adderley, Letter to the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, MP on the present
relation of England with the Colonies, rev. edn (London: Parker, Son & Bourn,
1862), p. 7.
82 Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. IV, p. 329. The Canadians wanted to
confederate with each other instead, and in 1864 they began talks to that end. See
P.B.Waite, The Life and Times of Confederation, 1864–1867: Politics, Newspapers,
and the Union of British North America, 2nd edn (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1962), pp. 28–35 and 263–81; Brian Jenkins, Fenians and Anglo-American
Relations During Reconstruction (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University
Press, 1969); and C.P.Stacey, ‘Britain’s Withdrawal from North America, 1864–
1871’, Canadian Historical Review, 36 (September 1955), pp. 185–98. The
Notes 182
withdrawal of troops from Canada in 1870s was carried out despite the Canadians.
83 Disraeli to Adderley, 26 January 1862, given in Monypenny and Buckle, Life of
Disraeli, vol. IV, p. 329.
84 Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoine Cecil [3rd Marquis of Salisbury], ‘Mr Adderley’s
Colonial Policy’, Saturday Review, 13 (18 January 1862), pp. 72–3.
85 For the anti-imperialist interpretation of Adderley, see Davis and Huttenback,
Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire, p. 9. For Adderley and the idea of preparing
West Africans for self-rule, see J.F.A.Ajayi, Christian Missions in Nigeria, 1841–
1891: The Making of a New Elite, Ibadan History Series (Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1965), pp. 172–3; Hargreaves, Prelude to the
Partition, pp. 66–7, 73–4; and Adderley himself, especially his draft resolutions for
the West Africa committee, given in PP, Report from the Select Committee on Africa
(Western Coast), No. 412 (1865), pp. x–xvi. For Adderley’s opinions on the
alternative pressures for the extension and retraction of British authority on the
Southern African frontier, see Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian
Age, pp. 59–60, 164, 167–8, 176–7—Adderley was not in favour of spending money
on defending South Africa, although he expected the colonists to thrive and expand
if left on their own.
86 Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian Age, p. 25.
87 On who would carry the Bill, see Cardwell to Monck, copy, 7 July 1866, PRO
30/48/40, fos 21–2; on the extent of Adderley’s contribution, see Martin, Britain an
d
the Origins of Canadian Confederation, pp. 281, 370, n. 248.
88 B.J.Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855–1870 (Sydney: Sydney
University Press, 1967), pp. 256–8; Rutherford, Sir George Grey, pp. 546–59.
89 London: Edward Stanford, 1869, The essential similarity of this book to Adderley’s
previous work, as explored above, is made clear by the outline of Adderley’s Review
that is given in Koebner and Schmidt, Imperialism, pp. 91–3.
90 Adderley, Review of ‘The Colonial Policy’ pp. 15–16, 21.
91 Ibid., p. 14; cited in E.A.Benians, ‘The Empire in a New Age, 1870–1919’, in
E.A.Benians, James Butler, and C.E.Carrington (eds), The Cambridge History of the
British Empire, vol. 3, The Empire-Commonwealth, 1870–1919 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 1–2,
92 C.B.Adderley, Europe Incapable, p. 3.
93 Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of
Right (New York: Hill & Wang, 1995), p. 5.
94 Adderley, Europe Incapable, p. 4.
95 Ibid., p. 7.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid., p. 9.
98 Ibid., pp. 34–5.
99 Adderley, Minute of 28 September 1866, CO 42/656, as quoted in Martin, Britain
and the Origins of the Canadian Confederation, pp. 282, 370, n. 250.
Notes 183