Excerpt: Today, Thomas Chandler Haliburton (1796-1865) is no longer viewed without controversy as “the ‘father of American humour’” (Cogswell). Whereas earlier scholarship praises the author’s “compassionate humour” and reads Sam Slick’s witticisms as part of the “free exchange of ideas between men and women” (Harding 224), recent approaches to The Clockmaker have flagged the political nature of Slick’s humour. Ruth Panofsky (“Breaking”) and George Elliot Clarke (“Must”; “White”) have demonstrated how Slick’s jokes target female characters and Black characters especially often. As Panofsky claims, “Women and Blacks represent two disenfranchised groups whose vulnerable positions in an all-white patriarchy make them easy targets for his often-times vicious humour” (“Breaking” 42). For Clarke, Slick’s gibes align with the “English-Canadian conservatism” of Haliburton, who was “bourgeois in his blood, Tory to the bone, and Gothic in spirit” (“Must” 4). Following up on these inquiries into the ideological nature of Slick’s jokes, this article suggests that The Clockmaker’s humour is part of a nineteenth-century settler colonial tradition that creates an illusion of a harmonious British Atlantic Canada. While laughter has been recognized as a veritable tradition in postcolonial and transcultural literatures (Balce; Dunphy and Emig; Reichl and Stein), the following discussion links the forms and functions of humour in Haliburton’s works to discussions of settler colonial aesthetics (Bryant; Gould; Rudy; Veracini; Wolfe). Haliburton’s humour idealizes settler colonial relations in Atlantic Canada and turns conflict into comedy. This pertains to differences not only between British and non-British characters but also within the English-speaking community. Settlers from different parts of the British Isles are satirized, though with the overall function of imagining them as a diverse, agreeable body of like-minded settler colonists. Discourses of Scottishness in The Clockmaker and its sequels illustrate this naturalizing and idealizing function of humour in settler colonial fiction.









Abstract: This dissertation argues that Britain’s shift to free trade in 1846 moved British settler colonialism in Canada and Australia away from older trade and land monopolies and toward an imperial-agrarian system that sought to transform Indigenous lands into breadbaskets for the newly industrializing metropole. Liberal theories articulated in the 1840s created the ideological basis for new colonial legislation in the 1860s and 1870s, which led to the routine enclosure of land for settlers. Contrary to the utopian visions of interdependence and trade harmony painted by free traders in the 1840s, free trade policies led to an increase in British territorial conquest in the settler colonies. As foreign grain imports put pressure on the domestic agricultural sector in the 1870s, many began to view settler colonization as a release valve that could alleviate domestic population and food pressures. The 1870s were pivotal. As the imperial-agrarian system expanded to feed a growing industrial population in Britain, Indigenous communities in areas slated for grain production entered the agricultural economy and developed new political claims around land, even as colonial expansion undermined access to resources. Indeed, efforts to secure private property rights for farmers in new regions undermined the existing food supply, which led to subsistence crises, displacement, and land loss among Indigenous communities across Canada and Australia. While new legal agreements emerged to reserve land for Indigenous peoples in the empire, the cyclical dynamic of agricultural development and improvement also foreshadowed the erosion of those agreements. The establishment of the grain economy set in motion a process of continual exploitation and expropriation, as colonists sought new arable lands—new extractive or commodity frontiers—to preserve or expand their margins. As settlers ran into both economic and ecological limits, such as exhausted soil and rising land prices, they sought to appropriate more Native land, establishing farmsteads in territories they had once considered marginal or that had been legally reserved for Indigenous communities. The grain economy in both places experienced significant growth in the 1890s and 1910s. These decades also saw intensified efforts to subdivide and allot reserve lands for sale to agricultural settlers. Examining the closure of Poonindie in South Australia and the surrender of the Siksika reserve in Alberta, my argument shows how land allotment was closely tied to the grain trade. This dissertation uses the thread of the grain trade to bind together national histories within a British imperial system linked by trade. The story of the grain trade between 1846 and 1914, with its extensive land use, sprawling capital-intensive infrastructure, and integral position in the global and increasingly globalized food economy, gives us a more holistic picture of a period for which scholars have tended to write distinct histories of the British empire and its settler dominions in Canada and Australia. The project demonstrates that grain became the crop most closely associated with settler colonies, as the production of cash crops by family farmers simultaneously addressed both the population and agricultural crises in Britain. Grain was the flipside of the industrial economy, the crop that underwrote Britain’s economic growth and upheld its imperial system.