Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-l9cl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T01:29:56.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Philosophic Radicals and Colonialism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Bernard Semmel
Bernard Semmel
Affiliation:
State University of New York—Long Island Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1948, in an address before this association, the late J. B. Brebner spoke of laissez-faire as a “myth,” describing it as a battle cry of the middle classes in their struggle with the landed aristocracy, and noting particularly that the philosophic Radicals—the Benthamites—were proponents not of laissez-faire, as they had been represented to be, but of a new bureaucratic collectivism. It is becoming clear that the reputed mid-Victorian policy of “anti-colonialism” is likewise a myth, as two Cambridge dons argued in an article in 1953, for England continued to extend her empire—both “formal” and “informal”—during the middle years of the nineteenth century. Was the policy which led to the extension of the empire in direct contradiction to the ideas of the men who had revealed the absurdities of the “Old Colonial System” in the bright beam of the new science of political economy and had brought about the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and of the Navigation Acts in 1849? Or is the “anti-colonialism” of Radical doctrine also a myth? I hope to show that Benthamite Radicals, far from being ideological opponents of colonialism, as they are usually depicted, were advocates of positive programs of empire, and, grounding their argument upon the new economic science, constructed and maintained a set of doctrines of which the keystone was the necessity of empire to an industrial England.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1961 , pp. 513 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Brebner, J. B., “Laissez-Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain,” The Tasks of Economic History, Supplement VIII of The Journal of Economic History, 1948, pp. 59–73Google Scholar.

2 Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R., “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, VI, No. 1 (1953), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 There are many works which uphold this position. See, for example, Schuyler, R. L., The Fall of the Old Colonial System (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1945)Google Scholar.

4 For descriptions of the land schemes, see , Wakefield'sA Letter From Sydney (London, 1829), andGoogle ScholarThe Art of Colonization (London, 1849)Google Scholar.

5 Wakefield papers. British Museum, 25, 261, Folio 20.

6 Marx, Karl, Capital (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1906), I, chap. XXXIIIGoogle Scholar.

7 See the notes to Wakefield's edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations (London, 1835), I, 223–41, 251–53, 390, 395Google Scholar.

8 England and America (New York, 1834), 23–30, 42, 47, 61–63, 68, 82–84, 93–130, 190–98, 224–31.Google Scholar(London edition published in 1833,)

9 See Bentham, J., “Emancipate Your Colonies! Addressed to the National Convention of France, Anno 1793,” (first published in 1829) in Bowring, J., ed., The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh, 1843), IV, 407–18.Google Scholar Yet Bentham's view upon the subject of colonies was a bit ambiguous, and he offered a most fertile subject for “conversion.” See “The True Alarm,” (1801) in Stark, W. (ed.), Bentham's Economic Writings (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954), III, 65–216; andGoogle Scholar “Institute of Political Economy,” (1801–04) in ibid., III, 309–80, especially pp. 352–55. Also Hutchison, T. W., “Bentham as an Economist,” Economic Journal, LXVI (june 1956), 288–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The British Museum's copy of an anonymous pamphlet by Wakefield, Sketch of a Proposal for Colonizing Australasia, &c. &c. &c. (n.p., n.d.), bears the inscription in Bentham's handwriting: “Jeremy Bentham/13 July 1829/Received From the unknown author/without accompanying Note.”

11 , Wakefield, England and America, note, p. 252Google Scholar.

12 Bentham papers. University College, London, Folder No. 8, dated 1831, pp. 149, 152, 161–91.

13 See Halévy, E., A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Peter Smith, 1950), III, 231–32Google Scholar.

14 See “New South Australian Colony,” Westminster Review (October 1834), XXIGoogle Scholar; “South Australian Colony,” Westminster Review (July 1835), XXIIIGoogle Scholar.

15 See [Wakefield, E. G.] The New British Province of South Australia (London, 1838), pp. 156–61;Google Scholar see also letter of Grote to John Lefevre, March 21, 1834, in Second Report from the Select Committee on South Australia, June 1841, 1841 (394), IV. 9, Appendix, p. 35Google Scholar.

16 Sidney's Emigrant Journal, I, No. 26 (March 29, 1849), 202Google Scholar.

17 Parliamentary Debates (P.D.), House of Commons. 3rd Series. April 6, 1843, LXVIII, 486, 488, 491, 495, 499Google Scholar.

18 P.D., Commons, March 16, 1837, XXXVII, 597–601.

19 P.O., Commons, March 15, 1838, XLI, 928–32.

20 For Ward, see P.D., Commons, June 25, 1839, XLVIII, 842–68; also P.D., Commons, June 13, 1843, LXIX, 1496–1504. For the Spectator, see “Emigration and Its Fraudulent Detractor,” Spectator, XIV, No. 702 (December 11, 1841), 1188–89Google Scholar.

21 See letter of Cobden to Bright, October 1, 1851, quoted in Morley, John, The Life of Richard Cobden (London: Fisher Unwin, 1905), p. 561Google Scholar.

22 P.D., Commons, June 26, 1849, CVI, 940.

23 Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), 727–28, 738–39, 741–42, 746, 748, 749. The first edition appeared in 1848Google Scholar.

24 See List, F., The National System of Political Economy (New York, 1904)Google Scholar; Carey, H. C., Principles of Social Science (Philadelphia, 1858)Google Scholar; The Way to Outdo England Without Fighting Her (Philadelphia, 1865)Google Scholar.

25 Roebuck, J. A., The Colonies of England (London, 1849), p. 153Google Scholar.

26 See Torrens, R., The Budget (London, 1844); see alsoGoogle ScholarRobbins, L., Robert Torrens and the Evolution of Classical Economics (London: Macmillan, 1958), chap. VIIGoogle Scholar.

27 , Wakefield, England and America, pp. 150–89Google Scholar.

28 P.D., Commons, April 8, 1840, LIII, 781–90 (Buller); 824–30 (Ward); July 27, 1840, LV, 1051–52 (Hume).

29 P.D., Commons, March 5, 1849, CIII, 168; April 24, 1849, CIV, 752–53.

30 P.D., Commons, June 17, 1845, LXXXI, 665–726; July 21, 1845, LXXXII, 807 ff; July 23, 1845, 970–1011; July 30, 1845, 1239.

31 Semmel, B., Imperialism and Social Reform (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1960), chaps. III, VII, VIIIGoogle Scholar.