The Tory View of America

Generally speaking, in the early nineteenth century, the Tories argued against domestic reform. Their conservatism coloured articles relating to America in the

Quarterly Review, the most important organ of conservative opinion at that time.¹ Their views of America were generally critical, as they feared that the introduction of

democratic or popular government into Britain would destroy the established order of British society and thereby infringe their class interests. They eagerly attempted to expose the faults of America, and in turn advocated the existing British system.²

With regard to political reform, the Tories denied the applicability of the American system to Britain, emphasizing the differences between American and British social conditions. In the debates on the first Reform Bill, Robert Peel stated that, while Britain attempted to introduce foreign electoral systems, ‘In France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Belgium, the utmost efforts have been exhausted to establish a form of government like ours – to adjust the nice balance between the conflicting elements of royal, aristocratical, and popular power – to secure the inestimable blessings of limited monarchy and

temperate freedom.’ Even though America might have succeeded in introducing popular government, it did not mean that it would be safe to make the British government more popular than it was. He went on to claim: ‘the circumstances of the two countries are so totally different, that no inference could be drawn from the success of such a form of government in the United States, in favour of the application of its principles to this country.’³ In his view, the suitability of government for a society depended on its circumstances, and, accordingly, that American governmental devices, such as the secret ballot and universal suffrage, could not be effectively introduced into Britain.

Several Tory-biased books on America were published in the late 1820s and early 1830s. These included Basil Hall’s Travels in North America in the Years 1827 and 1828 (1829), Frances Trollope’s Domestic Manners of the Americans (1832), and

1 E.g. P. James and J. Barrow, ‘Gass’s Voyages and Travels’, Quarterly Review, 1 (1809); R. Southey,

‘History and Present State of America’, ibid., 2 (1809); J. Barrow, ‘America’, ibid., 7 (1812); J. Barrow,

‘Inchiquins’s United States’, ibid., 10 (1814); R. Southey, ‘Lewis and Clarke’s American Travels’, ibid., 12 (1815); J. Barrow, ‘Humboldt’s American Researches’, ibid., 15 (1816); J. Barrow and W. Gifford,

‘Birkbeck’s Notes on America’, ibid., 19 (1818); and J. Barrow ‘Fearon’s Sketches of America’, ibid., 21 (1819).

2 D. P. Crook points out that conservative disapproval of America was not only from a political, but also from a cultural and economic point of view. See Crook (1965) 97-8.

3 Hansard, 3rd ser., ii, 1351-2. (3 March 1831)

Thomas Hamilton’s Men and Manners in America (1833). Thanks in part to their cutting style and entertaining content, these works created a furore and helped to disseminate conservative views not only in Britain but also on the Continent.⁴

Subsequently, they became points of reference for those attempting to give an account of America. This may be the reason why Mill’s article on America of 1836 was published in the form of a critical review of these Tory works.

Among Tory writers, Thomas Hamilton offered one of the most important

arguments against popular government.⁵ He stated that, although it was the fashion ‘to call the United States the land of liberty and equality’,⁶ the Americans did not actually believe in the idea that all men were equal, an idea from which they derived the

philosophical justification for their political and social institutions. Furthermore,

Hamilton stated that the importance of landed property had been overlooked in America, because property in the form of land was, thanks to the vast expanse of the West,

available to everyone for the moment. But such resources would be exhausted in the future, and then America’s circumstances would become similar to those of Britain, where the majority of the people were without property of any kind, and then there would be ‘the great struggle between property and numbers; on the one side hunger, rapacity, and physical power; reason, justice, and helplessness on the other’.⁷ If Britain, following the American experience, abandoned her own established institutions and introduced popular government based on a fallible philosophy, she would become corrupt like America.⁸

Hamilton’s attack was directed against American governmental devices such as representation and the presidency: ‘The institutions of the United States afford the

4 Hall’s book was translated into French, and Hamilton’s into German and French. Trollope’s work had run through four editions by 1832 and a fifth edition was published in 1839.

5 Crook (1965) 113. He was brother of William Hamilton, whom Mill later criticized in Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (1865).

6 Hamilton (1833) i, 109.

7 Ibid., i, 309-10.

8 Ibid., i, 243, 309-10. See also Crook (1965) 113-6. Even when he referred favourably to America, Hamilton did so with reservations. For instance, in his praise for the American free school system, he never failed to point out that such a good institution could also be found in his home country of Scotland, and to emphasize that the Scottish example came before that of America. (Hamilton (1833) i, 85, 225-9.)

purest specimen the world has yet seen, of a representative government; of an executive, where duties are those of mere passive agency; of a legislature, which serves but as the vocal organ of the sole and real dictator, the people.’⁹ The policies of each President were inevitably directed towards his re-election, and were in accord with the passions or prejudices of the numerical majority of the people.¹⁰

A characteristic of Hamilton’s work was that he pointed out the similarities between America and Britain. He paid considerable attention to the similarities between their commercial circumstances. He asserted that what had been called equality in America was seen even in Britain: ‘On the whole, the difference is not striking, I should imagine, between the social habits of the people of New York, and those prevalent in our

first-rate mercantile cities. In both, the faculties are exerted in the same pursuits; in both, the dominant aristocracy is that of wealth; and in both, there is the same grasping at unsubstantial and unacknowledged distinctions.’¹¹ In order to understand Mill’s argument on America in its historical context, it is important to note Hamilton’s focus on the affinities between the two nations. Such a perspective had been given little emphasis by preceding writers, while philosophical writers after Hamilton, including Tocqueville and Mill, laid great stress on the similarities between American and European society.