Who Ran the British Empire 1830-1850?

1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Taft Manning
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Colonial Administration ◽  
Historical Writing ◽  
The People ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
The Government ◽  
Colonial Office

Patterns of historical writing are notoriously difficult to change. Much of what is still being written about colonial administration in the nineteenth-century British Empire rests on the partisan and even malicious writings of critics of the Government in England in the 1830s and '40s who had never seen the colonial correspondence and were unfamiliar with existing conditions in the distant colonies. The impression conveyed in most textbooks is that the Colonial Office after 1815 was a well-established bureaucracy concerned with the policies of the mother country in the overseas possessions, and that those policies changed very slowly and only under pressure. Initially Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Charles Buller were responsible for this Colonial Office legend, but it was soon accepted by most of the people who had business to transact there. Annoyed by the fact that the measures proposed by the Wakefield group did not meet with instant acceptance, Wakefield and Buller attacked the Permanent Under-Secretary, James Stephen, as the power behind the throne in 14 Downing Street and assumed that his ideas of right and wrong were being imposed willy-nilly on the unfortunate colonists and would-be colonists.The picture of Stephen as all-powerful in shaping imperial policy was probably strengthened by the publication in 1885 of Henry Taylor's Autobiography. Taylor was one of Stephen's warmest admirers and had served with him longer than anyone else; when he stated that for a quarter of a century Stephen “more than any one man virtually governed the British Empire,” historians were naturally inclined to give credence to his words.

British Attitudes to the Colonies, ca. 1820-1850

1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. L. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Colonial Administration ◽  
Historical Writing ◽  
The People ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
Colonial Office

In an article in the Journal of British Studies in November 1965, Helen Taft Manning, referring particularly to the period 1830 to 1850, asked the question, “Who ran the British Empire?” She was especially concerned with the influence of the famous James Stephen, but her question raises matters of wider concern.“Patterns of historical writing are notoriously difficult to change,” she wrote.Much of what is still being written about colonial administration in the nineteenth-century British Empire rests on the partisan and even malicious writings of critics of the Government in England in the 1830s and '40s who had never seen the colonial correspondence and were unfamiliar with existing conditions in the distant colonies. The impression conveyed in most textbooks is that the Colonial Office after 1815 was a well-established bureaucracy concerned with the policies of the mother country in the overseas possessions, and that those policies changed very slowly and only under pressure. Initially Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Charles Buller were responsible for this Colonial Office legend, but it was soon accepted by most of the people who had business to transact there.This legend is still to be found, as Mrs. Manning says, in general textbooks, among the more important of the fairly recent ones being E. L. Woodward's Age of Reform, and more surprisingly in the second volume of the Cambridge History of the British Empire. Of course, Wakefield and the so-called colonial reformers are well recognized as propagandists.

A Study of Three Early Political Parties in Singapore, 1945–1955

1969 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeo Kim Wah
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Coalition Government ◽  
British Government ◽  
Executive Council ◽  
Legislative Council ◽  
The People ◽  
Universal Suffrage ◽  
The Government ◽  
Democratic Elections

Singapore became a distinct crown colony in 1946. Two years later the British Government began to introduce constitutional reforms in the island in accordance with its pledge in 1943 to foster the growth of “(Malaya's) capacity for self-government within the British Empire”. This colonial tutelage assumed two forms. Firstly, the government started to prepare for a fully elected legislature through which to transfer power to the people in the future. Secondly, the people were trained to work a system of democratic elections based on universal suffrage for all British and (after 1948) British Protected Subjects. The process, however, was fairly slow with the result that the governmental system of a normal crown colony remained basically intact in Singapore until 1955. Assisted by an advisory executive council and a legislative council, the governor continued to rule the colony with almost unlimited powers, subject only to the control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at Whitehall. The legislature did not even have an elected majority until the Rendel Constitution was introduced in April 1955. Under this new constitution, the Labour Front-Alliance coalition government became the first elected government to assume office with a considerable degree of power in its hands.

British Antarctic Policy in the Early 20th Century

Polar Record ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 21 (134) ◽  
pp. 475-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Land Surface ◽  
World War ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Colonial Office

World War I has often been said to mark the end of the ‘Age of Imperialism’—the close of ‘that final surge of land hunger’ (Landes 1969) from 1880 to 1914 when much of the world's land surface, especially in Africa and the Pacific, was acquired by the major powers. Britain's large share was demonstrated by the predominance of red on pre-1914 maps, though in fact the British Empire achieved its greatest area after 1918; ‘… including India’, reported the 1920 Colonial Office List, ‘the Empire now extends over 11 million of square miles, or 91 times the area of the Mother Country’ (Mercer 1920). This study examines one specific part of British imperial policy in the immediate post-war years—one which, had it been fully implemented, would have increased the area by a further 40 per cent. In the view of L. S. Amery, Under-Secretary of State at the Colonial Office and one of Britain's leading politicians of the time, it was desirable that:… the whole of the Antarctic should ultimately be included within the British Empire, and that, while the time has not yet arrived that a claim to all the continental territories should be put forward publicly, a definite and consistent policy should be followed of extending and asserting British control with the object of ultimately making it complete.

The Preface to the Second Part.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cadwallader Colden
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Fur Trade ◽  
The Other ◽  
The People ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
Indian Affairs ◽  
The Government

The former Part of this History was written at New-York in the Year 1727, on Occasion of a Dispute which then happened, between the Government of New-York and some Merchants. The French of Canada had the whole Fur Trade with the Western Indians in their Hands, and were supplied with their woollen Goods from New-York. Mr. Burnet, who took more Pains to be informed of the Interest of the People he was set over, and of making them useful to their Mother Country, than Plantation Governors usually do, took the Trouble of perusing all the Registers of the Indian Affairs on this Occasion. He from thence conceived of what Consequence the Fur Trade with the Western Indians was of to Great-Britain; that as the English had the Fur Trade to Hudson’s Bay given up to them, by the Treaty of Utrecht, so, by the Advantages which the Province of New-York has in its Situation, they might be able to draw the whole Fur Trade in the other Parts of America to themselves, and thereby the English engross that Trade, and the Manufactories depending on it....

Disraeli and the Millstones

1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley R. Stembridge
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
Crystal Palace ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
New Imperialism ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Financial Burdens ◽  
Manchester School

Of the countless addresses which assailed English eardrums in the nineteenth century, few are more widely remembered in the general histories of Britain and the British Empire than Benjamin Disraeli's celebrated speech at the Crystal Palace on June 24, 1872. There he made a profession of faith in the Empire which is still often said to have marked his conversion from the apathy of an earlier day when he had described the colonies as “a millstone round our necks.” The speech, moreover, is commonly regarded as the great signpost at the start of the highway to the “New Imperialism,” and it is usually credited with having furnished the Tories a popular banner which they subsequently carried into the political arena with outstanding success. The speech has been both praised as “the famous declaration from which the modern conception of the British Empire takes its rise” and condemned as an opportunistic effort to “dish the Whigs,” but friend and foe alike have accorded it a significance which it does not wholly deserve.For many decades historians have harked back to the middle years of the last century as the heyday of anti-imperialism in Britain. This was the period of “Little England,” when many of her leaders — especially the men of the Manchester School — looked with favor on the main doctrine of separatism: cut the colonies loose and let them set up shop for themselves so as to end the financial burdens borne by the mother country. The climax of this movement was supposed to have occurred about 1870, when a sudden imperialist tide swept away all separatist notions.

Models of Government and Anglo-Irish Relations

1988 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Ward
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Free State ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
The People ◽  
Lower House ◽  
Irish People ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
The Government

In 1922 the Irish Free State began life with a constitution which embodied two contradictory principles. The first recognized that all powers of government derive from the people and provided for a system of government in which the Irish Cabinet was clearly responsible to the popularly elected Irish lower house, Dail Eireann. The second recognized a monarch, King George V, as head of the Irish executive, with substantial prerogative powers derived not from the Irish people but from British common law. The constitution was a compromise between Britain and Irish republicans to end the Irish War of Independence. Though not every compromise in politics makes complete sense, for Britain this one represented more than a short-range expedient. Its contradictions represented the dying gasp in a long, often anguished, and ultimately futile attempt by Britain to devise a formula which would simultaneously permit the Irish a measure of self-government and protect vital British interests in Ireland.This essay will review the attempts to construct a satisfactory Anglo-Irish relationship in the years between 1782 and 1949. It will concentrate on four models of government proposed for Ireland: (a) the independent Irish Parliament of the period from 1782 to 1800, (b) O'Connell's proposals to repeal the union with Britain in the 1830s and 1840s, (c) the devolution proposed in the home rule bills of 1886, 1893, 1912, and the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, and (d) the independence provided in the Irish Free State constitution of 1922 and its successor, the Irish constitution of 1937. It will also place these models in the context of the constitutional evolution of the British Empire. In the Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, and South African colonies, colonial self-government and British imperial interests were reconciled, beginning in Nova Scotia in 1848, by using a kind of constitutional double-think involving the Crown and the colonial Governor. But the problem of the troubled Anglo-Irish relationship could not be resolved so easily.

scholarly journals Maketu’s Execution and the Extension of British Sovereignty in New Zealand

Te Kaharoa ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Moon
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Colonial Rule ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
History Of ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Colonial Office

The execution of a minor chief in 1842 in Auckland Prison for the crime of murder would normally be of little significance in the evolution of a nation’s statehood, unless it triggered some form or rebellion or even revolution.  The history of colonial rule in the British Empire in the nineteenth century contains many examples of murderers receiving capital punishment for their crime. However, the constitutional significance of the Governor’s determination to execute the criminal was of substantial, principally because it signified the Crown’s willingness – at this relatively early stage in Crown Colony Government in New Zealand – to extend its jurisdiction so that British law would apply to Maori communities.  Too often, it has been taken for granted that the Treaty of Waitangi asserted (initially in principle and gradually in practice) British sovereignty over Maori as well as Europeans in the country.  However, what the Maketu example illustrates is that the limits of British sovereignty in New Zealand prior to 1842 were confined exclusively to the non-Maori population, as had been the expectation of the Colonial Office in the two years leading up to the conclusion of the Treaty.

scholarly journals Faraizi Movement and Zamindars of Nineteenth Century Bengal: The Story of a Peasant Movement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurul Hossein Choudhury
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
Colonial Rule ◽  
Tenure System ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Restriction ◽  
Permanent Settlement ◽  
Land Tenure System ◽  
British Colonial ◽  
The Government

The British colonial rule in Bengal had a very ominous impact on the people of the region as a whole. The introduction of a new land tenure system, known as the Permanent Settlement, and the creation of an all-powerful zamindar class particularly affected the interests of the peasants of Bengal. Under the new system, the government demand on the zamindars was fixed in perpetuity, but there was no legal restriction on the zamindars to enhance their share from the peasants. The peasants, consequently, became vulnerable to irregular rent increases and oppressions by the zamindars. The Faraizi movement, organized initially in the nineteenth century to reform the Muslim society, soon assumed the character of agrarian movement. In order to protect the poor peasants, the Faraizis soon became radical and challenged the zamindars. As majority of the peasants of the region, where this movement was launched, were Muslims and their zamindars mostly Hindus, the Faraizis used Islamic symbols to mobilize the Muslim masses. Thus, religion and economy intertwined in shaping such a protest movement in pre-industrial Bengal.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document