SIR HUGH CLIFFORD AND IMPERIALISM: A PERSPECTIVE by

ANDREW RUDYERD WYNN-WILLIAMS

B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1989

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of History)

We accept this thesis •as confrming o the requir standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1993 copyright Andrew Rudyerd Wynn-Williams, 1993

DE-6

(2/88)

Vancouver,

The

Dat

Department

department

publication

permission. freely

copying

degree

In

presenting

University

available

at

of

Canada

the

of

of

this

or

of

this

this for

______

University

by

thesis

British

reference

thesis

thesis

his

for

?

Columbia

or

of

for

in

scholarly

her

and

British

partial

/R

financial

representatives.

study.

Columbia,

fulfilment

purposes

gain

I

further

shall

of

I

may

agree

not

It

agree

the

be

is

be

requirements

that

granted

understood

that

allowed

the

permission

by

Library

without

the

that

for

shall

for

an

head

copying

my

advanced

extensive

make

written

of

my

or it ABSTRACT

SirHugh Clifford was a BritishImperial official who was born in 1866 and died in 1941. This paper aftempts to understand Clifford and his perception of imperialism. Firstit examines his life and career to provide a framework for understanding his views. Then it uses Clifford’s own published material to study his opinions about three different aspects of imperialism: the history of European expansion, the benefits the Empire provides for its subject peoples and the racial hierarchy of the British Empire. Clifford worked throughout his career to protect his subjects’ rights and look after their well-being yet tried to prevent them from acquiring real political power. Clifford’s wriften work explains this paternalistic affitude. It reveals that although he knew the Empire was driven by economics and that its history was not entirely glorious he felt it was vindicated if governed by the altruistic principles which the less developed races could not yet comprehend.

Page-u TABLEOF CONTENTS

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

Acknowledgements iv Dedication v

INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter One Biography 5

Chapter Two A Perception of History 21

Chapter Three Imperial Duly 31 Chapter Four Racism 44 CONCLUSION 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page - iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Iwould like to acknowledge the invaluable support of Dr. L.E. Hill.Without his help, advice, and rigorous editing this paper would never have been completed.

Page-iv To my parents for their unflagging support

To my Aunt, Margaret Rogers, for her unassailable confidence in my abilities.

Mostly to Vera for her love and her ectraordinary patience.

Page-v INTRODUCTION

SirHugh Clifford was an important BritishImperial official. Hiscareer began in the early 1880s and ended in the late 1920s. Throughout this period there was a great evolution in world wide aft itudes toward Imperialism, human rights and race relations. Clifford served through these changes and as a prolific writer he clearly expressed his opinions about these issues. Many officials of the BritishEmpire published material. Such publications included editorials, cultural studies, and fiction. None, however, equalled Clifford in either variety or volume and so he provides an unusual opportunity to understand a colonial official.

Clifford’swritings fall into three categories. The firstisthat of official papers. Thisincludes his government journals and colonial reports. Clifford demonstrates in them a passion for detail which makes these writings more interesting than most official documents. Aside from the obvious benefits of using government documents as primary sources, one gains a wide and detailed picture of political operations. Clifford’s °Journal of a

Missionto Pahang from his firstofficial assignment isan excellent example. Essays make up a second grouping of Clifford’swork. He discusses everything from local geography, as in the article “TheEast Coast, to Malayan customs, as in The People of the East Coast”.(l) He also wrote numerous speeches during his career. These were intended to inform a woefully ignorant public about Malaya. “Thegeographical knowledge of the average Englishman. ... must, ... be somewhat vague”.(2) Some of this work is of a decidedly editorial nature. The article A Lesson from the Malay States” and the book The German Colonies: A Plea For The Native Races are excellent examples. These papers, wriften to educate the Page-i general public about the Empire and its moral obligations, provide pertinent information about the Empire, and about Clifford himself.

Another category of Clifford’swriting isfiction, almost all wriften about Malaya. Hislater fiction relied upon romanticized memories of his favorite land but stillprovides insight into Clifford’s character. Many of his earlier stories are thinly disguised autobiography and directly correlate to historical events. The obvious example is At the court of Pelesu”.(3) It is recognizable as an episode in his life described in Linehan’s “AHistoryof Pahang”.(4) Added to these are stories and legends related to him by Malay friends. These tend to be less reliable as sources and Clifford does not hesitate to pass judgement upon them. Bythe same token, however, he felt they had some purpose as they demonstrated a slice of Malay life:

The tales and sketches of which this book iscomposed have a very definate object underlying their apparent lightness. To some ectent, it must be confessed, they wear the garb of fiction; but none the less, they are studies of things as they are, -drawn from life.(5)

It isin this light that these stories must be examined as they provide a glimpse of what Clifford was trying to show his readers, and what he thought of Malays and their customs. Clifford was an interested and intelligent observer whose portraits of life, politics and geography provide the reader with a vivid picture of the past. Hisnon-fiction work was criticized by contemporaries for being too colorful. SirRichard Winstedt, another colonial official turned writer, felt he was inclined to paint the emotional life of the Malay through his own ardent temperament.’(ó) Hisfiction was also criticized but for not being imaginative enough. In a critique of one of Clifford’s earlier works (before the two met and became friends), Joseph Conrad said “thisbook is only truth, interesting and futile, simple and straightforward.”(7) These criticisms

Page-2 of Clifford’swork state two reasons why Clifford isso useful as a historical source. He provides enthusiastic and detailed views of life, culture and politics in the BritishEmpire and he clearly delineates his own opinions. The complex and varied nature of Clifford’swork dictates the nature of this study. A simple summary or overview of his wriften material can not

provide a full understanding of his ideals. A biography of Clifford isuseful but only allows for speculation about his beliefs. The ideal way to

understand Clifford isto combine a biography with a series of essays analyzing his views on separate topics. Thiscalls for a paper that is divided into four parts.

Firstit is necessary to examine Clifford’s life. A biography not only demonstrates his importance within the Empire but shows both his qualities

and his flaws. Thisclarifies the opinions expressed in his wriften work. The second part of this study examines Clifford’s perception of history. This reveals much about his aftitudes toward European Imperialism. The third section examines Clifford’sbeliefs about duty. Thisanalysis of what he thought a colonial administrator should provide for those under his care willshow how Clifford regarded human rights. The final section of this thesis willindicate how Clifford regarded the subject races of Empire and reveal to what extent he believed them to be inherently inferior. Thisseries of analyses willfacilitate a clear understanding of how Clifford viewed the Empire in a period of change.

Page-3 ENDNQTES

1. Both in SirHugh Clifford, In Court and Kampong, (London: Grant Richards, 1897a).

2. SirHugh Clifford, A Journey Through the Malay States of Trengganu and Kelantanu in The Geographical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, (London: The Royal Geographic Society, 1897b), p. 1.

3. In SirHugh Clifford, In a Corner of Asia, (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1899a).

4. William Linehan, ATMHistory of Pahang” in Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 14, Pt. 2, (Singapore: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1936), pp. 120-121. 5. SirHugh Clifford, Studies in Brown Humanity, (London: Grant Richards, 1898), p. vii. 6. SirRichard Winstedt, Malaya and Its History, (London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1923), p. 151. 7. Joseph Conrad, Notes on Lifeand Leffers, (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1921), p. 60.

Page-4 PARTI-ABIOGRAPHY A brief examination of Clifford’slife and career can help us to understand him. Itwillshow how he acquired many of his personal beliefs and how they affected his decisions as a colonial official. Itwillalso show whether or not he was an effective administrator. Examining how Clifford acquired his beliefs and how they affected his career willprovide a basis for understanding the beliefs themselves. Clifford was born to a younger son of a celebrated and wealthy landed Catholic family in 1866. Brought up in this environment he was imbued with the sense of responsibility many of the Britisharistocracy felt toward those they saw as inferiors beholden to them. Thisalmost certainly contributed to his ability as a ruler. Because of his religion he was initially educated privately at home by Msgr. WilliamJoseph and later at a Catholic school called Woburn Park. Clifford was offered a cadetship at

Sandhurst MilitaryCollege but his father had recently died so it is unlikely the family had sufficient funds to purchase a commission.(1) Hence in 1883 at age seventeen he went to Malaya to join the civil service. Using a family connection(2) with SirFrederick Weld, Governor of the Straits

Seftiements, Clifford gained a position in the Malayan CivilService. After a short period of acclimation he was posted as secretary to Hugh Low, Resident of Perak. The importance of this posting cannot be underestimated. Hugh Low was an gold hand’ who had been in the area for a long time. He knew the Malays well, spoke their language, and they respected him. More importantly he enjoyed his rule and wanted to do what was right for the subjects of his state, Clifford was not only young but also impressionable, thus ready to assimilate Lows experience and values. It Page-5 was under Low that Clifford learned the Malay language and acquired his lifelong fascination with Malay culture. Clifford recognized the importance of his relationship to Low as he alludes to an informal

‘education in Eastern lore (received) from the older men’.(3) Thisindicates that the respect for Malays and other native peoples evident in Clifford’s work and the obligations he felt to them as their ruler began to grow while working under Low,

In January 1887 Weld assigned the twenty-one year old Clifford to a task that affected the rest of his life. He was to travel to the troubled eastern state of Pahang which bordered on the ‘protected’ Malay states and convince its ruling Rajah to accept British‘protection”. Protection meant Britishofficials under a Resident would control the civil service, collect taxes, and handle foreign relations on behalf of the local Rajah who would have to submit to any laws laid out in the treaty. Thiswould create a more stable atmosphere for commerce and increase the state’s revenue, which was to be used in local projects. Thisbenefit was liffle consolation to the Malay rulers who forfeited any real power they might have held, The Rajah of Pahang was a fiercely independent man who had already resisted several previous aftempts to bribe or coerce him into accepting a protection treaty. The task presented to young Clifford was thus a monumental one and Weld ‘had been rather severely criticized for having had the boldness to entrust a special mission of some delicacy and difficulty to so young a man.’(4)

Clifford was in the state for four months and engaged in ectensive negotiations. Hismission to the uncooperative ruler would have been futile but the influential Rajah from the neighboring state of Johore intervened on Clifford’sbehalf. As a result his mission was partially Page-6 successful. He persuaded the Rajah of Pahang to sign a treaty(5) but not

one that called for a fullstatus Resident. It instead called for a local British Agent, a post to which Clifford was immediately appointed. The post of Political Agent was an unusual and possibly dangerous one. ‘The powers of the BritishAgent at Pekan however were not exterisive.’(ó) He had to protect the interests of Britain and her citizens from the excesses of local potentates who perceived themselves as a law unto themselves. Conflict would inevitably arise between the Rajah who believed certain privileges accompanied rule and the Agent who believed a ruler should be subject to his own laws. An Agent’s position was especially tenuous because in any conflict he was unsupported by military force. In Clifford’swords an Agent was to see fair’ in places where fair dealing formed no essential part of the local polity and ‘ifany native potentate were so imprudent as to mistake their loneliness for impotence, Great Britain occasionally moved one ponderous step forward over their mutilated remains,’(7) A Political Agent was to find an excuse for intervention and as a result his own death often became that excuse. Clifford held this lonely post until the end of 1888 and so for two years his companionship was limited to Malays. He later expressed how

important this period was to the development of his personal opinions:

Iwas thus afforded an insight ... of the.eccentricities and

excesses of unfeffered native rule. ... Iemerged from the experience possessed of a very intimate knowledge of the people, of their modes of thought and outlook upon life, and imbued with a deep sympathy and affection for them. Looking back upon those days Ireckon them as among the happiest and most interesting of my life; but.. .(they made)... me a firm believer in the necessily for the intervention of Great Britain.(8)

Page-7 Intervention became a reality at the end of Clifford’stenure as agent. A conflict arose over the rights of a Britishcitizen enabling the Britishto force a protection treaty upon Pahang. ThisBritishcitizen was a gentleman of Chinese descent who had been born in Singapore. Thistenuous claim to citizenship was reason enough for him to appeal to Clifford. Pahang was thus ushered into the Britishempire as a full protectorate at the end of 1888. Clifford at age Iwenty-three was considered too inexperienced to become Resident and so a more senior man was named to the post. After a leave due to illness Clifford returned to Pahang and continued to serve in various capacities. A colonial civil servant had a greater variety of tasks than an official in a larger departmental bureaucracy. Clifford fought rebellions, helped to change farming systems, judged legal cases and collected taxes.(9) He worked continuously and closely with the natives until he next took leave in 1895.

During this seven month leave he married Minna a Beckeff. This marriage produced three children and appeared to thrive despite the absences necessitated by Clifford’scareer. The marriage had an importance beyond providing Clifford with a family. ‘Minna had come from a literary family and was a great support for her husband who was only then beginning to write of his adventures.”(lO) The marriage and the 1895 leave were undoubtedly spurs to Clifford’s literary career as his works began to appear not much later, Considering how busy his duties kept him he was to write prolifically for the next fifteen years leaving an extensive body of work.

Clifford returned in 1896 to take up the post of Resident. Hisduties as Resident were similar to those he performed previously but on a greater Page-8 scale. He held this position for three years and again briefly in 190L Altogether Clifford spent nearly fifteen years in Pahang and saw great change and development. He watched as roads and railway systems grew and the state apparatus became more modernized. He was the primary figure in changing a debt-ridden, poverty-stricken, anarchic territory into a relatively modern and economically viable state. ‘.. .The work of Hugh Clifford in Pahang. . .achieved results almost as remarkable as those of Hugh Low in Perak.’(l 1)

In 1899 Clifford briefly left Pahang to accept the post of Governor of

Labuan and North Borneo. Thiswas a similar position to Resident but in a colony administered by a private company rather than the crown. This was a riskycareer move for Clifford but as his family was growing he was tempted by a higher salary.(12) After some initial success Clifford resigned the post after only eight months. He disagreed with the company’s policies and felt they were exploiting the natives. ‘The aft itude of the

Directors in London provoked Clifford to tender his resignation.’(l 3) It would not be the last time Clifford would struggle to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples against the wishes of powerful Englishmen. This added to his reputation rather than inhibiting his career. After his resignation Clifford made his brief 1901 return to Pahang. He was assigned to escort a Malay sultan to the 1901 Coronation of King

Edward VII. On this trip Clifford fell seriously ill. It became apparent that he had been poisoned by an unknown Malay enemy. During a long convalescence Clifford’swriting career truly blossomed. He had already published some works and had become friendly with Joseph Conrad. But Clifford was a very energetic man and the ectended period of inactivity necessitated by his illness drove him to occupy himself by writing more Page-9 and more. Upon his return to duty in 1903, he acquiesced to a Colonial Office request to stop writing but admitted that much of his completed work was stillto be published.(14) Although he did not stop writing altogether his production was greatly reduced by the demands of his colonial vocation. Much of the material written during his convalescence demonstrates Clifford’slove for Malaya. Thus it is easy to understand his dissatisfaction when in 1903 he was assigned not to Malaya but to Trinidad and Tobago. Inthis colony the inability of the Governor to deal with the growing political awareness of various cultural groups had led to riots. As the most respected man available Clifford was sent to be Colonial

Secretary and act as Governor until the more experienced SirHenry

Jackson could be relieved of his current post. Jackson arrived in 1904 but Clifford remained Colonial Secretary until 1907. Clifford’ssolution to the political problem reflected the attitude he was to demonstrate throughout his career. He felt the composition of the advisory councils should be adjusted to provide the various races more equal representation, lessening the influence of the white population.(15) Although these changes were favorable to the natives they were ones of structure rather than principle. Clifford continued to advocate, as he did throughout his career, appointed rather than elected representation. He wanted to keep power out of the hands of an ambitious, educated, local elite who he felt would take advantage of their compatriots in a way a Britishgovernor would not. Thisdemonstrates his paternalistic attitude toward the indigenous peoples of Empire. Itwas an attitude that made him the subject of a certain amount of criticism by the colony’s activists. Clifford, however, could openly disagree with most individuals and yet

Page- 10 remain on friendly terms with them.’(16) As a result he was stillrespected by the vast majority of the community despite the criticism.

In 1907 Clifford became Colonial Secretary in Ceylon.(17) Although the job title was the same this was actually a promotion involving a large

increase in both pay and prestige. In a similar political situation to that in Trinidad, educated elites of the various cultural groups were petitioning for

elected representatives and greater power. Clifford was instrumental in constructing a paternalisitic compromise. Thiscompromise was not

effective as three years after Clifford’sdeparture it led to riots. Clifford worked hard, however, and despite his disagreements with indigenous

political leaders he was not unpopular. Hisdeparture triggered praise

from all the Ceylonese newspapers. Even those ... which had generally been critics of his position ran long articles praising him for his honesty,

hard work, and dedication.u(18) Hisability to deal diplomatically with

difficult issues was adding to his reputation and showing “hisability as a problem solver.”(19)

These aft ributes of Clifford’swere rewarded with his first Governorship in The Gold Coast in 1912. Despite the World War which

interfered with funding and cut available manpower Clifford stillhad some success solving problems caused by the short-sighted policies of previous administrations.(20) Once again he worked on behalf of the indigenous population: increasing native representation on the advisory councils and struggling to protect indigenous cocoa planters from schemes that revolved around alienation of large tracts of land. He was also instrumental in puffing together the Gold Coast Regiment and later wrote praising their exploits. Clifford’s paternalism was once again apparent. He wanted to increase native representation on the council not to Page-il maximize their input but because “Through them the government could explain its policies to the people.”(21) He also tended to side with the traditional chiefs against the newly educated people who were vying for power. He seemed to feel they did not quite know their place. He did, however, deal with these various problems with minimum friction which added to his reputation and earned him a promotion in 1919. Clifford’s successes throughout this period were all the more remarkable because they seemed unaffected by his turbulent personal life. Just before Clifford left Trinidad his wife was killed in a bizarre pony accident. That he wrote almost nothing of this incident is testimony to how much it affected him. He found happiness again in 1910 when he married Mrs. Henry de Ia Pasture, another literary figure. The marriage was a long and pleasant one and she gave up her successful writing career to follow Clifford to all his posts. Clifford was again struck by tragedy when his brother and only son were killed in World War I. Clifford responded to these personal disasters by working even harder.(22) Thiswas how he dealt with adversity; rather than lefting it affect his duties he used his work to forget. Unfortunately Clifford demonstrated a propensity for overwork throughout his career and these personal difficulties aggravated that problem. Clifford’s 1919 promotion gave him the prestigious post of Governor of Nigeria. Thiswas to be the highlight of his career. Due to the mismanagement of Clifford’s predecessor, SirFrederick Lugard, Nigeria was in a very difficult situation.(23) Lugard had aftempted to control personally the entire bureaucracy and thus all of the reins of power ran directly to his office. Thisovercentralization created a slow and inefficient system. It also led to the amalgamation of diverse groups of indigenous

Page- 12 peoples, and caused unequal taxation that drew wealth out of the North.

When World War Ibegan, the Nigerian administration was financially and organizationally unprepared to deal with the greater stress put on the system. The lower level officials, already impotent and demoralized became overworked. Natives who had tired of the increased taxation rioted or even rebelled at Abeokuta. That Clifford was promoted into

such a cauldron of discontent was testimony to his reputation in the Colonial Office. “Cliffordwas perhaps the strongest card the Colonial Office could have played.”(24)

Firsthe tackled the administration which was “speedily reduced to order by organizational changes, including clearer lines of delegation and division of functions, and the creation of efficient secretariat

machinery.’(25) He did his best to alleviate tensions in the service by improving living conditions, affacking health problems, trying to increase pay, allowing members of the civil service more freedom of action, and increasing the duration of postings. He also addressed concerns of the indigenous peoples. He fought the Colonial Office on issues such as the unfair taxation and the inefficient centralization. He brought Africans into the Britishsystem. “AtClifford’sinsistence ... heads of departments had repeatedly examined their cadres with a view to the substitution of Africans for Europeans.”(26) Perhaps his most important and notable effort on behalf of the Africans was when he blocked Lord Leverhulme’s affempt to create large plantations. Thisled to a heated public debate throughout which “Clifford’sposition was unequivocally in defence of the right of the African to pursue his lifestyle.”(27) Clifford’s Governorship of Nigeria was an undoubted success. Beyond the evidence of economic and financial improvement there are

Page- 13 testimonials of his closest aides Donald Cameron and Alan Burnes, well

recognized imperial officials in their own rights.(28) Thissuccess was not without cost. The situation in Nigeria drove Clifford to work harder than he had in the past. The long hours, stressful duties, and brutal Lagos climate put Clifford near the edge of a physical breakdown and he began to

show signs of erratic behavior.(29) Hiscondition was aggravated when the Prince of Wales came to visit. Clifford, who was already overdue for

leave, stayed on to organize a tour. Bythe end of the visit he was such a wreck that the Prince of Wales privately recommended a long leave to the Colonial Office.(30) Clifford did get some leave but this was shorter than advised as he had already agreed to begin as Governor of Ceylon

in 1925. It later became apparent that he should have retired. During Clifford’ssecond posting to Ceylon he began to become anachronistic. For the firsttime in his career he was not an autocrat. The constitution of Ceylon had changed since his previous visit, reducing the position of Governor to one of influence rather than one of control. KCliffordwas not silent in his criticisms of what he considered a faulty system’(31), as, in keeping with his paternalistic outlook, he believed the governor should have more power. Although Clifford could have either officially or unofficially used his post to exercise power he demonstrated his personal integrity by attempting to work within the spirit of the system, remaining primarily an advisor. As a result little was accomplished during his tenure but there was little conflict beiween Clifford and his councils. Clifford’shealth improved after his arrival. Although he appeared older than his sixtyyears he remained vigorous and active, even learning to fly. Thus when a position opened up in Malaya he was healthy enough to grasp the opportunity to return to the land where his career began.

Page- 14 Hisfinal promotion came in 1927 and returned him to Malaya as Governor of the Straits Settlements and High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States, now a unified post. Thiswas Clifford’sswansong and, although mostly a pleasant one, it was no sinecure. He helped to restore a sense of pride and unity to a Malayan CivilService that had been marred by internal bickering. He soothed tensions amongst the Rajas and once again stood up for the natives disputing with London ‘the question of military contributions.’(32) Hisgovernorship was a ‘lullbetween two storms.. .a high point in the service’s esprit de corps’.(33) Unfortunately Clifford’stypically heav,’ work load once again began to tell upon him. He was also troubled by the changes twenty seven years had wrought upon Malaya. He was, even more than in Ceylon, anachronistic and out of place. Malaya had achieved much of the modernization that

Clifford thought the Empire stood for but he stillmissed the pioneering days of his youth, the spirit and optimism of expansion. These problems were to take their toll and be contributing factors in ending Clifford’s career.

The final tragedy of his life brought about the end of his career when he fell prey to a ‘cyclical insanity’(34) and retired in 1929 less than two years after he took up the post. The nature of this illness isnot clear.

‘Some say it was the agony he experienced in trying to reconcile modern

Malaya with the land of his bushwacking days.’(35) Thisisa wonderfully romantic hypothesis but it seems more likelythat constant smoking, overwork in the tropics for more than forty years and the stress of dealing with an empire changing to reduce his power and his prestige led to either a nervous breakdown or a stroke. Despite his apparent health in

Ceylon, he had never completely recovered from being run down in

Page- 15 Nigeria. Clifford retired and, sadly, never completely regained his faculties, He had a second breakdown in 1930 and spent the rest of his life in a home. He died in 1941 at age 75. Since the 1960s Clifford’s contribution to Empire has become recognized, some of his works have been republished and scholars have wriften about him. During his career, however, Clifford was never a popular figure. Thiswas partially because he was overshadowed by his contemporaries. In Malaya SirFrank Sweftenham drew all of the aftention. On the Gold Coast Clifford was immediately followed by the brilliant Guggisberg(36) who took Clifford’s solid economic foundation to new heights. His most extraordinary achievements in Nigeria had always been played down to protect the reputation of Lugard, one of the heroes of Empire. Despite this lack of notoriety Clifford had, at one time, been considered as a candidate for Viceroy of India. He had also been knighted in several orders culminating in 1925 with the GBE, the highest order of the BritishEmpire. Thus the success of his career and his reputation in the Colonial Office can not be disputed. Another reason for Clifford’s lack of public recognition was that he never wrote about his own life. Nicholson said of Clifford’s life story that ‘It is a great pity ... that he was unable to write it himself in peaceful retirement; it was lived intensely, on the heroic scale.”(37) Throughout his life he demonstrated a belief in the rights of the natives and a willingness to stand up for these rights against great opposition. He also demonstrated the paternalistic belief that only a Britishadministrator, not a native ruler could provide and then protect all these rights. Clifford’s literary career is important because he wrote candidly about these issues.

Page-la It enables an understanding of Clifford despite the lack of an autobiography.

Page- 17 ENDNOTES

1. Harry A. Gailey, Clifford, Imperial Proconsul, (London: Rex Collins, 1982), p.8. 2. Thiswas not an unusual arrangement. Even after an exam system had been implemented a furious debate raged between those Malayan officials who believed that an unbiased exam system produced brighter, befter qualified civil servants and those who believed that hand picking friends, relatives, and proteges produced more dedicated, interested and hard-working men.

3. SirHugh Clifford, ‘A Lesson from the Malay States’ in Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 84., (Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1899b), p. 595. 4. SirHugh Clifford, ‘Preface’ in Lady Alice Lovat, The Lifeof SirFrederick Weld, (London: John Murray, 1914), p. xvi.

5. A copy of this agreement isin William Linehan, “AHistoryof Pahang’ in Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 14, Pt. 2, (Singapore: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1936), pp. 115-117.

6. A. J. Stockwell, ‘SirHugh Clifford’s EarlyCareer” in Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Socielv Vol. 49, Pt. 2, (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1976), p.93.

7. SirHugh Clifford, In a Corner of Asia, (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1899a), p. 6.

8. SirHugh Clifford, Saleh: A Prince of Malaya, (Singapore: Oxford University Press 1989), Foreword. 9. Linehan, ‘A History of Pahang”, pp. 101-168. 10. Harry A. Galley, Clifford, p. 24. 11. Chai Hon-Chan, The Development of BritishMalaya 1896-1909, (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 65. 12. A. J. Stockwell, “Hugh Clifford in Trinidad” in Carribean Quarterly, Vol. 24, No, 1, (Kingston: University of the West Indies, 1978) and Galley, Clifford provide evidence showing that Clifford often complained to the Colonial Office about the financial hardships its administrators suffered due to unfair salary structures. He also stuck up for lower level officials, particularly in Nigeria where the constant movement and reposting hurt both them and the administration.

13. Stockwell, “SirHugh Clifford’s Early Career,” p. 94. 14. Galley, Clifford, p. 41. 15. An excellent summary of the problems in Trinidad ahd how Clifford responded to them can be found in Stockwell, “Hugh Clifford in Trinidad.’

Page- 18 16. Gailey, Clifford, p. 48. 17. See jjd., pp. 59-72. 18. p. 72. 19JId.,p.76. 20. See pp. 73-112. 21. d., p.92. 22. A. J. Stockwell, SirHugh Clifford in Malaya 1927-1929: ‘PinangPulang Ka-tampok” in Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society’, Vol. 53, Pt. 2, (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1980), p.41.

23. Lugard’s name is much more illustriousthan Clifford’s,despite all of the evidence as to who was the befter governor. I. F. Nicholson Ib Administration of Nigeria 1900 -1960: Men, Methods, and Myths, (Oxford: CIa rendon Press, 1969), pp.171-178 aft ributes this to some rather careful public relations management by the Colonial Office, protecting their own reputation and to biased Encyclopaedia Britannica articles wriften by Lady Flora Lugard.

24. Nicholson, The Administration of Nigeria, p. 218. 25.ibj., p.221. 26. p. 234. 27. Galley, Clifford, p. 163. 28. See Nicholson, The Administration of Nigeria, pp. 232-234. 29. See Galley, Clifford, pp. 166-167. 3OJLcd.,p. 166.

171.

32. Stockwell, “SirHugh Clifford in Malaya 1927-1929,” p. 36. 33. Robert Heussler, BritishRule in Malaya: The Malayan CivilService and its Predecessors, (Westport, Conn.: Greenwoods Press, 1981), p. 244. 34. lld., p. 107.

35. Stockwell, “SirHugh Clifford in Malaya 1927-1929,’ p. 41. 36. Clifford never spoke out publicly against Guggisberg but he felt his successor was unqualified and protested his appointment to the colonial office. Guggisberg’s subsequent success proves Clifford was not infallible.

Page- 19 37. Nicholson, The Administration of Nigeria, p. 217, n. 1.

Page-20 PARTIl-APERCEPTIONOF HISTORY

SirHugh Clifford never wrote an autobiography describing his life and stating his views but much of what he believed can be determined by examining what he did write. One easily discernible aspect of Clifford’s beliefs is his perception of European expansion. Clifford’sfirstaffempt at history came in 1904 when he wrote Further India which describes

European exploration in South East Asia. Thisbook is ‘a solid and valuable source of informationu(1) but the topic isfairly narrow. Clifford later expanded the perception of colonial history that isonly partially explained in this book. A befter source for understanding Clifford’shistorical view is German Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races. He wrote this work in 1918 to inform the Britishpublic why he, as a Britishofficial, did not believe the former colonies of Imperial Germany should be returned during the post-armistice peace conference. A great part of the book is used to sketch a general history of European expansion and colonialism. Examining this summary in detail willmake clear Clifford’s view of imperial history. He discusses how and why Great Britain developed into the most advanced and libertarian of all the European imperial powers. He begins by showing how certain European nations became involved firstin exploration, then trade, and subsequently territorial control. He tries to examine both the economic impetus behind these steps and how they have contributed to each nation’s colonial policy. He then tries to characterize each of these policies as a step in a progression of improved colonial management. Insight into Clifford’s historical outlook can be gained by briefly inspecting the only source Clifford cites to any ectent: Ramsay Muir’sIb Expansion of Eurooe. Muir is most definitely an apologist for Empire, the Page-21 BritishEmpire in particular. Thisbook claims the development of imperialism and colonialism was inevitable as Europe expanded to spread its superior civilization to the world. It is a whig interpretation of how the benefits of enlightened government have spread from Europe through the process of colonialism and pays particu’ar aftention to the good work of the BritishEmpire, Clifford’s brief summary echoes this much longer text. Clifford’s summary(2) begins with the Spanish and Portuguese. He aifributed to them the bulk of the early exploration. Clifford first discussed the economic realities that he felt drove these early explorers and traders. Citing Pliny and Hippalus as evidence, Clifford claimed there were once busy trade routes to the East for spices and other Eastern goods which in time had been cut off by the rise of Islam. It was to avoid the monopolies held by Islam and the big merchant houses of Venice that the traders of Spain and Portugal began their voyages of exploration. Clifford believed these Iberian explorers were further motivated by religion. Although he was wise enough to admit it provided less impetus than greed or a love of adventure, Clifford felt many of their actions could only be explained by a religious motive. Clifford believed religion exacerbated rather than tempered their aggressive and arrogant behavior. Unlike a modern historian who must try and maintain an appearance of objectivity Clifford had no qualms about passing moral judgement on historical figures. He quite obviously deplored their conduct and dwelt at length upon the vicious nature and depravity the Spanish and Portuguese. To Clifford’s credit, however, he did make allowances for the era, obviously believing that all Europeans would have been equally brutal at this time. Clifford felt that because of their unrestrained behavior the Portuguese(3) suffered a kind of moral Page -22 collapse within a generation of creating their commercial empire. As a result they were despised throughout Asia by the time the Britishand Dutch began arriving to compete for trade and territory. Clifford’s discussion of the Dutch begins by claiming that the aft itude of the natives toward the Portuguese contributed to the behavioral change evidenced by the second wave of European traders. The English and Dutch conducted themselves befter not because they were morally superior but because by making the natives befter disposed towards them they would gain an advantage over the Portuguese. In

Clifford’sopinion this played a part in enabling the Dutch to take control of South East Asia so quickly and easily. Clifford believed the Dutch were more powerful than the English at this time because Holland had greater political motivation. Byremoving Portugal from the scene of Asian trade

Holland cut their enemy, Philip IIof Spain, off from one of his major sources of wealth. Their ventures were thus of a national nature and Dutch traders received more financial and military support than the English ones. Clifford believed that once the Dutch began to control South East Asia they did not degenerate as the Portuguese had because by this time Europeans had made moral progress and because the Dutch had a more stable national character. Clifford claimed these two factors, national support and strength of character, allowed Holland to forge its empire in the Malayan Archipelago and influenced how they administered this area throughout the colonial period. Clifford did not think this was a good influence. Firstly, the national support the colonies received meant the mother country expected all revenues to be tithed to her. Secondly, the efficiency and solidity of the Dutch character meant rigorous application of the tax laws Page-23 used by the native rulers, laws that, previously, had only been sporadically enforced. When fully applied they placed too great a burden on the population. Finally, in avoiding the problems the Portuguese faced by associating too closely with the indigenes the Dutch went to the other extreme and kept them distant, repressed and unequal. Clifford felt that although Dutch management had improved, these problems of economic exploitation and repression stillexisted, making Dutch rule very unpopular. Clifford supported this statement by claiming that migration from the Dutch colonies to the English ones was strictly one way. After discussing Dutch colonial development Clifford moved on to the beginnings of the BritishEmpire. He felt that early Britishpolicy was dictated, as in the other cases, by economic necessities. The BritishEast India Company, as a strictly commercial venture, could not compete with the Dutch in the Spice Islands and was forced to deal in India which was controlled by the powerful Moghul Empire. Thus they learned to be more circumspect when dealing with natives. When the Moghul Empire collapsed the ensuing chaos threatened all trade. In order to secure the proper concessions certain European companies began to play the native princes against one another. Thisculminated with the training of native troops in European warfare. Clive was the most effective of these manipulators and by defeating the French led forces he made the East India Company the power behind the throne of the Nawab of Bengal. Clifford felt that at this time they were content with the commercial advantages gained and unconcerned with political control. According to Clifford the most important step was taken by Warren

Hastings. In order to establish greater stability and security for trade he took direct control of the Nawabs government and established a new Page-24 system of justice creating what Clifford and Muir refer to as a reign of law, Natives apparently flocked to this sanctuary, this new haven of law, Clifford felt this popularity amongst the natives was crucial to the rapid expansion of the BritishEmpire in India. Although Clifford recognized this step was taken for commercial purposes he saw it as the beginning of a new era. Englishmen began to see it as their duty to bring law and order to these eastern lands of chaos and tyranny, thereby creating a new standard of colonial rule. Equally important in Clifford’s opinion was that the House of Commons felt it their duty to impeach Hastings for presuming to seize control without regard for native law or tradition. Although

Hastings was acquifted by the Lords, it established that an Imperial administrator did not have unlimited power and was, before the law, equal to the meanest Colonial subject. Clifford saw these two ideals; law and order, and equality before that law, as two aspects of the British affinity for good conduct and fair play which would make them the best colonial administrators.

Clifford’s nation by nation historical analysis isinterrupted with a chapter about the slave trade. Clifford shows how important the trade was to Britain by citing various figures to demonstrate to what extent the various European nations were involved. He then discusses how despite its extensive involvement Great Britain was amongst the first European nations to ban the slave trade and was the most important and active participant in its extirpation. Clifford presented this as further evidence of the Britishbelief in justice and fair play and the extent to which they pursued these ideals. Clifford completed his historical summary with a discussion of the late development of the German colonial Empire. The whole purpose of Page -25 the book was to demonstrate that Germans were not fit to be colonial

rulers so this section is quite extensive. It contains numerous examples of German atrocities and uses a great deal of vituperative language. Despite this Clifford makes quite clear how the German empire developed. He thought Germany began its expansion not because of

economic impetus but because of the personal ambitions of the Kaiser, In Cliffords opinion the landgrab initiated by the Kaiser led to the deplorable scramble for Africa that divided tribes and obliterated any traditional

native boundaries. To Clifford the Germans had an aggressive and acquisitive nature reminiscent of the sixteenth century but did not need or display the courage that was an essential element of that period. Clifford believed this grasping nature combined with the Germans’ inexperience to create an abusive, exploitative, unproductive and deplorable system of colonial rule. Any analysis of this historical summary must take into account that the book was written to prove that Germans were unfit to be colonial

rulers. Thisdoes not make the summary less valid as a representation of

Clifford’s views but it does mean there is a greater emphasis on certain aspects while others are not mentioned. Clifford writes at length about

German atrocities(4) while he emphasizes the much better British reputation to provide a contrast, Conversely, Clifford neglects France and Belgium who were important colonial powers and makes little reference to the later activities of the Portuguese and Spanish. These are

not oversights but deliberate omissions as any information they present is

unnecessary to the book’s purpose. The slavery chapter is not present just to enhance the image of the Britishbut to show they have not in the past and should not now shy from defending the rights of weaker peoples.

Page -26 Clifford’s treatment of these aspects of history was dictated by the nature

of the book and is not necessarily indicative of their importance in his historical view,

One aspect of Clifford’s view not skewed by the book’s nature is his perception of the economic dynamics of imperialism. As a general rule Clifford properly ascribes economic impetus. The early lberian explorers were driven by the search for new trade routes. The Europeans were often motivated by the increased trade that came with greater political stability. Economics were not the sole reason behind the evolution of empires but Clifford does not imply that they were, He does not place too much emphasis on economics but neither does he make excuses for

Europeans, particularly the Britishby minimizing its role in expansion. The

most important aspect of Clifford’s economic view isthat by correlating a lawful, stable environment with increased and more efficient trade he links

the justification of empire with the primary force behind it.

It is important to note, however, that Clifford was not infallible with

regard to economics. Clifford aifributed the growth of the BritishEmpire

in India to the need for political stability. Thiswas part of the reason for later expansion. States on the fringes of Britain’s Indian empire agitated

against them, thus creating instability. In the early years, however, most of the wealth drawn from India was based not on trade but on land taxes.

Thisindicates that acquisition of land rather than the need for stability was the primary motivation of early expansion.(5)

Thismisinterpretation of English expansion in India is related to

Clifford’s patriotism. Thiswas one of the biggest flaws inherent in his

historical view, It colored his perceptions and caused him to

misunderstand the forces involved in certain events. In an 1871 treaty Page-27 Great Britaintraded Aceh in Sumatra to Holland for the Gold Coast.

Clifford regarded it as evidence of Britishsuperiority that Aceh fought its new colonial masters. He did not find it significant that the Ashanti fought their new masters on the Gold Coast as well. In a different situation Clifford believed the House of Commons entered into proceedings against Clive and Hastings for humanitarian reasons. These proceedings took place during a period of great expansion. They represented an aftempt by the men in the centre to regain some form of control over the independent men in the field.(6) Clifford did not mention this as a possible factor.

Eurocentricity isas important a flaw as patriotism in Clifford’s history. There are passages in the book where Clifford’schoice of language indicates he understands and identifies with the native point of view. He refers not just to exploration but to the invasion of the non-European world’(7). He has a similar respect for the position of non-Europeans when discussing the scramble for Africa. Clifford calls it “perhaps the least creditable incident in the recent history of the European nations.’(8) More specifically it “entailed the merciless severance of tribes which have as keen and close a sense of nationality as have the English or French themselves.’(9) There are a few similar examples of his sympathy for the non-Europeans but they are the exceptions and are placed within the context of an apology for Colonial rule.

Hischoice of language gives far more evidence of his eurocentricity. Although he does refer to the invasion of non-European lands he more regularly refers to “European exploration and colonisation”(lO) or to British territorial expansion’(l 1). A more specific example isfound in Clifford’s explanation of why the Islamic powers failed Page -28 to protect their Indian Ocean monopoly. He claimed the war between Turkey and Egypt culminating in the Baffle of Lepanto put an end forever to the Muhammadan menace in the eastern seas.(12) Itwas not the conclusion, which is quite valid, but the wording which isso subjective. On page seventeen Clifford claimed the Spanish were cruel and aggressive. On page twenty-three he commented on the Dutch massacre of the English factors at Amboyna. Clifford thus acknowledged the brutality of the Europeans as they disrupted and squabbled over what had been

Turkishtrade routes yet he stillregarded the ‘Muhammadans’ as the menace. Much of the summary isa series of similar, reasonable hypotheses presented in subjective language that gives the history a eurocentric slant. The basic premise of the summary demonstrates Clifford’sbias on a much broader scale. In the majority of the discussion the Europeans are the actors and the native peoples are mere pawns. They do not often respond to the Europeans at all. In India for example the Indian princes are presented as being easily manipulated, as minor partners in the schemes of Europeans. Ifthe natives do respond to the Europeans, Clifford usually interprets their motives only as they may relate to purely European conflicts. When the people of Aceh rebel against the Dutch, for example, Clifford did not see their response as a fight against colonial tyranny in general but as a protest against the change in colonial masters.

The final problem with this summary is also a function of Clifford’s eurocentricity. He does refer to power structures that existed before the European arrival, such as tribal communities in Africa and the Moghul Empire in India. Clifford obviously believed, however, that these were outdated and ineffective. Clifford thought that replacing these systems Page -29 with European style rule or making these systems subject to a European system should confer upon the native populations emancipation from tyranny and injustice.’(13) Clifford did not understand that although these societies may not have had political systems that were efficient, the societies themselves were based on entirely different principles. Clifford’s history does not describe colonialism as an imposition of an alien set of values upon the Asian or African cultures but as a progressive advance in which the Europeans raised other cultures to a higher level. Clifford’ssummary demonstrates an understanding of colonial history consistent with that of his contemporaries. It isa perception of history that isflawed in itsvindication of imperialism. Clifford realized the history of colonialism was one of economics. He saw that economics drove the Europeans to explore and also pushed them to create more stable political situations. Clifford’spro-British, eurocentric aftitude allowed him to justify the economics of colonialism because he saw it as the introduction of a more advanced political environment to uncivilized parls of the planet. If,however, a colonial power did not introduce better government Clifford did not think it could be justified. Clifford’shistory of colonialism isthus best understood in conjunction with his idea of the tasks of a colonial administrator.

Page-30 ENDNOTES

1. Virginia M. DiCrocco, ‘Prefaces in SirHugh Clifford, Further India, (Bangkok: White Lotus Co., 1990), p. vi.

2. Thissummary of Clifford’s history contains a great deal of paraphrasing but no direct quotes.

3. Clifford focuses upon the Portuguese rather than the Spanish because they were active in the area he was most familiar with.

4. Jon M. Bridgman, Revolt of the Hereros, (London: University of California Press, 1981) and Horst Drechsler, Let UsDie Fighting, (London: Zed Press, 1980) both provide accounts of the conflict and the reasons behind it that are markedly similar to Clifford’s assessment. 5. C. A. Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The BritishEmpire and the World 1780- 1830, (London: Longman Group, 1989), p. 10. 6. Ibid., pp 5-6. 7. SirHugh Clifford, German Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races, (London: John Murray, 1918), p. 17. 8. Dd., pp. 62-62. 9. ibJ.. p. 63. iO.j.,p. 16. 11. Dd., p. 32. 12.ibj.,p.20. 13. hd., p. 30.

Page-31 PARTIll-IMPERIALDUTh’ Clifford’s perception of the history of Empire demonstrated a belief that some European expansion was justified by the benefits it provided. These benefits are closely tied to the administration. He felt a colonial administrator had certain duties and that ifthese duties were properly performed the lives of those within the colony could be improved. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman once said good government can never be a satisfactory substitute for self government. Not only did Clifford deny this assertion but he thought it struck no answering chord in the hearts of the bulk of the peoples of non-European lands.’(l) A discussion of Clifford’sperception of the previous political systems and of the current colonial administrations willshow that Clifford believed the benefits of Britishadministration justified his presence. Clifford knew a great deal about colonial administration because he worked at all of its levels. He began his career as a low level secretary in the small administration of Perak. He then moved to Pahang where he observed native rule firsthand and then began in an entirely new, low budget administration working directly with the populace. He helped Pahang grow into a viable state. He worked directly under Governors for another decade before taking over administration in the Gold Coast which in 1914 had an expenditure of over 1.7 million pounds.(2) He then moved to Nigeria where he completely reorganized an enormous administration. Bythe end of the career he was managing the Malayan CivilService which in 1928 had a budget expenditure of 109 million straits dollars.(3) Clifford’svast administrative experience helps to validate his opinions about how an administration should operate.

Page-32 Clifford worked in Malaya and Africa and his opinion of the political systems prevalent in these areas before European arrival was obvious. He thought that before the Britishtook over in the Malay peninsula ‘native states...were suffered to manage or mismanage their own affairs.’(4) He despised the ‘despotic rule of the native rajahs’(5) and the ‘cruelties and barbarities which in the peninsula are inseparable from native government.’(o) It upset him that the ‘peasants were ground down and deprived of the barest right as human beings.(7) The following passage relating the native rulers’reactions to European rule perhaps best sums up what Clifford thought was missing from Malay administration: At firstthey wondered blankly at the eccentric actions of the Europeans. .The conviction was forced upon their minds that there was some driving force at the back of these men... this was a sense of duty, duty toward the state and the alien people whom the white men had come so far to serve...and a love of labour for its own sake.(8)

Hisopinion of native rule in Africa was similarlylow. He felt ‘their natural genius.., has worked for ... autocratical forms of government’(9) which in turn lead to anarchical conditions. Clifford believed that as a result unadulterated native rule is not popular or desired by the bulk of the natives.”(lO) As with Malay rule he unflafteringly compared African rule to white rule: Diligence, sustained interest, vigilance, incorruptible purity of official action and intention, indifference alike to popular praise and blame.. .these qualities formed no part of the equipment of native autocrats.(1 1) Clifford believed the natives were interested only in the privileges of rule but were not prepared to accept its responsibilities. These despots ruled for their own benefit not for the benefit of their people. Clifford did not think the arrival of colonialism automatically meant beffer rule. Thisis best demonstrated inClifford’sbook The German Page-33 Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races. The censorious nature of the book results in it being laced with specific examples of German barbarities. These tales of atrocity tend to hide the more important aspect of the examples. Clifford felt these barbarities were a direct result of German mismanagement. The specifics discussed represent German brutality but it was the more general principles of German colonial administration that permifted the Germans to behave in that fashion. Clifford believed it was these general principles that created a colonial administration worse than the native despots it replaced.

The largest problem was the system of law or lack thereof. In German colonies all aspects of any native prosecution were based almost solely on the discretion of imperial officials. No criminal code was put in place for the natives, “itbeing left to the judgement of each individual German official to decide for himself...what constituted an offence.. .(and)., .itsappropriate punishment.”(l 2) Clifford felt this made each official a despot who could arbitrarily assign punishment for violations of illdefined laws. In Clifford’sexperience this problem would be compounded because Europeans became temperamental in the unfamiliar tropical climate. To give men in this situation such power over their colonial subjects was “an almost unthinkable piece of folly and wickedness.”(l 3) After a native was accused of breaking one of these unwriften laws he had no official recourse. “Legal process.. .was not regarded as in any way essential.”(14) Clifford thought the situation was further aggravated by unusually severe punishment, particularly the overuse of flogging. “Itsinfliction could be ordered by a German official on almost any pretext’(15) To Clifford, a system where corporal punishment could be arbitrarily designated as castigation for violations of Page -34 unspecified laws ‘would inevitably lead to abuses even ifthe men who administered it were the kindest and most merciful members of the human family.’(l 6) Other problems arose from the Germans’ inability to see the native point of view. The labour question was a good example. Clifford believed the Africans had a different philosophy about work:

Their preoccupation isto supply their actual wants at the cost of a minimum of toil ... and to confine their public industry to such forms of communal labour as have the sanction of their tribal customs. To compel them to toil on public works, or in mines or on plantations, isto upset the entire scheme of their existence.(1 7) Thus in the easily cultivated coastal areas labour for railways, roads or similar projects was difficult to find, Clifford felt that Britishcolonies were able to rely on migrant labour from the less productive interior. Young men would leave their tribes and families to work for short periods particularly in times of trouble. Thisform of labour was not available to the Germans as they were strict about migration and insisted on long contracts. The Germans resorted to forced labour and the distaste the natives had for such activity drove them to dwell in remote parts of the colony or to leave German territory altogether. Thus in Clifford’s opinion the German approach to the labour question had uretarded, not advanced,the development of the colony.”(18) A similar situation arose with regard to land rights. Germany expropriated land on which to build plantations. The tribesmen were compensated but not satisfied. ‘Resentment was caused by the fact that land was being taken away from them whether they objected or consented.’(19) Natives would thus refuse to work on the plantations aggravating the labour problem and would not use the money they were paid for the land, ‘the possession of which was regarded as a Page-35 humiliation.(2O) The worst example of this disregard for native sensibilities isalso related to land. German expropriations reduced Herero grazing land in South West Africa until they could not longer raise surplus caffle for commercial purposes. The Germans then tried to take the Herero’s sacred herds to pay debts. The German inability to understand the religious nature of these remaining animals lead to an unequal war, one that Clifford believed the Germans welcomed as an opportunity to be rid of a nuisance. “Exlermination had been undertaken as an act of deliberate policy.”(21) Clifford thought these problems arose because in the mafter of labour and of land, the Germans persistently ignored the native point of view.(22) Thiswas a basic flaw of German policy.

Thisdisregard for local custom and point of view manifested itself in less obvious ways. For example, The highest officials.., saw nothing shameful in the almost open practices of concubinage,(23) although the local tribes did not approve of such interaction. Native merchants were put at a great disadvantage because uto the European merchants was reserved the exclusive right of importing and exporting goods.(24) A native merchant would thus always be undersold. Allof these policy problems arose because the Germans regarded themselves as conquerors and treated the natives as beaten people. “Thisisthe standing which German policy has assigned to the native populations of her colonies from the beginning.(25) German imperialists did not misunderstand the natives out of stupidity but because as conquerors they saw the natives’ customs or their rights under the law as unimportant. Clifford believed the Germans aggressive militaristic policy was the cause of their abysmal colonial record.

Page-36 Although Clifford had a befter opinion of the Dutch system of rule he stillbelieved certain aspects of their colonial policy were improper or at least misguided. He outlined these problems in the book on the German colonies: These are, firstly,that the colonies are primarily administered for the benefit of Dutchmen, secondly, that the revenues which they produce go to swell those of the mother country, instead of being exclusively used for the development of the land which provides them, and thirdly, that equality between white men and the natives is regarded as an inadmissible proposition.(26) Despite this exploitation and inequality he did not entirely disapprove of

Dutch rule. He aft ributed their system to a different philosophy, saying it did not appeal to those Nofother schools of thought and policy.’(27) He believed that although the Dutch managed the colony for their use they stillbrought about a peace and prosperity the natives had not known before. So although Clifford had misgivings about Dutch rule he had to admit the Dutch provided some benefits especially when compared to the German system or to the native despots that preceded them. Clifford believed the Britishsystem of administration was far beffer than that of the Dutch. Thiswas because it provided the security of a stable code of law, tried to avoid the use of force and aftempted to respect and understand the natives, their culture and their wishes. Clifford believed the BritishEmpire provided the natives with rights their own rulers had not believed in. It gave them a measure of justice and liberty such as they had never enjoyed under their own rajahs and chiefsu(28). More important to Clifford was that Britain insisted Nupon complete equality before the law of all inhabitants . . .without distinction of race, nationality, creed or class.u(29) Thismeant the Britishadministrator himself was to be the obedient servant of the law.”(30) Thus the law that came with the

Page-37 BritishEmpire represented not just the security and stability which encouraged economic development but also equality; introducing a way of life befter than most natives had ever before experienced.

The second criterion mentioned was that the BritishEmpire did not overuse force. Rather than trying to dominate the natives and rule with a fierce intolerance they tried to ‘lead the people and their rulers into befter ways’(31) by example. Some occasional show of force had been necessary to make clear the consequences of disobeying Britishlaw but this was not the basis of rule. They instead provided ‘even handed justice, such as the most backward races are quick to understand and appreciate.’(32) Once this appreciation was gained and ‘the peasantry thus won over to our side’(33) then the rule stood “broad based upon a people’s will’(34). Itwas only then that the previous ruling class learned ‘to assimilate something of the altruistic spirit they recognized as dominating their European teachers.’(35) Clifford believed it took a certain kind of man to accomplish this task.

Clifford had a definite perception of the ideal administrator. Thisis evident in his article advising the Americans how to administer their newly acquired colony of the Philippines. He said they should abandon “theories of human equality’ and ‘decline to disregard the real distinction between class and class.”(36) Officials in the Philippines must be ‘drawn from what can only be termed the aristocracy’(37) because they would have manners, refinement and character all of which he saw as necessary in a colonial ruler. He felt that one of the reasons for the poor administrations of France, Germany and Spain was their aftempt “to work with material of a courser type.” (38) He thought that ifthe Americans used the superior

Page-38 breed of man they would be able to rule the natives as easily and as fairly as the Britishhad. The third aspect of colonial rule that Clifford felt was important was a ‘thorough understanding of the native point of view’(39). Clifford himself knew more about the Malays than any one: ‘Hisknowledge of the

Malay states ... was unrivaled’(40). Respect was of equal importance to understanding. He believed that when the House of Commons asserted an Englishman ‘was bound to act according to the largest and most generous construction of their laws, rights, usages, institutions and good customs”(41) it introduced a critical change in the way empire was perceived. The men involved in colonialism were now forced to take a certain responsibility for their actions. Whatever changes colonial administrators instituted they had to take the needs and the ideals of the native peoples into account. Any of the beneficial aspects of European civilization, either economic, cultural or technological should be introduced with as little disruption to the domestic culture as possible.

Clifford realized Britishstyle law and commerce must interfere with the local customs, but felt any deleterious effects could be minimized.

As well run as Clifford perceived the BritishEmpire to be, he stillhad misgivings about this Europeanization it forced upon the natives. To Clifford ‘the boot of the ubiquitous white man... kicks down native institutions’ and “stamps out much what is best in the customs and characteristics of the native races.. .reducing all things to that dead level of conventionality that we call civilization.”(42) He did not lose sight of the benefits but he felt that civilization ‘injures them morally almost as much as it benefits them materially.’(43) There were two reasons that this culture clash took place. One was that ‘we, who are white men, admire our work Page-39 not a liffle.. . (try)...to clothe in stiffgarments of European conventionalities the naked, brown limbsof Orientalism’(44) and tend to disregard the effect which these actions have upon the natives.(45) Inone sad story about the deleterious effect civilizationcan have upon a native Malay

Cliffordsarcastically commented that *111things result from the most blameless of intentions - and are not all the intentions of the blundering

Britishalmost invariably blameless’? ‘(46) The second reason was that civilization arrived too abruptly and as a result Malays were ‘aftempting... to crush into Iwenty years the revolutions in facts and ideas which even in energetic Europe, sixlong centuries have been needed to accomplish.(47) Although Clifford had these misgivings about the workings of the Britishempire he obviously believed that the introduction of law and civilization would benefit the natives more overtime. As long as the BritishEmpire acted in the best interests of its subjects, and tried to preserve as much of the native culture as possible, these disruptions could be justified. Many of the disparaging quotes above came from early in Clifford’scareer and as time went by he seemed to have fewer misgivings about the Empire. The 1918 book is almost entirely complimentary.

The key to Clifford’sjustification of Empire was that it must be run efficiently and remain true to altruistic principles. ‘The only justification for our presence.. .lay in our ability to make them freer, happier, and more prosperous than in the days before our corn ing.(48) In one passage Clifford laid down the principles of colonialism: Where Europeans assume responsibility for the administration of territories inhabited by primitive and backward races, these lands must primarily be governed for the benefit of the native populations; that they must be freed from the payment of any tribute to the Mother Country, and must be allowed to devote their Page -40 revenues to the development of their own resources; that they cannot, without gross injustice, be made to accord any special or exclusive privileges to Europeans; that the natives must be protected form unfair exploitation; and that upon them must be conferred the largest measure of personal freedom, peace, order, security and equality of opportunity.(49)

Ifa Colonial Officer could apply these principles with as liffledisruption of the native culture as possible then his duty was fulfilled and his presence justified. Inherent in Clifford’saltruistic vision of Empire was the belief that the natives needed this type of administration and either did not realise it or were unable to provide it for themselves. Thisimplied racial inferiority and so Clifford’s perception of the Empire can be beffer understood in conjunction with an examination of his racial beliefs.

Page-41 ENDNOTES

1. SirHugh Clifford, German Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races, (London: John Murray, 1918), p. 30.

2. C. E.Cookson, Gold Coast: Annual Report for 1914, (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1915). p. 6. 3. C. W. H. Cochrane, Federated Malay States: Annual Report for 1929, (London: HisMajesty’s Stationery Office, 1930), p. 65. 4. SirHugh Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States’ inAtlantic Monthly, Vol. 84, (Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1899b), p. 591. 5.ib1.. 6. Ibid..

7. Ibid..

8. Ibid..

9. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 10. 10.d.,p. 13. 14.

12. p. 69. 13. P. 70. 14. fld., p. 75. 15. Dd., p. 73. 16. p. 79. 17. p.85. 18. ftd., p. 88. 19. hd,. p.91. 20. Ibid.. 21JLd.,p. 97. 22. d., p. 93. 23. hd., P. 80. 24. hd., p. 104. Page -42 25. p. 102. 26. hd., p. 25. 27. p. 67. 28. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ pp 592-593. 29. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 56. 30. 1ibi. p. 34. 31. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 592. 32. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 113. 33. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 593. 34. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 103. 35. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 594. 36. d., p. 599. 37. Ibid.. 38. Ibid.. 39. p. 588. 40. J. M. Gullick, Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Beginnings of Change, (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989b), p. 371. 41. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 32. 42. SirHugh Clifford, In Court and Kampong, (London: Grant Richards, 1897a),p 1. 43. p. 2. 44. Ibid.. 45. Ibid..

46. SirHugh Clifford, Saleh: A Sequel, (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1908), p. 7. 47. Clifford, In Court and Kampong, p. 3.

48. Clifford, ‘ALesson From the Malay States,’ p. 593. 49. Clifford, German Colonies, pp. 111-112.

Page-43 PARTIV-RACISM The examination of Clifford’sperception of empire showed that paternalism was an important aspect of his beliefs. Bydefinition this must involve an assumption of superiority. Clifford’sopinion of the subject peoples of empire was thus just as important to hisjustification of empire as his opinion of the imperial rulers. He thought liffleof indigenous political systems, but how did that relate to his beliefs about the people themselves? Did he believe them to be of an inherently inferior race or merely subjects of a lesser civilization or culture? How did his opinion of these people relate to hisjustification of empire?

To begin this analysis it isnecessary to establish definitions of race and racism. The Oxford EnçilishDictionary defines a race as one of the great divisions of mankind, having certain physical peculiarities in common. Clifford’s use of this word conforms to this definition. The above dictionary defines racism as the belief that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. Thisdefinition in no way implies that superiority is determined by race but simply that each has different abilities. A race not as efficient at performing one task may be befter equipped to perform a different one. The theory that abilities and characteristics are determined by race is repugnant to us yet for

Clifford it would have been axiomatic. The term racist was first used in

1932 and racism in 1936. Thisis not because the aftitudes these terms describe did not exist but because they were the prevailing modes of thought. Itwas not until after Cliffords formative years that racism, as we know it, was labelled as a societal problem.

The similar term racialism isdefined as the belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards other Page -44 races. Thisterm, firstused in 1907, was more contemporary to Clifford and was thus more likelyknown to him as a reflection of a societal problem.

Thisissimilar to Social Darwinism, an aft empt to apply Darwin’s ideas of evolution and survival of the fiftest to races and societies. Many theorised that to further the development of mankind the stronger societies must dominate or eliminate the weaker ones. Clifford was most definitely racist but he should not be judged by standards he would not have comprehended. It ismore important to discover ifSocial Darwinist or racialist theories played any part of Clifford’sjustification of Empire. To make this assessment it is necessary to examine both the substance of his work and the language he uses.

Close examination of the language in Clifford’sarticles does not reveal the respect he was reputed to have for the subject races. His language is laced with racialist terminology. He not only aftributes racially determined characteristics to large groups of people but seems to believe these stereotypes are a suitable basis for rule. Hisusage implies a racial hierarchy with ‘white’ at the top and ‘brown’ (or black) at the boftom. The article “ALesson From the Malay States wriften in 1899 and the book about the German colonies wriften in 1918 use language that demonstrates Clifford’sviews throughout this twenty year period. Clifford’sterminology in the 1899 article indicates the preeminence of whites. He referred favorably to “Thewhite man’s control”(l) and “a white man in charge’.(2) More specifically the Americans were a “sturdy people”(3) and he aftributed to them “the sterling common sense of the anglo-saxon”.(4) He also wrote of “the force of character of white men’.(5) In the 1918 book this thread was continued when he wrote admiringly of “the white races”(6) and of the exclusivity of “the European Page-45 character and intellect’.(7) Clifford’slanguage in these articles demonstrates his belief that white men had superior intellect, character, and common sense. Thismarked them as the greatest of races. Clifford’s perception of the Chinese seems to be somewhat favorable but in a very condescending manner. He does not place them on the same plane as white men but they do have qualities he admires. They in his eyes are ‘the most orderly, hard working, money-loving and thrifty natives in the east’(8) and ‘as a race they love best a land where they can make money.(9) Hisassessment is not completely benign and this low opinion isfurther evidenced by his terming them “rice eaters’.(lO)

Their inferiority in his eyes isbest demonstrated by his comment that ‘The yellow man willbe the best tool’.(ll) Thisodd compliment clearly shows that in Clifford’s hierarchy the place of the ‘yellow man’ was below that of the ‘white’.

He apparently placed the brown races lowest of all. Thiscategory included Africans, Malays, and Indians, but his most insulting reference was to “negrits - little, curly haired, soot-colored creatures like African negroes seen through the reverse end of a field glass.’(12) Thiscomment, repulsive as it may be, is merely descriptive and does not attribute any stereotype to these people. There isno lack of this, however, for he refers to the ‘indolent ease-seeking Malays’(13) as “frank vandals’(14) who ‘love money dearly.”(15) Africans are characterized in the 1918 book as having a “hearty and inherited dislike of work.’(ló) Clifford goes beyond this simple racial stereotyping when he quite baldly refers to Malays as ‘men of an inferior race’(17) and to Africans as ‘a primitive people.”(18) The most damning cut of all iswhen he refers to ruling them as “the influence of a higher over a lower breed.’(19) Thisuse of language indicates Page-46 Clifford not only believed white men topped a racial hierarchy, but that he despised those of lesser breeds. Clifford’sconduct throughout his career does not bear out this second conclusion and there are elements of his writing that directly contradict the first. He was not always so complimentary of the white races.(20) He obviously despised the Germans and was none too fond of the other Europeans either. Clifford even lamented the behavior of certain Englishman when he wrote ‘One can hardly hope that the name of the white man willbe synonymous with fair dealing and justice.’(21) It seemed the Britisharistocracy were the only whites who lived up to his standards. (22) Clifford did not believe the Britisharistocracy were always on this higher plane.(23) He thought the qualities he so admired in his contemporaries were ‘conspicuously absent in the firstEuropean éxploiters’(24) and ‘the white men, east and west proved themselves to be violent, grasping and aggressive folk.’(25) Thismeant ‘European domination continued until the late eighteenth century to be conducted on purely selfish principles.”(26) Even when the Britishbegan to evolve to a higher level Clifford felt they stillhad much to learn. Clifford thought that by his time ‘every possible mistake had been made’(27) and the Britishhad learned to rule properly by using the ‘accumulated experience of (their) race.”(28) Thisindicates Clifford’scomments about ‘whites’ were either about qualities the Britisharistocracy had acquired, like force of character and intellect, or aspects of the culture that had allowed them to evolve like sturdiness and common sense.

There is also evidence Clifford respected other races depite their apparent inferiority. ‘The People of the East Coast’ and ‘In Cockpit and Page -47 Bullring’(29)are Iwo essays that demonstrate Clifford’saftraction to the uncivilized Malay in ‘histruculent, untamed state.’(30) Hisdescription ranges from the quaint to the bizarre and the portrayal isof a people who are likeable but primitive. He admired the wilder aspects of their lifestyle and favorably compared it to a European one: Here the lover of things as they are, and ought not to be, may find a dwelling among an unregenerate and more or less uncivilized people, whose customs are stillunsullied by European vulgarity, and the surface of whose lives isbut liffleruffled by the fever-heated breath of European progress. (31)

Thisapproval is not a recognition of an equal or befter culture but an understanding of a primitive one. Thisis indicative of Social Darwinism as Clifford seemed to believe other races were inferior because their cultures had not evolved like the European ones. He believed Malayan development was characteristic of thirteenth century Europe and doubted ‘the energy of the race would ever have been sufflcient’(32) for them to evolve beyond this stage. Clifford blamed ‘the tropics where overexerhon frequently precipitates an aftack of malarial fever.(33) Thisrepresents an aftempt by Clifford to aifribute cultural backwardness amongst the natives to something other than racial inferiority. Clifford believed the Empire could help the indigenous peoples overcome their inhibited development and aspire to his higher standards. Thiscould be done both by example, since the beffer class of Malayan chief learned to assimilate something of the altruistic spirit which they recognized as dominating their European teachers,’(34) and through training, since ‘the number of capable native officers who are produced by our system of administration isever on the increase.’(35) Contrary to Social Darwinism, which assumes survival of the fiftest, Clifford believed that with the aid of the Empire native peoples could beffer themselves. Page-48 Clifford believed the indigenous races were inferior but that with the help of the Empire they might develop. Thisdid not mean they could or should be made the equals of Europeans. Thisis best demonstrated by Saleh-A Prince of Malaya. Thisstory was published in Iwo parts: the first

Sally: A Study was published in 1904 and the second part Saleh: A Sequel was published in 1908. The two were combined in one publication in 1926.

Thisisa story about culture clash. A Malay youth isbrought to England to get an English education. He comes to admire the English and acquires a veneer of European civilization. He adopts their culture and believes he is accepted by them as an equal. Two factors combine to show him otherwise. Firstlyhe falls in love with an English girlwho unwiftingly spurns him. Secondly he meets an exiled Indian princess who explains that as a member of a brown race he willnever become English, willnever be accepted by them and most importantly never should be accepted by them.

Inthe second part of the novel the young man returns to Malaya where he is no longer completely accepted or completely comfortable with his own people. Eventually he leads a rebellion against the Britishand the ruling Rajah. When this rebellion is defeated Saleh runs amok and is killed by the other major character of the story, a sympathetic and familiar colonial official named Jack Norris. Norrisends the tragic tale by stating: May God forgive us for our sorry deeds and for our glorious intentions.’(36)

The obvious moral of the tale isthat one should not try to change the members of primitive races into something they are not. There are aspects of this tale that reveal much about Clifford’s attitudes. One isthe story’s abjuration against mixing of races. Thisisbest demonstrated by the attitude of Alice Fairfax, the young lady with whom Page-49 Saleh falls in love. She feels comfortable treating him with kind familiarity because no one, not even Saleh, could believe she would flirtwith an inferior. NHis racial inferiority for them was something so completely beyond the range of dispute that it passed into their acceptance as an axiom.(37) Clifford expresses no disapproval of her motivations. When compared to a girlwho did marry an Asian, Alice isdescribed as s... just an ordinary, commonplace English girl ... unlike the neurotic morbid creature (who had engaged in a mixed marriage).”(38) Clifford portrayed Alice as obtuse because she led Saleh on without realizing he would respond like any man but he in no way implied she should marry beneath her.

Clifford’s portrayal of Saleh isfurther evidence of his opinions. Saleh is primitive and childlike, He misunderstands the conversations and actions of others. He is malleable so his nature easily changed as he learns and accepts the proper behavior of an Englishman. He childishly believes he has become one. Unfortunately he isonly unconsciously aping those around him and under pressure he reverts to his primitive ways, loses his self control and strikes a woman.(39) He realizes the follyof believing himself English yet stillenvies what he can never become. When he sees common English people on the street he thinks eyes, they were white, and in so much they towered above him in unapproachable superiority.”(40) Saleh’s character isessentially a pathetic one. He is loveable rather than despicable but is stilla primitive human being who should be treated carefully outside his own environs.

A character that is more important in demonstrating Clifford’sviews of other races isthat of the Indian princess. She does not play a large role in the novel but she acts as Clifford’s mouthpiece, expressing views held by denizens of the East. The princess has been exiled from her own Page-50 society but has not been integrated into English society. She is understandably bufferand through her Clifford demonstrates a clear understanding of natives who despise the colonial British. He does not mock this view and in fact seems quite sympathetic to it. Clifford uses the Princess to show how Britishmistreatment has turned the pride of the eastern peoples to hate. In one eloquent passage she claims that when her family were civilized Princes the English: were just miserable savages; and now, for all their prating about virtue, ifmen steal big enough things -a crown, a kingdom- they account it no crime, they think it glorious. Oh, they are such hypocrites and liars! I hate them! Hate them!(41)

She despises any who stilladmire the thieving English. She demonstrates this by striking her dog, who cowers before her, and claiming Kyouare like him ifyou are fond of the English.(42) Young Saleh defends his aft raction to the Britishby lauding all they have taught him about being civilized and behaving properly, particularly towards a woman. The Princess is quick to respond by questioning the validity of this gift of civilization. NCanyou be glad because you have been taught to feel as you ought not to feel, because you have learned what you can not have.(43) She also points out to Saleh the folly of his love for a white woman, unature did not mean for brown folk and white to mate together; it iscontrary to her Iaw.°(44) She makes clear that any sort of romantic involvement would be unacceptable to the English girl and her family who would believe him to be inferior. She understands their aftitude because, had she been brought up in her own land, she ushould have felt about white people as they have felt about us.”(45) The little princess thus demonstrates two things: firstlythat Clifford understood the grievances of the subject races and secondly that he believed the disgust

Page-51 that right thinking white people held for mixed marriages and their perception of brown folk as inferior was fuNyreciprocated.

The final and most important character to look at isthat of Jack Norris. Norris represents Clifford himself and expresses clearly how Clifford felt about the brown races at the time this novel was wriften. Norris educates the people who tried to Anglicize Saleh about the folly of their experiment, saying ‘A Malay hasn’t got the rudiments of the Englishman in him ... all you can do is make of him ... a sorry imitation.’(46) Norrisclearly delineates the dual tragedy of what has happened to Saleh. Not only had he been ‘given false hopes, (and) taught to cherish false ideals that of their very nature were beyond his reach’ but he had ‘been robbed, too, of the power to appreciate the lower, grosser life to which he was born.’(47) Thisdemonstrates that at the time this novel was wriffen Clifford believed the Malays were not only inferior to the English but unlikely to be ever like them. Norris’scharacter also reveals how the Britishofficials regarded the Malay Sultans. He explains that Saleh has been rendered useless to the

Britishas a ruler because he no longer thinks like a Malay. Britishcontrol of the states is best facilitated not by an English educated Sultan with high aspirations for his people but by one who “isby birth, by training and by instinct a Malay of the Malays, isin close sympathy with the natives, knows what they want”(48) and most importantly from the Britishpoint of view ‘is the recognized mouthpiece of the native population.’(49) The English wanted a puppet who the people trusted, not an independent leader who could create problems.

Page-52 It is important to note that when the iwo stories were combined into one in 1926 Clifford wrote a disclaimer indicating that although his opinions might not have changed the situation certainly had:

in no directions have greater transformations been worked than in the moral and material progres4s of Malaya and in the aftitude of thoughtful Europeans toward racial questions in the East. Yet both the one and the other, as they actually were during the closing years of the nineteenth century, are depicted in this book with relentless accuracy.(50)

Yet in this same foreword Clifford reiterated that he was a firm believer in

Britishrule. He also claimed that his ‘arrogant confidence ... was bred of an unique, first hand experience of the clashing of a highly advanced with an ancient but very primitive civilization.’(51) So this foreword wriften near the end of Clifford’scareer demonstrates that he stillbelieved in the Empire. Clifford’s opinions of the Empire’s subject races were not entirely unfavorable. He was not a racialist because he understood and respected both them and their culture. Neither was he a Social Darwinist, for although he believed societies evolved he also believed the stronger should help the weaker, not eliminate or dominate them. He did feel, however, that despite their admirable qualities these races were inferior or at least primitive. Thisinferiority justified Britishintervention because the natives needed to be looked after. He also believed they were inherently different and never could or should be Europeanized. Hisviews modified as he recognized that other races were growing and achieving but any advance the natives made was simply further justification of the Empire that brought these changes about. Despite Clifford’srecognition that other races made advances there was no indication that he believed the

Page-53 natives would ever be equals of the English and their inferiority was of critical importance to his justification of Empire.

Page -54 ENDNQTES

1. SirHugh Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States in Atlantic Monthly Vol. 84, (Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1899b), p. 597. 2. hd., p. 593. 3. d., p. 588. 4. Ibid..

5. p. 598. 6. SirHugh Clifford, German Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races, (London: John Murray, 1918). p. 2. 7. pp. 9-10. 8. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 595. 9. p. 596. 10. d., p. 599. 11. Ibid..

12. p. 596. 13. p. 595.

14. SirHugh Clifford, In Court and Kampong, (London: Grant Richards, 1897a), p. 2. 15. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States’, p. 590. 16. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 100. 17. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 599. 18. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 101. 19. Clifford, ‘A Lesson From the Malay States,’ p. 598. 20. See part three of this thesis.

21. SirHugh Clifford, Journal of a Missionto Pahang: January 15 to April 11 1887, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1978), p. 15. 22. See part three of this thesis. 23. See part two of this thesis. 24. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 14. Page -55 25.j.,p. 18. 26.j.,p. 110. 27. Clifford, A Lesson From the Malay States, p. 588. 28. Ibid..

29. Both in Clifford, In Court And Kampona. 30. hd., p. 7. 31. 32. hd., p. 6. 33. Clifford, German Colonies, p. 100. 34. Clifford, UALesson From the Malay States,” p. 594. 35. Ibid..

36. SirHugh Clifford, Saleh: A Prince of Malaya, (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 253. 37. hd., p. 65. 38. p. 74. 39. p. 84. 40. d., p. 89. 41. p.53. 42. d., p. 56. 43. hd., p. 75. 44. hd., p. 74. 45. d., pp. 75-76. 46. 1d., p. 99. 47. fld., p. 104. 48. p. 102. 49. Ibid..

50. Foreword.

Page -56 51. Ibid..

Page-57 CONCLUSION

SirHugh Clifford’scareer was long and illustrious. Hissuperiors had a great deal of confidence in him. Thiswas more evident in his continued posting to troubled regions than in the accolades which were inherent in high level administration. Hisbelief in individual human rights was demonstrated by his determination to protect those rights against powerful opposition. The respect he showed to the Empire’s indigenous peoples was attested to by the respect he received in return. These qualities were combined with the predilection for hard work that ended his career. Clifford’s abilities as a colonial official make the opinions expressed in his writing important. Thispaper examined Clifford’sopinions about three separate issues.

The firstwas Clifford’s perception of the history of imperialism which was in no way naive. He did not believe it had been an honorable crusade rooted in the higher motives of religion or improving the lot of poorer peoples. He saw it as a history of the exploitative expansion of aggressive nations seeking economic gain. Even though his perception iseurocentric his relatively astute summation of colonial history does provide some validation of Clifford’s belief that the Empire had changed and was potentially a tool for bettering mankind. The second section of this paper indicates Clifford strongly believed this was the duty of the Empire and its administrators. An administrator justified his presence by improving the lives of those he ruled. He introduced law, equality and stability. He had to avoid exploitation and protect the interests of his subjects. At the same time he had to introduce them to modern civilization without destroying their culture. Itwas Clifford’spremise that by behaving in such a fashion colonial Page -58 administrators could provide for their subjects a befter life than what they had before. Thispremise indicated a belief in the primitiveness of the subject races before the arrival of the Empire. Clifford thought their lives to be miserable before European arrival because their limited cultural development had led to racial inferiority. Although Clifford did admire the natives and understand their views he believed the more highly evolved Britishsociety could provide the colonies with rulers who were beffer able to govern. So a belief in the racial inferiority and cultural backwardness of colonial peoples was essential to Clifford’s benevolent perception of the Empire. Clifford was honest enough to admit that the history of Imperialism was not an honorable one. He also believed, however, that the contemporary empires existence was justified by the services it performed.

SirHugh Clifford believed he governed other peoples not just because they were inferior but because it was his obligation as an Englishman to improve their lives.

Page -59 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. de V.. ‘Two Imperialists: A Study of SirFrank Sweftenam and Sir Hugh Clifford.’ Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol 37, Pt. 1. Singapore: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1964. Bayly, C. A.. Imperial Meróidian: The BritishEmpire and the World 1780- 1830. London: Longman Group, 1989. Bridgman. Jon M.. The Revolt of the Hereros. London: University of California Press, 1981.

Clifford, SirHugh. In Court and Kampong. London: Grant Richards, 1897a.

Clifford, SirHugh. ‘AJourney Through the Malay States of Trengganu and Kelantan.’ The Geographical Journal. Vol. 9. No. 1. London: The Royal Geographic Society, 1897b.

Clifford, SirHugh. Studies in Brown Humanity. London: Grant Richards, 1898.

Clifford, SirHugh. In a Corner of Asia. London: T.Fisher Unwin, 1899a.

Clifford, SirHugh. ‘A Lesson From The Malay States. Atlantic Monthly. Vol. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1899b.

Clifford, SirHugh. ‘Britishand Siamese Malaya.’ Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute. Vol. 14. London: The Institute, 1903.

Clifford, SirHugh. Sally: A Study. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1904.

Clifford, SirHugh. Heroes of Exile. London: Smith, Elder and Co.. 1906.

Clifford, SirHugh. Saleh: A Sequel. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1908.

Clifford, SirHugh. The Downfall of the Gods. London: .John Murray, 1911.

Clifford, SirHugh. ‘Preface’ in Lady Alice Lovat, The Lifeof SirFrederick Weld. London: John Murray, 1914.

Clifford, SirHugh. German Colonies: A Plea for the Native Races. London: John Murray, 1918.

Clifford, SirHugh. The Gold Coast Regiment in the East African Campaign. London: John Murray, 1920.

Clifford, SirHugh. ‘Nigeria.’ The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Twelfth Edition. Vol. 31. New York: The Encyclopaedia Bri4tannica Inc., 1922a.

Page -60 Clifford, SirHugh. “TheGold Coast.” The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Twelfth Edition. Vol. 31. New York: The Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1922b.

Clifford, SirHugh. •Foreword.” in In a Corner of Asia. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1925.

Clifford, SirHugh. In Days that are Dead. London: John Murray, 1926.

Clifford, SirHugh. Bushwacking. London: William Heinemann, 1929.

Clifford, SirHugh. “Ceylon’ The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Fourteenth Edition. Vol. 5. Toronto: The Encyclopaedia Britannica of Canada, ltd., 1938a.

Clifford, SirHugh. “Malay States.” The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Fourteenth Edition. Vol. 14. Toronto: The Encyclopaedia Britannica of Canada, ltd., 1938b.

Clifford, SirHugh. Stories by SirHugh Clifford. William Roff ed. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Clifford, SirHugh. Journal of a Missionto Pahang: January 15 to April 11, 1887. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1978.

Clifford, SirHugh. Saleh: A Prince of Malaya. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Clifford, SirHugh. Further India. Bangkok: White Lotus Co., 1990.

Cochrane, C. W. H.. Federated Malay States: Annual Report,for 1929. London: HisMajesty’s Stationery Office, 1930.

Conrad, Joseph. Notes on Lifeand Lefters. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1921.

Cookson, C. E.. Gold Coast: Annual Report for 1914. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1915.

DiCrocco, Virginia M.. “Preface” in SirHugh Clifford, Further India. Bangkok: White Lotus Co., 1990.

Drechsler, Horst. Let UsDie Fighting. London: Zed Press, 1980. Gailey, Harry A.. Clifford, Imperial Proconsul. London: Rex Collins, 1982.

Gullick, J. M.. “Introduction.” in SirHugh Clifford, Saleh: A Prince of Malaya. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989a.

Gullick, J. M.. Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Beginnings of Change. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989b.

Heussler, Robert. BritishRule in Malaya: The Malavan CivilService and its Predecessors. Westport, Conn.: Greenwoods Press, 1981. Page-61 Hon-Chan, Chai. The Development of BritishMalaya 1896-1909. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1964. Linehan, William. ‘A Historyof Pahang.’ Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol.14. Part. 2. Singapore: The Royal Asiatic Society. 1936. Mason, Philip. Pafterns of Dominance. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. Muir,Ramsay. The Expansion of Europe. London: Constable and Company, 1922.

Nicolson, I. F.. The Administration of Nigeria 1900-1960: Men Methods and Myths. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Roff,William. “Introduction.” in SirHugh Clifford, Stories by SirHu9h Clifford. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Stockwell, A. J.. “SirHugh Clifford’sEarly Career, 1866-1903.” Journal of The Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 49, Pt. 2. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1976. Stockwell, A. J.. ‘Hugh Clifford in Trinidad.” Carribean Quarterly. Vol. 2, No. 1. Kingston: Universityof the West Indies, 1978.

Stockwell, A. J.. ‘SirHugh Clifford in Malaya 1927-1929: ‘Pinang Pulang Ka tampok” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 53, Pt. 2. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1980.

Thio, Eunice. BritishPolicy in the Malay Peninsula 1880-1910. Singapore: University of Malaya, 1969.

Winstedt, SirRichard. Malaya and Its History. London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1923.

Winstedt, SirRichard. “SirHugh Clifford” in Dictionary of National Biography, 1941-1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Page-62