Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:13:54.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Habit of Deference: The Imperial Factor and the “University Question“ in Upper Canada*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Fred D. Schneider
Fred D. Schneider*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Imperialism,” like “empire,” is a word with many connotations; briefly, it describes an attitude of mind to the possession and use of dependent territories by the metropolitan power and the effect of colonization on the society and polity of the colonized. Despite attempts to discover a common basis to imperialist thinking at all times in history, most historians perceive differences, both in degree and kind, between different empires and at various times in the history of a single empire. They approach their task either with a definition of “imperialism” or a theory about the phenomenon it is meant to describe, and are concerned primarily with the effects of policies rather than how and why they were made; or they ask why something happened when it did, in the way it did, and are concerned primarily with the making of policy and the motives of the policy-makers.

Following the second approach, this paper explores one of the most crucial and continuous questions that imperial administrators had to resolve: the problem of self-government in colonies of European settlement, leading to the ultimate transfer of power; and by looking at the “University Question” in Upper Canada during the half-century after 1791, it examines how the perpetual adjustment that was “policy-making” actually happened. More specifically, in answering the question, “Who ran the British Empire?”, it is concerned not so much with the effects of Britain's control over subject peoples as with the method by which it exercised that control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Fall 1977 , pp. 82 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1977

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.)

Footnotes

*

Professor A. P. Thornton, of the University of Toronto, has read and criticized this paper; he should not, of course, be held responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation.

References

1. The words “empire” and “imperialism” are analyzed by Koebner, Richard, Empire (Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar, and Koebner, Richard and Schmidt, Helmut Dan, Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a Political Word (Cambridge, 1964)Google Scholar. See also the essay by Fieldhouse, D. K., “‘Imperialism’: an historiographical revision,” Economic History Review, XIV (Dec., 1961), 187–209Google Scholar, and his subsequent Economics and Empire 1830-1914 (Ithaca, 1973)Google Scholar.

2. For example, by Strachey, John, The End of Empire (London, 1959)Google Scholar.

3. Asked by Manning, Helen Taft, “Who Ran the British Empire 1830-1850?” Journal of British Studies, V (Nov., 1956), 88–121Google Scholar, and, in an attempt to startle, by Martin, Ged, “Was There a British Empire?” Historical Journal, XV (1972), 562–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Schuyler, Robert Livingston, The Fall of the Old Colonial System: A Study in British Free Trade 1770-1870 (London, 1945), pp. 3, 30Google Scholar.

5. This is the approach of McNeill, William H., The Shape of European History (New York, 1974), pp. 30 ffGoogle Scholar.

6. Quoted by Harlow, Vincent T., The Founding of the Second British Empire 1763-1793 (London, 1952–1964), I, 441Google Scholar.

7. Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, VI (Aug., 1953), 3Google Scholar.

8. Bentham, Jeremy, A Fragment on Government and an Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. Harrison, Wilfrid (Oxford, 1948), p. 38Google Scholar.

9. Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution (Oxford, 1928), pp. 235 ff.Google Scholar

10. Thornton, A. P., The Habit of Authority: Paternalism in British History (Toronto, 1968), p. 13Google Scholar.

11. For example, and from different perspectives, by Shils, Edward, “Deference,” in Jackson, J. A. (ed.), Social Stratification (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 104–32Google Scholar, and Kavanagh, Dennis, “The Deferential English: a Comparative Critique,” Government and Opposition, VI (Summer, 1971), 333–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. The first view was propounded by Becker, Carl L., The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, 1932), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar; the second by Hayek, F. A., The Counter-Revolution of Science; Studies in the Abuse of Reason (Glencoe, 1952), pp. 54 ffGoogle Scholar. The argument is developed by Bramson, Leon, The Political Context of Sociology (Princeton, 1961), pp. 12 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. For an analysis from a different perspective, see Nisbet, Robert A., The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom (New York, 1953)Google Scholar.

14. Nisbet, Robert A., “Conservatism and Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology, LVIII (July, 1952), 167–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Weber, Max, Basic Concepts in Sociology (trans. Secher, H. P.) (New York, 1962), p. 117Google Scholar. For an application of Weber's model, see Vaughan, Michalina and Archer, Margaret Scotford, Social Conflict and Educational Change in England and France 1789-1848 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 16 ff., 31 ff.Google Scholar

16. Fox, Dixon Ryan, Ideas in Motion (New York, 1935), p. 6Google Scholar. For a critical analysis of this interpretation of “civilization in transit,” see Cremin, Lawrence A., American Education: the Colonial Experience, 1607-1783 (New York, 1970), pp. 206 ff.Google Scholar

17. This idea is propounded in Clive, John and Bailyn, Bernard, “England's Cultural Provinces: Scotland and America,” William and Mary Quarterly, XI (April, 1954), 200–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Grenville to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, 11 Feb. 1791, Harlow, Vincent and Madden, Frederick (eds.), British Colonial Developments 1774-1834, Select Documents (Oxford, 1953), pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar

19. Quoted by Neatby, Hilda, Quebec: the Revolutionary Age 1760-1791 (Toronto, 1966), pp. 191 ffGoogle Scholar.

20. Grenville to Dorchester, 20 Oct. 1789, quoted in Shortt, Adam and Doughty, Arthur G. (eds.), Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada 1759-1791 (Ottawa, 1918), II, 987 ff.Google Scholar

21. Parliamentary Register, XXVIII (4 Mar. 1791), 513Google Scholar.

22. Parliamentary Debates, 1st Series, XXXII (4 Mar. 1816), c. 1104Google Scholar.

23. The Times [London], 5 May 1828.

24. This has been explored in two articles by Manning, Helen Taft, “The Colonial Policy of the Whig Ministers, 1830-37,” Canadian Historical Review, XXXIII (Sep., Dec. 1952), 203-36, 341–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Colonial Crises Before the Cabinet, 1829-1835,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXX (May, 1957), 41–61Google Scholar; by Shaw, A. G. L., “British Attitudes to the Colonies, ca. 1820-1850,” Journal of British Studies, X (Nov., 1969), 71–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and by Burroughs, Peter, The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, 1828-1841 (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

25. Dorchester to Sydney, 20 Feb. 1786, Shortt, and Doughty, , Documents II, 811Google Scholar.

26. For an analysis of the collaborative mechanism, see Robinson, Ronald, “Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism: Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration,” in Owen, Roger and Sutcliffe, Bob (eds.), Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London, 1972), pp. 117–42Google Scholar. The “Family Compact” is described by GeraldCraig, M., Upper Canada: the Formative Years 1784-1841 (Toronto, 1963), pp. 106 ff.Google Scholar, which may be supplemented with Cross, Michael S., “The Age of Gentility: the Formation of an Aristocracy,” Canadian Historical Association Report (1967), pp. 105–17Google Scholar, and Burns, R. J., “God's Chosen People: the Origins of Toronto Society, 1793-1818,” Canadian Historical Association Papers (1973), pp. 213–28Google Scholar.

27. This image is analyzed by Wise, S. F., “God's Peculiar Peoples,” in Morton, W. L. (ed.), The Shield of Achilles: Aspects of Canada in the Victorian Age (Toronto, 1968), pp. 31–61Google Scholar. For Tory ideology, see the same author's “Conservatism and Political Development: the Canadian Case,” South Atlantic Quarterly, LXIX (Spring, 1970), 226–43Google Scholar.

28. Mackenzie to Neilson, 23 Mar. 1829, Mackenzie, William Lyon, Selected Writings, ed. Fairley, Margaret (Toronto, 1960), p. 285Google Scholar.

29. Influences on Mackenzie's Radicalism are described by Gates, Lillian F., “The Decided Policy of William Lyon Mackenzie,” Canadian Historical Review, XL (Sept., 1959), 185–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. PRO, Goderich to Colborne, 8 Nov. 1832, CO 43/43, pp. 390 ff.

31. Ibid. Goderich to Colborne, 16 Jan. 1833, pp. 471 ff.

32. The Courier, 1 May 1833.

33. PRO, Colbome to Hay, 8 May 1833, CO 42/414, fol. 335.

34. For a critical estimate of Simcoe's policies, see Craig, , Upper Canada, pp. 20 ffGoogle Scholar, which may be supplemented by Mealing, S. R., “The Enthusiasms of John Graves Simcoe,” Canadian Historical Association Report (1958), 50–62Google Scholar.

35. Simcoe to Dundas, 30 June 1791, in Simcoe, John Graves, The Correspondence of Lieut. Governor John Graves Simcoe …, ed. Cruikshank, E. A. (Toronto, 1923–1926) I, pp. 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

36. Ibid., Simcoe to Dundas, 12 Aug. 1792, p. 50.

37. Ibid., Dundas to Simcoe, 12 July 1792, p. 178.

38. For an examination of Strachan's views on education, see Purdy, J. D., “John Strachan's Educational Policies, 1815-1841,” Ontario History, LXIV (March, 1972), 45–64Google Scholar, and Masters, D. C., Protestant Church Colleges in Canada, a History (Toronto, 1966), Ch. 1Google Scholar.

39. Strachan to Wellesley, 1 Nov. 1812, in Strachan, John, The Strachan Letterbook 1812-1834, ed. Spragge, George W. (Toronto, 1946), pp. 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

40. Ibid., Strachan to Sherwood, 14 Feb. 1815, pp. 67 ff.

41. Ibid., Strachan to Brown, 1 Dec. 1818, p. 183.

42. “Report of the Executive Committee,” 7 Jan. 1819, Hodgins, J. George (ed.), Documentary History of Education in Upper Canada … (Toronto, 1894–1910), I, 151Google Scholar.

43. PRO, Bathurst to Maitland, 23 May 1819, CO 43/41, pp. 149 ff.

44. Maitland to CO, 19 Dec. 1825, in Hodgins, , Documents I, 205Google Scholar.

45. Proceedings in Council, 3 Feb. 1826, Doughty, Arthur G. and Story, Norah (eds.), Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada 1819-1828 (Ottawa, 1935), pp. 304 ffGoogle Scholar.

46. Strachan to Hillier, 13 June 1826, Firth, Edith G. (ed.), The Town of York, a Collection of Documents of Early Toronto (Toronto, 1962–1966), II, 156Google Scholar.

47. Strachan, John, An Appeal to the Friends of Religion and Literature in Behalf of the University of Upper Canada (London, 1827), pp. 12 ffGoogle Scholar.

48. Quoted in Strachan, John, Documents and Opinions, a Selection ed. Henderson, J. L. H. (Toronto, 1969), pp. 87 ffGoogle Scholar.

49. Sissons, C. B., Egerton Ryerson, His Life and Letters (Toronto, 1937–1947), I, 197Google Scholar.

50. Flint, David, William Lyon Mackenzie, Rebel Against Authority (Toronto, 1971), pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

51. Meeting at York, 10 Dec 1830, Hodgins, Documents, I, 318 ff.

52. Colonial Advocate, 14 Aug. 1828.

53. For Morris's role, see Neatby, Hilda, “Queen's College and the Scottish Fact,” Queen's Quarterly, LXXX (Spring, 1973), 1–11Google Scholar.

54. Proceedings of the Assembly, 20 Mar. 1829, Hodgins, , Documents I, 274Google Scholar.

55. PRO, George Ryerson to Goderich, 5 June 1831, CO 42/395, fols. 467 ff.

56. Public Archives of Ontario, Strachan to Mountain, 2 Dec. 1828, Strachan Letter Books.

57. Report, 22 July 1828, Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1828 (569), VII, 385 ffGoogle Scholar.

58. PRO, Murray to Colborne, 29 Sept. 1828, CO 43/42, pp. 278 ff.

59. PRO, Colborne to Hay, 31 Mar. 1829, CO 42/308, fols. 28 ff.

60. Strachan to Brown, 20 Oct. 1829, Strachan, Documents, p. 123Google Scholar.

61. PRO, Murray to Colborne, 1 Sept. 1829, CO 43/42, pp. 361 ff.

62. Christian Guardian, 1 Oct. 1833.

63. PRO, Goderich to Colborne, 2 Nov. 1831, CO 43/43, pp. 183 ff.

64. Public Archives of Ontario, Strachan to Cartwright, 2 Feb. 1832, Strachan Letter Books.

65. PRO, Meeting of King's College Council, 21 Mar. 1832, CO 42/411, fols. 168 ff.

66. PRO, Colborne to Hay, 7 Dec. 1831, CO 42/394, fols. 246 ff.

67. PRO, Colborne to Goderich, 2 Apr. 1832, CO 42/411, fols. 154 ff.

68. PRO, Memorandum, [17 June 1832], CO 217/154, fol. 87.