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.
idem., Pounds and Pedigrees, pp. 253–5.
9 Charles Dilke to his father, 20 January 1867, DP vol. XXVIII, BL Add. MS 43901,
fos 7–12.
10 For these clubs, see George Nadel, Australia’s Colonial Culture: Ideas, Men, and
Institutions in Mid-nineteenth Century Eastern Australia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1957), p. 87. Britons in the know were rather sceptical about the
learned clubs of the colonies. Charles Kingsley delivered to the ‘British Association
of Melbourne, Australia’ a rather dry paper on the subject of water-babies in the far
future year of 1999 (although in at least one posthumous edition it is 1839, one year
after the foundation of the Melbourne Club). Kingsley also fancied that ‘hundreds of
thousands of years’ from now, the Geological Society of New Zealand would be
astonished to find a fossilized water-baby—a human child who had drowned after
its parents were exiled to Botany Bay. For Kingsley, the Australians and New
Zealanders of the distant future would study nature to the exclusion of the injustices
which had created their countries so long before. Charles Kingsley, The Water-
Babies (London and Cambridge: Macmillan & Co, 1863), pp. 157, 293.; idem., The
Water-Babies (London and Glasgow: Blackie, n.d.), pp. 51, 94, 174.
11 Arthur McMartin, Public Servants and Patronage: The Foundation and Rise of the
New South Wales Public Service, 1786–1859 (Sydney: Sydney University Press,
1983), pp. 152–67; Hazel King, ‘Man in a Trap: Alexander Macleay, Colonial
Secretary of New South Wales’, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society,
68 (June 1982), pp. 37–48; Max Dupain, Morton Herman, Marjorie Barnard, and
Daniel Thomas, Georgian Architecture in Australia, with Some Examples of the
Post-Georgian Period (1963; Sydney: Ure Smith, 1965), pp. 36–7, 141, 147; Nadel,
Australia’s Colonial Culture, pp. 81, 87n.; Ronald Strahan, ‘The Dog That Did Not
Bark: Alexander Macleay and the Australian Museum’, Journal of the Royal
Australian Historical Society, 75 (December 1989), pp. 224–9; Peter Stanbury and
Julian Holland (eds), Mr. Macleay’s Celebrated Cabinet: The History of the
Macleays and their Museum (Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, 1988), pp.
9–19, 24–6.
12 Ann Mozley, ‘Evolution and the Climate of Opinion in Australia, 1840–76’,
Victorian Studies, 10, 4 (June 1967), pp. 411–30.
13 David S.Macmillan, A Squatter Went to Sea: The Story of William Macleay’s New
Guinea Expedition (1875) and his Life in Sydney (Sydney: Currawong Publishing,
1957), pp. 5–12; Ann Mozley Moyal (ed.), Scientists in Nineteenth Century
Australia: A Documentary History (Melbourne: Cassell Australia, 1976), pp. 88,
108–9; Dymphna Clark, ‘Baron Charles von Hügel and the Macleays’, Journal of
the Royal Australian Historical Society, 75 (December 1989), pp. 211–23; Stanbury
and Holland, Mr. Macleay’s Celebrated Cabinet, p. 151.
14 Michael Roe, Quest for Authority in Eastern Australia, 1835–1851 (Melbourne:
Melbourne University Press, 1965), pp. 54–5, 83.
15 Although they did that as well. See J.B.Hirst, The Strange Birth of Colonial
Democracy: New South Wales, 1848–1884 (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1988), p. 185.
16 J.E.Gorst, The Maori King, ed. Keith Sinclair (1864; Hamilton and Auckland, NZ:
Paul’s Book Arcade, 1954); idem., ‘Our New Zealand Conquests’, Macmillan’s, 12
Notes 164
(1865), pp. 168–75; J.R.Vincent, ‘“A sort of second-rate Australia”: A Note on Gorst
and Democracy, 1865–1868’, Historical Studies, 15, 60 (April 1973), pp. 539–44;
Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, pp. 65–6, 165–7; M.P.K.Sorenson, ‘The
Maori King Movement’, in Robert Chapman and Keith Sinclair (eds), Studies of a
Small Democracy: Essays in Honour of Willis Airey (Hamilton, NZ: Blackwood and
Janet Paul, 1963), pp. 33–55; idem., ‘Maori and Pakeha’, pp. 154–8; Keith Sinclair,
The Origins of the Maori Wars (Wellington: New Zealand University Press, 1961),
pp. 71–7; James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori
Campaigns and the Pioneering Period, 2 vols (Wellington, NZ: R.E.Owen,
Government Printer, 1922; 1955), vol. I, pp. 233–7; Archie Hunter, A Life of John
Eldon Gorst: Disraeli’s Awkward Disciple (London: Frank Cass, 2001).
17 The club’s Chairman from 1859 to 1888 was Gisborne Molineux, a member of the
Colonial Society about whom there is little more to say. Two other guests who were
also in the Colonial Society were Sir David Salomons and Sir Edward Bulwer-
Lytton. Although most of the Canada Club’s records are missing for the 1860s, see
J.G.Colmer, The Canada Club (London): Some Notes on Its Origin, Constitution
and Activities (London: Canada Club, 1934), pp. 23, 58, 60–1, 64.
18 J.K.Johnson, ‘The U.C.Club and the Upper Canadian Elite, 1837–1840’, Ontario
History, 49, 3 (September 1977), pp. 151–67.
19 London: Jeremiah Howe, 1846.
20 [H.P.Roche], New Hebrides, p. 66.
21 He also published a not entirely polite fourteen-page legal brief against the
establishment of Roman Catholic bishoprics in England—The Recent Apostolical
Letters of the Pope an Infringement of the Queen’s Prerogative, as far as the New
Roman Catholic Sees of Shrewsbury and Nottingham are Concerned (London: V.&
R.Stevens and G.S.Norton, 1850). His next publication was a legal tome that lacked
the verve of his New Hebrides pamphlet or his screed on the papacy—William
Hazlitt and Henry Philip Roche, A Manual of the Law of Maritime Warfare
(London: V.& R.Stevens and G.S.Norton, 1854). In this book, American examples
of English law are extolled. He later took busman’s holidays to write on bankruptcy
law: William Hazlitt and Henry Philip Roche, The Bankruptcy Act of 1861 (V. &
R.Stevens and Sons; H.Sweet & W.Maxwell, 1861).
22 Roche to R.Owen, 4 July 1851, Owen Papers, BL Add. MS 39954, fos 216–17.
23 [H.P.Roche], New Hebrides, pp. 3–18.
24 Roche to R.Owen, 4 July 1851, Owen Papers, BL Add. MS 39954, fos 216–17.
25 Roche to R.Owen, 11 February 1853, Owen Papers, BL Add. MS 39954, fos 280–
3.
26 Ibid.
27 A.R.Roche, A View of Russian America in View of the Present War (Montreal:
J.Lovell, 1855); see also W.L.Morton, The Critical Years: The Union of British
North America, 1857–1873, The Canadian Centenary Series (Toronto: McClelland
and Stewart, 1964), pp. 26, 31; Galbraith, Hudson’s Bay Company, pp. 163–9. The
Crimean War included no hostilities on the Russian/British inland frontiers in North
America; at that time these frontiers were visited only by explorers and fur traders,
and so the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Russian Fur Company had arranged for
Notes 165
the neutralization of Alaska and, with similar logic, New Caledonia.
28 PP, Report from the Select Committee appointed to consider the State of those
British Possessions in North America which are under the Administration of the
Hudson’s Bay Company, pp. 248–53.
29 Shortly before the Colonial Society was founded, he shared some transcontinental
transport dreams with Henry Crease in British Columbia, whom we looked at some
time ago; nothing came of the matter. See Roche to Crease, 26 October 1867, quoted
in Elliott, ‘Henry P.Pellew Crease’.
30 John Riddy, ‘Some Official British Attitudes Towards European Settlement and
Colonization in India up to 1865’, in Donovan Williams and E.Daniel Potts (eds),
Essays in Indian History in Honour of Cuthbert Collin Davies (New York: Asia
Publishing House, 1973), pp. 16–41.
31 Bradford Spangenburg, British Bureaucracy in India: Status, Policy, and the I.C.S.,
in the Late 19th Century (Columbia, MI: South Asia Books, 1976), pp. 14–25; Clive
Dewey, ‘The Education of a Ruling Caste: The Indian Civil Service in an Era of
Competitive Examination’, English Historical Review, 88, 347 (April 1973), pp.
262–85—see esp. Appendix 1; J.M.Compton, ‘Open Competition and the Indian
Civil Service, 1854–1876’, English Historical Review, 83, 327 (April 1968), pp.
265–84.
32 Lord William Hay to Roderick Murchison, 31 May 1869, Murchison Papers, vol. II,
BL Add. MS 46126, fos 389–90; Bawa Satinder Singh (ed.), The Letters of the First
Viscount Hardinge of Lahore to Lady Hardinge and Sir Walter and Lady James,
1844–1847, Camden Fourth Series, 32 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1986), p.
142.
33 [John Robinson], ‘By the Sea-Side in South-East Africa’, Cornhill, 16 (July 1867),
pp. 629–40; [idem.], ‘Colonial Parliaments’, Cornhill, 18 (October 1868), pp. 484–
95; see also his first bound work, the 1863 pamphlet Natal: A Practical Guide, the
kind of thing that a newspaperman would run up on his own presses.
34 Robert James Mann, Tennyson’s ‘Maud’ Vindicated: An Explanatory Essay
(London: Jarrold and Sons, 1856; New York and London: Garland Publishing,
1986); Michael Thorn, Tennyson (1992; New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993), pp.
286–92, 294–5.
35 Mann, Tennyson’s ‘Maud’ p. 76.
36 Robert James Mann, The Emigrant’s Guide to the Colony of Natal (London: Virtue
& Co, 1868), pp. v, 2.
37 After 1868, Mann went on to publish twenty scientific articles in the Edinburgh
Review—he had published only two before going to Natal. As before, some of his
scientific works were a part of the colonizing project: Robert James Mann,
M
edicine
for Emergencies, for the use of Settlers in Colonies, Sailors on Shipboard, and
Students of Every Class (London: Jarrold & Sons, 1861)—see esp. pp. iii–iv; Mann
described people being too far from doctors in Natal, so that when he was there he
had to teach the lessons of this book again and again to new people heading out into
the bush.
38 Dorothy O.Helly, ‘Informed Opinion on Tropical Africa in Great Britain, 1860–
1890’, African Affairs, 68, 272 (July 1969), pp. 195–217 at pp. 195, 204, 215.
Notes 166
39 C.C.Eldridge, ‘The Imperialism of the “Little England Era”: The Question of the
Annexation of the Fiji Islands, 1858–1861’, New Zealand Journal of History, 1, 2
(1967), pp. 171–84 at p. 174; Richard Blackett, ‘In Search of International Support
for African Colonization: Martin R.Delany’s Visit to England, 1860’, Canadian
Journal of History, 10, 3 (December 1975), pp. 307–24; Churchill to Lord
Palmerston, with enclosures, 31 December 1862, PRO CO 267/279; John
D.Hargreaves, Prelude to the Partition of West Africa (London: Macmillan, 1963),
pp. 71, 75.
40 Churchill and T.Lyons McLeod of the African Aid Society, to Lord Palmerston, 1
February 1864, given in PP, Copy of Correspondence on the Subject of an
Application from the Company of African Merchants (Ltd), for a Subsidy towards
establishing Steamers on the River Niger, 1864, no. 124, p. 2. For the protesting
traders and the Foreign Office view that they were biased, see Austen Henry Layard
to the Secretary of the Treasury, 30 May 1864, given in ibid., pp. 14–15.
41 W.P.Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian Age (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1969), p. 305.
42 Cf. the rather different classification of a much smaller number of the early
members in Eldridge, England’s Mission, pp. 115–16.
43 For Ireland as the training ground of key imperialists, see the final pages of
D.M.Schreuder, ‘Ireland and the Expertise of Imperial Administration: Hercules
Robinson, the “Irish Fairs and Markets Commission” (1853), and the making of a
Victorian Proconsul’, in Roy MacLeod (ed.), Government and Expertise:
Specialists, Administrators, and Professionals, 1860–1919 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), pp. 145–65. New entrance exams for the Indian civil
service were taken by men socially much inferior to those whom Schreuder
examines; this led to Irishmen winning between one-fifth and a quarter of the new
places in the 1850s and 1860s. Ministers thought these proportions too high and
lowered the numbers out of anti-Irish prejudice—Scott B.Cook, ‘The Irish Raj:
Social Origins and Careers of Irishmen in the Indian Civil Service, 1855–1914’,
Journal of Social History, 20, 3 (spring 1987), pp. 507–29.
44 Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism.
6
Tocqueville and Lord Bury: the empire of democracy
1 Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil [3rd Marquess of Salisbury], ‘Canada’,
Saturday Review, 11 (26 January 1861), pp. 100–1.
2 Back in the days of the younger Pitt, some Englishmen did come to America to write
books about industry and society. Henry T.Tuckerman, America and Her
Commentators, with a Critical Sketch of Travel in the United States (New York:
Charles Scribner, 1864; reprint, New York: Augustus M.Kelley, 1970), pp. 193ff.
3 See e.g. W.S.Neidhardt, Fenianism in North America (University Park, PA:
Notes 167
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975), pp. 109–10.
4 Donald Road, Cobden and Bright (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1968), pp. 2–
14,112–14; John Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, and the Conservative Party: Journals
and Memories of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks, SX:
Harvester Press, 1978), p. 228. Although an interest in America was apparent among
reformers outside the Parliamentary intelligentsia, the interest in Tocqueville’s ideas
did not spread that far, perhaps because the Tories had co-opted his thinking. For
Chartist and working-class opinion about America, see G.D.Lillibridge, Beacon of
Freedom: The Impact of American Democracy upon Britain 1830–1870
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955); and for the opinions about
America that were held by British humanitarians and abolitionists, see Frank
Thistlethwaite, America and the Atlantic Community: Anglo-American Aspects,
1790–1850 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959).
5 H.C.Allen, Great Britain and the United States, rev. edn (Hamden, CT: Archon
Books, 1969); and Ephraim Douglas Adams, Great Britain and the American Civil
War (New York: Russell & Russell, 1925).
6 William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], The Exodus of the
Western Nations, 2 vols (London: Richard Bentley, 1865), vol. I, p. 20.
7 See J.P.Mayer’s introduction to Alexis de Tocqueville, Journeys to England and
Ireland, trans. George Lawrence and K.P.Mayer, ed. J.P.Mayer (London: Faber and
Faber, 1958), pp. 17ff. Seymour Drescher’s Tocqueville and England (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1964) details the importance of England for
Tocqueville’s mental development, and the importance of the English examples that
Tocqueville used in Democracy in America and elsewhere.
8 Drescher, Tocqueville and England, pp. 55, 152–69, 217–20. See esp. p. 218, n. 3.
9 On the latter point, see the chapter entitled ‘How American Democracy has Modified
the English Language’—Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 477–82.
10 In The Lights of Liberalism: University Liberals and the Challenge of Democracy,
1860–86 (London: Allen Lane, 1976), pp. 1–12, 42–4, 156, Christopher Harvie has
shown that in the 1860s certain dons who would be highly influential in the later
nineteenth century—dons committed to Comte and positivism—turned to
Democracy in America as a practical guide to the methodology of searching for
historical evidence and pattern, a search that grew out of their original devotion to
Comte. Nevertheless, their exploration of Tocqueville’s work began too late to lead
them into the Colonial Society. Among the older and more influential of these dons
were Goldwin Smith, Leslie Stephen (father of Virginia Woolf, Vanessa Bell, and
the DNB, and son of the Colonial Office Permanent Secretary), James Bryce (the
English Tocqueville—his work on America appeared in 1888), and Frederic
Harrison (the chief Comtean Positivist of late nineteenth-century England, and a co-
founder of the Church of Humanity). In Brains and Numbers: Elitism, Comtism, and
Democracy in Mid-Victorian England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978),
pp. 86–7, Christopher Kent points out that Comte and Harrison set an example of
anti-imperialism for their followers.
11 In an important work, J.W.Burrow acknowledges Tocqueville’s influence on some
major Whig thinkers from the 1830s through the 1860s—thinkers so major that,
Notes 168
excepting John Stuart Mill himself, they do not come into this study of proto-
imperialists. See Burrow, Whigs and Liberals: Continuity and Change in English
Political Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), esp. pp. 19–22 and 45–6.
Burrow also clarifies Tocqueville’s influence on Mill’s ideas about historical
progress (pp. 77–8, 93, 106). Someone who sees the Tocquevillean thinking behind
questions of governance as they were framed in English-speaking colonies is Bruce
Knox, in ‘Democracy, Aristocracy, and Empire: The Provision of Colonial Honours,
1818–1870’, Australian Historical Studies, 25, 99 (October 1992), pp. 244–64 at p.
249, n. 21 and passim. For another reference to the wide dissemination of
Tocquevillean ideas, see A.G.L.Shaw, ‘Agitation for the Separation of the Port
Phillip District from the Colony of New South Wales, 1838–1850’, Journal of the
Royal Australian Historical Society, 68, 1 (June 1982), pp. 1–17 at p. 8.
Tocqueville’s name and some hints of his influence also appear in Brian Jenkins,
Great Britain and the War for the Union, vol. 1 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1974), pp. 69–71.
12 See Iris Wessell Mueller, John Stuart Mill and French Thought (Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1956), pp. 134–69; Terence H.Quilter, ‘John Stuart Mill, Disciple
of Tocqueville’, Western Political Quarterly, 13 (September 1960), pp. 880–9; and
H.O.Pappé, ‘Mill and Tocqueville’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 25 (April–June
1964), pp. 217–34. For Pappé, Mueller over-emphasizes the influence of
Tocqueville on Mill. However, Pappé himself does not pay sufficient attention to
what that influence was, and to the reasons for the estrangement between the two
men in the 1840s. Those reasons, as I will show, were personal and political rather
than intellectual. The intellectual similarities between Tocqueville and Mill, quite
apart from the question of influence, are explored by Joseph Hamburger in ‘Mill and
Tocqueville on Liberty’, in James and John Stuart Mill/Papers of the Centenary
Conference, eds John M.Robson and Michael Laine (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1976), pp. 11–25.
13 Mill to Sir Charles Dilke, 19 February 1869, DP vol. XXIV, BL Add. MS. 43897,
fos 5–6.
14 John Stuart Mill, ‘Democracy in America’, Edinburgh Review 72 (October 1840),
pp. 1–47 at pp. 2–3.
15 André Jardin, Tocqueville, trans. Lydia Davis with Robert Hemenway (London:
Peter Halban, 1988), pp. 85–7, 117, 176.
16 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p. 437.
17 Mill, ‘Democracy in America’, p. 3.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., pp. 2–3.
20 Jardin, Tocqueville, pp. 101–3. Still valuable is the interesting account of pre-
Tocquevillean travel writers in J.L.Mesick, The English Traveller in America, 1785–
1835 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1922), pp. 2–16. Many of Mesick’s
travellers addressed their books to working-class emigrants (pp. 26–63, 347–52).
Except for Cobbett and Mrs Trollope, these authors did not achieve fame, yet many
showed a fine eye for detail. Mesick did not discuss why she ended her book in
1835; that was of course the year when the first part of Democracy in America came
Notes 169
out, but Tocqueville is nowhere to be found in Mesick’s otherwise admirable study.
21 Mill, ‘Democracy in America’, p. 2. Tocqueville’s phrase ‘the tyranny of the
majority’ echoes Madison in Federalist, No. 10: ‘Complaints are everywhere
heard…of an interested and overbearing majority.’—James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers [1788] (Harmondsworth: Penguin
1987), p. 123.
22 Mill, ‘Democracy in America’, pp. 2–3.
23 Crook, American Democracy in English Politics, 1815–50 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1965), pp. 177–86.
24 Anthony Trollope, ‘The Migration of a Library’, Pall Mall Gazette (17 September
1880), p. 11; see also Wright, ‘Anthony Trollope as a Reader’.
25 John Knox Laughton (ed.), Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry
Reeve, CB, DCL., vol. 1 (London: Longmans Green & Co, 1898), pp. 309–18.
26 Tocqueville to Reeve, 9 September 1839, given in Alexis de Tocqueville, Oeuvres
Completes, eds J-P.Mayer and Gustave Rudler, vol. 6, Correspondance Anglaise:
Correspondance D’Alexis de Tocqueville avec Henry Reeve et John Stuart Mill
(Paris: Gallimard, 1951), vol. VI, p. 49. For the translation, see Tocqueville,
Democracy in America, p. xi.
27 Many Englishmen still do. For a French assessment of the generally friendly, even
optimistic conclusions about America that Tocqueville expressed in his Democracy,
see Jardin, Tocqueville, pp. 207–11, 215–21. For an American assessment of the
optimism of Part I of Democracy, and of the more apprehensive and less concretely
American ideal types that make up Part II, see Robert Nisbet, ‘Many Tocquevilles’,
American Scholar, 46 (winter 1976/77), pp. 59–75.
28 A recent discussion of the influence of Henry Reeve’s translation of Democracy in
America—upon English leader writers—is Hugh Dubrulle, ‘“We are Threatened…
with Anarchy and Ruin”: Fear of Americanization and the Emergence of an Anglo-
Saxon Confederacy in England during the American Civil War’, Albion, 33, 4
(winter 2002), pp. 583–613. Dubrulle’s ‘Anglo-Saxon Confederacy’ is a group of
supporters of the Confederacy in the US Civil War.
29 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution [1856], trans.
Stuart Gilbert (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co, 1955), pp. 107–11, 115–
20.
30 A.H.Johnson (ed.), The Letters of Charles Greville and Henry Reeve, 1836–1865
(London: T.Fisher Unwin, 1924), pp. 21–2 and 22, n. 1.
31 Jardin, Tocqueville, pp. 351–4.
32 Mill to Tocqueville, 9 August 1842, 20 February 1843, and 3 November 1843, in
Tocqueville, Oeuvres Completes, vol. VI, pp. 337–47.
33 Zastoupil, ‘Mill and India’.
34 Tocqueville to Mill, 9 February 1843, in Tocqueville, Oeuvres Complètes, vol. VI,
pp. 339–49.
35 Mill to Tocqueville, 15 December 1856, in Tocqueville, Oeuvres Complètes, vol.
VI, pp. 349–50. In his Autobiography [1873], Mill gave Tocqueville ample credit.
The animus of earlier years was gone—see pp. 149–51, 156. For a brief account of
Tocqueville’s position in the Chamber of Deputies, and of some of the English
Notes 170
reaction to his statements there, see Drescher, Tocqueville and England, pp. 155–61.
Drescher’s chief focus is what Tocqueville thought about all this.
36 Henry Reeve, ‘Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville’, Edinburgh Review, 113 (April
1861), pp. 427–60.
37 Interest in Tocqueville was also apparent in the thinking of certain officials who did
not join the Colonial Society. As John Cell has noted, Lord Grey, the sometime
Colonial Secretary, did quote Tocqueville extensively in 1858. Cell has also noted
the American cast in the arguments of J.A.Roebuck and Edward Gibbon Wakefield
(both of whom died before 1868). Cell even notes similar elements in the writings o
f
one founder of the Colonial Society, Herman Merivale—Cell, British Colonial
Administration, pp. 88–92. As Cell points out, another scholar, C.M.H.Clark, also
saw Tocquevillean perspectives in the thinking of two sometime Colonial
Secretaries, Grey and Lord Stanley: Clark, A Short History of Australia (New York:
New American Library, 1963), p. 107; and idem., A History of Australia, vol. 3, The
Beginning of an Australian Civilization, 1824–1851 (Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press, 1973), pp. 93–4, 380. Clarke had done his Master’s thesis on
Tocqueville—Haig Patapan, ‘Melancholy and Amnesia: Tocqueville’s Influence on
Australian Democratic Theory’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 49, 1
(2003), pp. 1–16 at p. 202, n. 5. In addition, Tocquevillean elements in the thinking
of Merivale and Grey have been commented upon by John Manning Ward, Colonial
Self-Government: The British Experience, 1759–1856 (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1956), pp. 57, 153–4, 243–6.
38 In the necessarily general concluding pages of the first volume of Democracy in
America (published thirteen years before the Mexican War), Tocqueville had
predicted the spread of the ‘English’ race to the North under the Queen and to the
South under the American Union, into what was then Mexico. Both those
Americans still under British rule and those in the great republic, or so he asserted,
shared not only superior municipal institutions, but also superior ‘civilization,
energy, and power’ in comparison to the French race of the New World.
Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp. 408–11.
39 [Alexis de Tocqueville], ‘Political and Social Condition of France’, London and
Westminster Review, 3, new ser., and 25, old ser. (April–July 1836), pp. 137–69.
This article was intended to be the first in a series, but no other articles were
published. The London and Westminster Review was quite the likeliest journal to
publish Tocqueville, since its editor was John Stuart Mill—see Houghton,
‘Victorian Periodical Literature and the Articulate Classes’.
40 Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus [1834] (Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press, 1987), p. 90.
41 The pre-1868 writings of the founders were well represented in the Royal
Commonwealth Society Library. See Evans Lewin, Subject Catalogue of the Royal
Empire Society, 4 vols (London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, for the Royal
Commonwealth Society, 1967), especially the geographically unrestricted headings
in volumes 1 and 3. Some of the founders donated books to the Society’s Library
before the end of 1868, and before the Library had a home: Coun. Min., vol. 2, 16
December 1868, fo 21. Some made it known that their own books were included.
Notes 171
A.R.Roche, the Secretary, thanked such donors on 21 January 1869 (Gen. Corresp.,
vol. I, fo 31) and 3 February 1869 (Gen. Corresp., vol. I, fo 38); see also Coun.
Min., vol. 1, 14 February 1869, fo 30.
42 Some scholars have asserted that Harriet Martineau’s 1838 treatise, How to
Observe: Manners and Morals, was the methodological sourcebook for English-
language travel writing as it developed into ethnography. But it was never referred
to by any member of the Colonial Society. The founders were working in the mental
territory of Tocqueville (as translated by Reeve) and not of Martineau. She would
have had them employ in their travel books any valid analytical categories they
might find to get the feel of a place, and then she would have them turn to the
tangible pieces of material culture that would prove their points. The founders, by
contrast, employed a Tocqueville-inspired set of analytical categories that showed
their excitement about questions of democracy, equality, local government, the
growth of English-speaking colonies, and above all the centrality of the English-
speaking world in the progress of world history. For the idea that Martineau
influenced all subsequent travel writing, see Christopher Herbert, Culture and
Anomie: Ethnographic Imagination in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 153–4, 191; Sarah Winter, ‘Mental Culture:
Liberal Pedagogy and the Emergence of Ethnographic Knowledge’, Victorian
Studies, 41, 3 (spring 1998), pp. 427–54.
43 The literature on professionalization is huge. On the growth of professionalism
among intellectuals after 1880, see the latest work by Harold Perkin, The Rise of
Professional Society: England since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 83–7.
Some intellectual professionalization was already visible in the 1860s and 1870s, as
shown in Collini, Public Moralists, pp. 199–236.
44 CAM Press, Norfolk Notabilities [1893]. Excerpted in the British Biographical
Archive.
45 His service was discontinuous in part because he kept losing his seat, once for
bribery. A Liberal, Lord Bury sat for Norwich from April 1857 until June 1859,
when he was unseated for bribery (Bury denied the charge in a letter to The Times, 9
December 1859, p. 6, col. 5). He sat for Wick from October 1860 to July 1865, the
year he stood unsuccessfully at Dover. He then sat for Berwick-on-Tweed from
December 1868 until the end of Gladstone’s government in 1874. He stood
unsuccessfully as a Tory at Stroud in 1875, and sat as a Tory once he was called to
the House of Lords in his father’s barony of Ashford in 1876.
46 For the character of the Volunteers and Bury’s place in them, see Ian F.W. Beckett,
The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558–1945 (Manchester and New York:
Manchester University Press, 1991), pp. 170, 185, 188.
47 Bury to W.E.Gladstone, 30 July 1858, GP vol. CCCV, BL Add. MS 44390, fos 72–
3.
48 Other members of the House, Chichester Fortescue among them, acknowledged
Bury’s involvement with the Bill. Fortescue noted that Bury was pre-senting a
petition on the Bill on 25 March 1858—Osbert Wyndham Hewitt (ed.), ‘…and Mr.
Fortescue’: A Selection from the Diaries from 1851–1862 of Chichester Fortescue,
Lord Carlingford, KP (London: John Murray, 1958), p. 26. See also Jenkins (ed.),
Notes 172
‘Parliamentary Diaries of Trelawny, 1868–73’, p. 358—entry for 21 April 1869.
49 SarDesai, British Trade and Expansion in Southeast Asia, p. 64, n. 91.
50 Press, Norfolk Notabilities, in the British Biographical Archive.
51 Bury to Governor-General Sir Edmund W.Head, 5 December 1855, in PP, Copies
or Extracts of Recent Correspondence Respecting Alterations in the Organization of
the Indian Department in Canada, No. 247 (1856), pp. 18–19, 25–6.
52 Ibid., pp. 25–6, 29.
53 This material rather than racial definition of ‘civilization’ was shared by other
Canadian writers on Indian affairs, both in Bury’s time and later on—Mark Francis,
‘The “Civilizing” of Indigenous Peoples in Nineteenth-century Canada’, Journal of
World History, 9, 1 (spring 1998), pp. 51–87. As Francis shows, both the material
and the racial definitions of civilization contrast with yet another, older definition,
the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century view that civilization was a matter of
civil and controlled behaviour; in this Enlightenment sense, great Native American
chiefs were indeed civilized, despite their lack of the outward riches of European
‘civilization’.
54 In Considerations on Representative Government (1861), John Stuart Mill would
sound a different note. He did stress that it was difficult to maintain free institutions
where people did not share a common language (ch. XVI), but his examples were
from Eastern Europe, and went to the question of the rectification of borders and the
creation of Little Englands. That is, he was looking at European countries which he
believed might travel down the road to free institutions. Pace Mill, in North
America the situation called for different reasoning. In the continent-wide societies
of the New World, a long period of separate national development for each ethnic
group was not on the table, and instead the key issue was how different kinds of
people could live together.
55 Bury to Head, 5 December 1855, in PP, Correspondence Respecting the Indian
Department in Canada, p. 7.
56 He would become Chairman of the Canada’s Grand Trunk Railway in 1882—
Currie, Grand Trunk Railway, p. 218.
57 For the English epidemic, see Burn, Age of Equipoise, pp. 212–16.
58 William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], ‘A Few Notes on
Canadian Affairs’, Part 1, Fraser’s Magazine, 55 (March 1857), pp. 312–28. The
article was in three parts. The first and second were signed ‘Beta Mikron’. The third
appeared under Bury’s own name and a slightly altered title; it was identified as Part
3. For the fourth article in the series, which had a new title, Bury made a strange
attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube, signing himself ‘Beta Mikron’ once
again.
59 William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], ‘A Few Notes on
Canadian Affairs’, Part 2, Fraser’s Magazine, 55 (May 1857), pp. 554–68.
60 William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], ‘Notes on Canadian
Matters’, Part 3, Fraser’s Magazine, 56 (July 1857), pp. 90–105. For Tocqueville on
caucuses or public opinion, see Democracy in America, pp. 246–50, 254–6, 513–24;
for the nature of democratic armies, and how weak they are in peacetime, pp. 645–
59. See also William Coutts Keppel, Lord Bury [7th Earl of Albemarle], ‘British
Notes 173