Empire Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820–1870

Abstract

The movement for imperial federation has traditionally been regarded as a late nineteenth century phenomenon, which grew out of a supposed reaction against earlier ‘anti-imperialism’. J. E. Tyler set out to trace its growth ‘from its first beginnings… in and around 1868’. Historians were aware of the suggestions made before the American War of Independence that the colonies should send M.P.s to Westminster, but tended to dismiss them as of antiquarian rather than historical interest. A few also noted apparently isolated discussions of some Empire federal connexion in the first half of the nineteenth century, but no attempt was made to establish the existence of a continuous sentiment before 1870. C. A. Bodelsen did no more than list a series of examples he had discovered in the supposed age of anti-imperialism. In fact between 1820 and 1870 a debate about the federal nature of the Empire can be traced. Like the movement for imperial federation after 1870, there was only the vaguest unity of aim about the mid-century projects, and before 1870, as after, the idea was never consistently to the fore, but enjoyed short bursts of popularity. It is, however, fair to think of one single movement for a federal Empire throughout the nineteenth century. There is a clear continuity in ideas, in arguments, and in the people involved. Ideas of Empire federalism were influential, not so much for themselves as for their relationship to overall imperial thinking: to ignore the undercurrent of feeling for a united Empire is to distort the attitudes of many leading men. In the mid-nineteenth century general principles of imperial parliamentary union were argued chiefly from the particular case of British North America, the closest colonies to Britain and the most constitutionally advanced. This Canadian emphasis strengthened the analogies with the United States which occurred in any case.

Shrinking planet, expanding imaginary: the imperial press system and the idea of Greater Britain

“…At least three versions of the idea existed, according to historian Ged Martin: a 'parliamentary' conception, involving colonial representation in the British Parliament; an 'extra-parliamentary' conception, comprised of modes of cooperation outside Parliament; and a 'supra-parliamentary' conception, connoting full imperial union where the British Parliament ceded supremacy to a larger governance structure. 34 It was this very indeterminacy that allowed Greater Britain to assuage the myriad fears described above while simultaneously appealing to thinkers across the political spectrum. Geopolitically, it was thought that a globe-spanning British nation, whether formed into a singular political union or a looser trade partnership, would allow Britain to rival great land states, such as America.…”

Ghosting history/historicizing the ghost: Time passage in T. C. Haliburton’sThe Old Judge

“…7 Moderate reformers resented unequal distribution of rights among the Crown’s subjects, yet desired not separation but a government similar to the government British people had in Britain (Bumsted, 2008: 54). 8 Joseph Howe himself ardently supported Empire federalism before and after 1848 (see Martin, 1973). Britain’s diminishing interest in promoting colonial trade and supporting colonial matters financially, alongside the deepening economic and social depression of the 1840s, resulted in the feeling of betrayal and general support for reform (Acheson, 2005).…”

The Second Reform Act and the Politics of Empire

“…It is hard to believe that the re-articulation of these arguments weighed very heavily with anyone in the reform debates; and in any case, considerably less attention was paid to the idea of imperial representation in the 1860s than had been the case in the 1830s and 1840s, or would be again in the 1870s. 61 So the empire did virtually nothing, either to apply, or to alleviate, pressure for reform.…”