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.

wrote two books about the experience. In the first and much larger work, Milton seemed

impressed not by the family investments or by the businessmen of Vancouver Island, but

y the larger significance of British North America in knitting the empire together, Asia

with the Atlantic.

In a later work (1869), minus the co-author, the humour, and literary

merit of the first,

Milton advocated the by then hardly original plan of occupying the

San Juan Islands in Puget Sound; the object was to prevent the United States from

choking Canada off from the Pacific and thus absorbing Canada entirely.

Certainly there was some economic imperialism running through the Fitzwilliam

family. But there was something else, too. Once again, Fitzwilliam and his nephew Lord

Milton both slogged across Western Canada in the winter.

Frontiering at that time o

year was hardly the action of an idle rentier, much less that of a typical banker. There

was something else going on in their minds; they had emotional as well as economic ties

to the empire—just as did the many landowners without such clear economic interests in

the empire.

A final example is Arthur Fitzgerald Kinnaird, MP (another Trustee of the Society, and

later 10th Lord)—another of the twenty-four great landowners. He was a banker in the

firm of Ramsom, Bouverie and Co. But he was also a diplomat, and long before he had

any connection to banking he had served as Private Secretary to the Earl of Durham, the

man whose ideas were responsible for the modern organization of Canada. Kinnaird went

on to write about the United States and India, and his wife was a keen supporter o

emigration and of missionaries. We cannot assume therefore that finances rather than

these other affinities first led him to think about the empire; nor can we assume that he

was ready for England to take over Africa.

The other bankers of the Colonial Society

Three other members were prominent in banking. They were Stephen Cave, MP (a

Conservative), George Joachim Goschen, MP (a Liberal, and later a Liberal Unionist),

and Sir David Salomons, Bart., all of whom were officers of the Colonial Society, and all

of whom left imperial writings that make clear that their interests were not entirely

economic.

The lesser bankers in the Colonial Society were not great in number, but they finally

take us down into a lower level of society. Yet here, with humbler people, we begin to

run into the problem of dwindling evidence.

First, to give some examples. Of the fourteen lesser bankers, two were minor figures in

London. One was simply a name and an address,

but Henry Samuel King left more

evidence about himself. He had a clear interest in empire, since he was the proprietor o

the Overland Mail and of a firm called ‘Henry S.King and Co, Bankers and Colonial

Agents’, with addresses at Cornhill, Pall Mall, Calcutta, and Bombay. Was he simply a

banker for Anglo-Indians who had a household to maintain in one country or the other? I

so, then economic imperialism may had had more to do with the myriad personal contacts

between people in different parts of the world than with gross capital flows.

Indeed, other founders were associated with purely local banks in the settlement

colonies—merely sidelines of their prominence in one colony or another. John

Businessmen 53

Richardson Goodricke was a London solicitor who went to Natal for his health rathe

than for the investment opportunities. Somewhere between supporting himself in local

usiness and becoming mayor of Durban, he acted as solicitor for at least two local

banks, but that was the extent of his banking experience.

He then returned to England.

Another man, Joseph Henderson, had a bank in Pietermaritzburg, Natal, where he was a

member of the Legislative Assembly. Dr Robert James Mann, a famed Natal science

writer, was in the end one of the several directors of only one of the several banks in the

province before himself returning to England.

He may have owed his directorship more

to his notability than to his banking skills.

For a colonial bank director who was more interested in the business than Dr Mann

was, we can turn to Alexander MacArthur, son of a Wesleyan minister who had migrated

to Australia. MacArthur was also a landowner, a wine-

roducer, and a legislator. He

returned to England, leaving his 28,000 acres of Australia in the hands of tenant

farmers;

from 1874 to 1892 he would serve as Liberal MP for Leicester. He made little

mark in Parliament, except to say that he would vote to abolish primogeniture and entail.

With opinions like these, he is yet more evidence that not every MP moved in the highe

circles of the domestic aristocracy, of the City, or of clubland, or wanted to.

The Hentys

Some colonial bankers were below even this, below the parliamentary level of society.

They were wholly immersed in a world of local economic activity. The Henty family—an

extraordinary group of squatters, traders, whalers, brewers, sheep rearers, and bankers in

early Australia—

rovided the Colonial Society with one such man. He was a banker and

lawyer who lived almost in the shadow of the rest of his family. He followed them into

the empire in order to get a job, a job that happened to be in his family’s bank. Out on the

ground, as we shall see below, banking dissolved into general local economic activity

—

making a living in the colonies rather than off of them.

Indeed, it seems that the Hentys were less interested in banking in Australia than they

had been at home. They were originally merino farmers in Sussex in the eighteenth

century, with a bank in Worthing. They emigrated in 1829 and 1830. Their patriarch,

Thomas Henty, heard about Australia from two of his sons who had visited the country.

His resolve to emigrate was helped along by the Crown, which for a time offered free

land in Western Australia to attract a British population. (The object was to pre-empt a

rumoured settlement by the French.) After a great deal of moving about, the family

wound up founding Port Phillip, now Melbourne, where they were prominent fo

decades. They were not related to G.A.Henty, the late nineteenth-century writer o

imperialistic adventure stories for boys.

William Henty, the only Henty who would join the Colonial Society, was born in

1808. He was old enough to remember all his family’s movements but not old enough to

have made any of the decisions regarding them. He stayed behind in England to study

law, finally practising in Brighton. All the while, as his correspondence shows, he was

waiting for the family settlement to grow big enough to need legal services, and for the

government there to expand enough to hire him. So far, he was no banker or investor.

Empire as the triumph of theory 54

In 1837 he finally emigrated. He did become active in his father’s local bank in Port

Phillip in the 1840s, but he served the bank only as a solicitor, two of his brothers

handling the financial side. He then went to live in Tasmania for a time, joining but

laying no leading role in the campaign to end the transportation of convicts to

Australasia.

Back in Victoria, he served in the Cabinet as Colonial Secretary for fou

years out of a career in the Legislative Assembly of only five. During this period he

campaigned (unsuccessfully) to regularize the land tenure of his family’s squattings. To

that end, he wrote a pamphlet arguing that Australia ought to have more cottage farmers

with regular land tenure, as did America and Canada. But apparently William Henty did

not want to be an Australian farmer himself. After having waited for so many years fo

the right moment to emigrate to Australia, he retired to Brighton with his sick wife in

1862. He added nothing more to the story of his life after that, except of course on joining

the Colonial Society (he lived until 1881). Meanwhile, the active members of the Henty

family had better things to do back in Australia than to join a London club. They had all

their businesses to run.

The local nexus of banking, agriculture, and the law that the Hentys presided over in

Victoria

had little to do with any finance imperialism on the part of the City of London,

and a great deal to do with the migration overseas of England’s traditional loca

agricultural life; the Hentys had been presiding over a slice of that life in Sussex when the

First Fleet set out for Australia. William Henty was a colonial banker, yes, and from an

imperial banking family; he has to be counted as such, but he was also a solicitor, a

writer, a local politician, and a Henty.

Colonial bankers

Still other Australian lawyers and bankers returned to England in time to join the

Colonial Society as resident members. Like William Henty, they were not on the surface

London capitalists in their origins or affinities. There is too little evidence about some o

them to demonstrate what they did have in mind, even in their economic affairs.

One

who stands out is Frederick Gonnerman Dalgety, a Canadian who had made his fortune

in the Australian wool trade during the Victoria Gold Rush. He, too, is mysterious

enough—Why did he go to Australia? What was on his mind when he did? But unlike

some of the other colonial bankers, he rose high enough to make some of his assumptions

and motivations apparent later on.

As M.J.Daunton has shown, Dalgety then suffered two very lean decades before the

Gold Rush of the early 1850s made his wool fortune. His chief problem up until that time

had been chronic undercapitalization—which shows us that his personal and business

connections were with fellow colonials rather than with mainstream City financiers.

When the Gold Rush was over, the problem of undercapitalization returned. In response,

he tried to run his business from London from 1854 to 1857, in partnership with a

Tasmanian who would himself become one of the early members of the Colonial Society,

Frederick Du Croz. In London, Dalgety would be nearer the sources of capital. Still

undercapitalized, Dalgety came back to London in the 1860s and tried again. Even then,

although his firm dominated both Australian wool and the financial services associated

Businessmen 55

with it, he could not break into the magic circles of the Square Mile. Starved of capital,

his business declined; it survived only because he lost effective control to non-

colonials.

He was not a finance capitalist—he was an unfinanced capitalist.

By the 1870s, furthermore, his interests lay elsewhere. He had begun to see himself as

an English gentleman, building a pleasant house in Hampshire, buying land, draining

money from his company, and losing touch with wool-grower opinion—he tried to

dictate to the wool growers and had made numerous enemies as a result.

We can find the same kind of person, finally caring more about his status than his

usiness, in Newfoundland. Charles Fox Bennett was a local banker, mine owner,

shipbuilder, and trader who joined the Colonial Society as a resident member because he

spent part of every year with his wife in England. Born in Bristol, he was in

ewfoundland as early as the 1820s, when he became known as a leading proponent for a

representative system in the colony. But he was not in favour of democracy. Bennett led

the conservative interest in Newfoundland for most of the next half-century. As a

businessman, he paid the price for his anti-democratic views. When some one set fire to

his foundry and mill in 1856, the locals cut the fire hoses. Indeed, popularity and business

sense always seemed less important to him than staying true to his own vision of how the

empire ought to work. Bennett went on to be the man most responsible for keeping

ewfoundland out of Canada in 1869, at the time of Confederation, even while most

merchants were afraid to oppose confederation publicly.

Then, only a few years short o

his eightieth birthday, he became anti-confederation premier of Newfoundland in 1870.

He was soon left increasingly isolated in the legislature. He remained in the Colonial

Society—and it would seem an annual visitor to England—until his death in 1883.

Standing out from this group of minor colonial bankers whose ties to the City were

weak at best were two men who did stay afloat there. Were they economic imperialists?

One man in particular seems to have seized on the communications possibilities of the

empire, to have gone out into it on his own, and then to have raised himself into the

arliamentary class. His name was Octavius Vaughan Morgan. At age 21 (in 1858) and

fresh from school at Abergavenny, he helped to found Morgan Brothers Merchants and

Bankers (sic), and in 1868 he founded the European Mail. In the decades after the

foundation of the Colonial Society, he became a world traveller, a fellow of the Statistical

Society, and a member of the Municipal Reform League. Morgan wanted elections fo

the upper house, and was himself elected into the lower. He would become involved in

the Imperial Federation League while he was Liberal MP for Battersea (1885–92).

However, as the dates show, his activities were less clearly a cause than a result of the

foundation of the Colonial Society and the interests it drew together.

The other colonial banker with some ties to the City, and the last colonial banker we

will look at, was Jacob Montefiore. The Montefiores had made their fortune in the

Barbados trade in the eighteenth century. In the mid-nineteenth century, the main family

businesses were run by Jacob’s cousin, Sir Moses. However, Jacob and his more

rominent brother, Joseph Barrow Montefiore, prospered on South Australian real estate,

and they helped to found the Bank of Australasia in the 1830s.

The main role of Jacob the Colonial Society member was in founding another bank

—

like Dalgety’s, only earlier—to finance the Australian wool trade. He was indeed the

irs

go-

etween for the Australians, who were just then in the midst of their earliest wool

Empire as the triumph of theory 56

oom, and the London financiers, starting with the rest of the Montefiore family. Yet as

with Dalgety, Jacob Montefiore’s main business was wool, not banking. Established

anks were shy of loaning against future wool prices, so the trade had to be financed by

the better funded wool brokers themselves; they became bankers, but only incidentally

so.

In Jacob Montefiore, in any case, we have found no finance imperialist, and no

evidence of a more general finance imperialism. From his early wool-

anking activities,

he went on to involve himself in questions of colo-nial governance, not the export o

capital. From 1835 to 1839 he served as one of the eleven London-

ased commissioners

appointed to the colony of South Australia by the Act of 1834 (an unpaid endeavour).

He would later be involved in the for-profit Western Australia Association.

In 1854,

Montefiore was a leader in the popular campaign against a nominated Senate in New

South Wales, and for the more equitable distribution of seats in the lower house—hardly

the act of a rapacious financier.

While Jacob Montefiore did not create the family

interest in empire, which went back for generations in the West Indies, he does seem to

have helped to extend the family’s activities to the Antipodes. But as an individual, Jacob

Montefiore moved away from economic and towards political affairs. And collectively,

as London-

ased finance capitalists, the Montefiores and their friends do not seem to

have been especially eager to extend their activities to Australasia, even if there were

many good opportunities for putting money into the wool trade. Investments closer to

home were safer or more profitable or both.

Counting the bankers in another way

We can approach the subject in another way as a means of review. Of the forty or so men

who would serve as directors of the Bank of England between the early 1840s and

1880—and who were still alive in 1868—Thomas Baring, Stephen Cave, and George

Joachim Goschen were the only ones to number among our members of the Colonial

Society.

Putting these three aside, along with the almost equally well-connected Messrs

Glyn, Morgan, and Montefiore, the rest of the bankers in the Society—fourteen in

number—seem a far cry from the capital exporters imagined by Hobson and Lenin. As

we have seen, some served on the boards of purely local colonial banks, and thei

intellectual interests developed in other directions. Others served on the local boards o

non-executive (or barely executive) directors employed throughout the empire by

London-headquartered banks; these local boards were maintained from the origins o

British multinational banking in Australia in the mid-1830s until late in the century.

Either way, the Colonial Society founders involved were not even the greatest names in

colonial banking.

Instead, these lesser members of the banking profession were

creatures of a string of small imperial towns—mostly Australasian towns, for in the mid-

nineteenth century Australasia was where more than half of the multinational banks’

branches were, along with one-third of their assets.

Those Colonial Society bankers

who were not out in the towns of the imperial frontier were a part of the London-

ased

service sector for those towns. Baring, Glyn, Cave, Goschen, and Montefiore were the

main London-based exceptions, operating at a higher level.

Businessmen 57

In addition, fully half of the colonial (non-London) group were minor figures who

managed to go home to the British Isles and leave banking entirely, usually without rising

very far in society. Yet go home they did. For them, gentlemanliness was more important

than capitalism.

Economic men?

Apart from the bankers or bankers cum merchants already examined above, only nine

more members can be identified either as intercontinental traders or as operators o

shipping lines serving the colonies—economic imperialists, certainly, although neve

bankers. They included a major London-

ased broker in Australian wool, Helmut

Schwartze,

and three major shipowners: Captain George Gilmore, who founded a line

serving Australia and Tasmania; J.T.Rennie, son and partial heir of an Aberdeen

shipowner who died in 1849, and who had pioneered lines from England to Natal,

and

the great magnate William Mackinnon, who had a whole fleet of ships. By the 1880s,

indeed, he had more ships than anyone except the Queen. By then, he had become a key

figure in the development of the British Empire in East Africa. Yet even Mackinnon’s

imperialism fits only uncomfortably into the economic category—in the sense that by the

1890s he turned from the India trade to investments in East Africa, investments that were

so unprofitable that they opened him to the charge of being an unworldly philanthropist.

He lost a fortune there. (By then, King Leopold’s own investments in Africa were

considered—at least in America—as nothing more than an awful waste of the fortune o

the sister he held captive, the former Empress Carlota of Mexico.

) If that is what mos

people thought about investing in Africa, so much for the coming of any popula

economic imperialism. And if Mackinnon was not working at promising business

ventures in Africa, what was he doing? Was his thinking at all similar to that of other,

non-economic imperialists in the Colonial Society? Tables about social status,

government employment, or economic position do not answer this question o

motivation, but writings or private papers might.

Twenty-one other colonials were specialized businessmen with some connection to one

or another part of the empire—where they had to support themselves in some way, since

they lived there. The question of why they lived there has to be examined in a way that

goes beyond their economic activities.

Dr John Learmonth MD (Edinburgh), along with

his brother, exported 177 bales of wool from Port Phillip (the later Melbourne, Australia)

in 1844/45. But what does this mean? Was the doctor still practising, and merely letting

his brother take the lead in wool, or did Dr Learmonth himself spend days as a wool

grower? We know only that he was made a district trustee of the Port Phillip Savings

Bank in 1845, but this was a government appointment, and in any case he went back to

England in the same year. He stayed until 1848, and was in England once again in 1854

–

55 while one of his brothers ran his estate in Geelong. And the estate was ‘his’ largely

ecause he was the eldest. He had followed his two younger brothers to Australia by

1840.

How often do the individual minds of obscure people take flight away from thei

tabular biographical data, their economic position? One chamber of commerce man

Empire as the triumph of theory 58

whose intellectual affinities sail past his rather meagre achievements in business was

Alfred Waddington. He was one of the older, least settled, and most captivating members

of the Colonial Society. Born into a less than grand Anglo-French banking family in

1801—although his nephew William would rise to become Foreign Minister and Premie

of France in the late 1870s—Alfred Waddington attended the universities of Göttingen

and Leipzig. Somewhere along the line he developed wanderlust. He directed iron works

in France; he failed in that business and in others. Eventually he became a follower o

gold rushes. He spent his fifties as a wholesale grocer in San Francisco. By the time the

Colonial Society was founded, he was a member of the Legislature (and briefly the

Education Secretary

) of British Columbia, a colony in the midst of its own Gold Rush.

His first book was addressed to his fellow colonists, and it was less than utterly

serious:

TO MY FELLOW PIONEERS, FRIENDS, AND ACQUAINTANCE. I offer

you the first book published on Vancouver Island, and I recommend it to you.

Not for its own merit, which I value no more than what it has cost me, that is to

say a few day’s scribbling at spare hours; but on account of its object. The

circulation of truth can be but useful; so I invite each of you to buy a copy,

which shall be carefully put down to your account of patriotism, and also to that

of the printer.

Like this one, all of his publications were to be about the Fraser River, but his later works

were less jokey, came from a better class of publisher, and went out to a more

metropolitan audience. An 1868 work, which explained how well the Fraser River area fit

into worldwide imperial routes (Overland Route through British North America; or, The

Shortest and Speediest Route to the East), was in part based upon papers that he had read

at the British Association for the Advancement of Science (the BA) and the Royal

Geographical Society (RGS), and it was published by Longmans.

For him to reach such

forums, his message about a worldwide route must have transcended local boosterism.

Waddington was in England to promote a railway from the coast opposite the northern

art of Victoria Island to the interior of British Columbia at Quesnel, on the Fraser and

about 200 miles due north of Vancouver. Not every railway promoter would have been

invited to address the British Association and the RGS, and certainly not every promote

with so mixed a record of success. And a failed promoter he was. A few years before,

Waddington had already tried to build the railway, only to run into a large obstacle (it

was quite large indeed, being the highest point in British Columbia—now called ‘Mount

Waddington’). On the same project, Waddington also faced an Indian war that, as a trade

of guns, he seems to have brought on himself. Nineteen of his workmen were killed.

was hardly a glorious record. Like so many of his other business ventures, his

construction project had come to naught, and his trip to England would not get it moving

again; still, he was in England long enough to attend the Colonial Society’s inaugural

meeting in June 1868, and he joined formally on 19 April 1869.

The reason this failed

romoter could address the BA was the timeliness of his message; he used the imminent

completion of the American transcontinental route (the Central Pacific) to argue for a

British equivalent which could safeguard London’s oriental trade and its place as the

Businessmen 59

financial centre of the world.

So it would seem that he was a British imperialist, but he

had an odd career for one. When he moved to Victoria he had lived in the United States

for so many years that he was accused of having taken American citizenship. Some

asserted that his participation in Victorian politics was illegal, and that he would himsel

try to annex the colony to the United States. (If they had known about it, they probably

would have made something of Waddington’s nephew having married an American, and

it would hardly have mattered that the nephew was a French politician.) Was he a British

imperialist or an American one?

Waddington himself turned this question against others—leaving his own position

even more confused. The occasion was when he tried to get someone with a quasi-

American career very similar to his own expelled from the Victoria legislature—

ut in

upholding the purity of British colonial politics he used American racialist arguments.

The man was Selim Franklin, another founder-member of the Colonial Society who like

Waddington moved from storekeeping in San Francisco to Victoria, and who served with

Waddington in the legislature there. Yet he and Waddington were on opposite sides

politically. Thus, Waddington tried to have Franklin unseated because he was Jewish

—

and because if Franklin had been unseated, the government that Waddington opposed

would have been weakened. When his anti-Semitism plan failed, Waddington tried to

unseat Franklin on other grounds, by rejecting the votes of the formerly American blacks

(they had been allowed to swear allegiance to the Queen on the theory that they owed no

allegiance to a United States that denied them full rights). The legislature also rejected

this American-tinged argument of Waddington’s, the black votes stood, and Franklin

took his seat. (An auctioneer who was the son of a Liverpool banker and marble

merchant, Franklin was in London during the foundation of the Colonial Society; he then

returned to American life in San Francisco, where he lived from 1870 until his death in

1883.)

As always with Waddington, there are contradictions—there were always

meanings within meanings in what he said and did. In his first book, he had described the

social scene of the Fraser River Gold Rush as follows:

Adopted citizens and others who had consulted their American patriotism rather

than their interests, by stopping at Watcom, loudly lamented the necessity of

stepping on British soil, whereas others, Britishers by birth and Americans by

adoption, were now rewhitewashed and became Englishmen again.

Waddington stressed that his own feelings lay on the British and not the American side,

and yet he did come to Victoria from a settled life in San Francisco, which may as well

e considered an American city. He also stressed his contempt for jobbers and profiteers

(his classical tag for them was the ‘rerum novarum avidi’) but he had a grocer’s memory

for the price of flour and other staples in the Fraser area.

Was he not himself a groce

and a rewhitewashed Briton?

Waddington said that he counted himself among the real ‘pioneers of civilization’

representing not Britain or America but ‘that of energetic men representing almost every

nation in the world’; and yet he did not forget to distance himself from those other

energetic pioneers who ‘shot [the Indians] down like dogs, and often, with shame be it

said, for their mere amusement’.

The contradictions kept flowing. In 1868, he

Empire as the triumph of theory 60

emoaned the official lack of interest in settling the Canadian prairie, reflecting as it did a

lack of interest in the whole imperial mission—without which England would be ‘a small

unimportant island’.

And yet for this assertion, Waddington, the uncle of a French

premier, cited a French and not a British source, an eight-year-old article from the Revue

des Deux Mondes, not on the face of it the most disinterested of sources about the

underlying unimportance of English civilization—and a source easy for his English

audience to ignore.

Once again, Waddington’s own standpoint seems to dissolve into

conundrums.

Yet whatever Waddington’s own rather evanescent views, clearly the man himsel

could not have been one of the New Imperialists of the 1880s; for one thing, he died in

1872. And I mean this as a serious point. The logic of his life, for all of its contradictions,

had to be self-contained. Waddington’s ideas deserve to be examined for themselves.

They escape the bare details of his biography and his business interests. Certainly he had

come a long way from his youth in France, his education in Göttigen, his decade selling

groceries in San Francisco. His views live on only in his words, not his biography or in

any tabulation of his economic position.

Clearly some people had an economic tie to the empire—

ut what they thought about

the empire, and even whether they thought about ‘the empire’ as any kind of general

category at all, remains to be seen.

Businessmen 61

Travels and ideas

There is one final question to examine before we can look at the main founders and thei

writings. We have seen many travellers, not just Waddington. How many of them were

armchair travellers, and how many had actually been to the empire?

Armchair travel could lead to armchair generalizations, but seeing the size of the world

for oneself could also inspire people to making the jump from having private experiences

thinking about grand general categories. That jump from the private to the grand, the

general, and the imperial is especially worth noting in the words of one far-seeing young

man who visited Australasia in the 1830s. With travel, he wrote,

The map of the world ceases to be a blank; it becomes a picture full of the most

varied and animated figures…. Africa, or North and South America, are well-

sounding names, and easily pronounced; but it is not until having sailed for

weeks along small portions of their shores, that one is thoroughly convinced

what vast spaces on our immense world these names imply.

From seeing the present state, it is impossible not to look forward with high

expectations to the future progress of nearly an entire hemisphere. The march of

improvement, consequent on the introduction of Christianity throughout the

South Sea, probably stands by itself in the progress of history. It is more striking

when we remember that only sixty years since, Cook, whose excellent

judgement none will dispute, could see no prospects of a change. Yet these

changes have now been effected by the philanthropic spirit of the British nation.

But this young traveller-theorist, whose name was Charles Darwin, was moved less by

the spread of organized Christianity than by something else—the spread of English-

speaking settlements as secular entities:

In the same quarter of the globe Australia is rising, or indeed may be said to

have risen, into a grand centre of civilization, which, at some not very remote

period, will rule as an empress over the southern hemisphere. It is impossible

for an Englishman to behold these distant colonies, without a high pride and

satisfaction. To hoist the British flag, seems to draw with it as a certain

consequence, wealth, prosperity, and civilization.

In his journal entry for 22 January 1836, Darwin, still on the Beagle, was unsure abou

whether he was thrilled or repelled by Australian society; yet by the end of the book as he

finally prepared it, distance from Australia had made him more abstract and more

enthusiastic about the continent, as we saw above. Still, Darwin did not join the Colonial

Society. His journey on the Beagle led to theories about a rather grander process than the