Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:44:46.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Government and the Governor Eyre Controversy, 1865–1875

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. A. Knox
B. A. Knox
Affiliation:
Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the several works on the great controversy aroused by Governor Edward John Eyre's measures for suppressing the Morant Bay rebellion, in Jamaica in October 1865, British government reactions and decisions have been surprisingly neglected. For the best part of two years at the beginning of this period the government had to deal with a most serious political as well as colonial crisis. Two successive ministries were involved in this. Lord Russell's Liberals received news of the rebellion in the depths of the 1865–6 parliamentary recess. Public dispute was therefore kept, temporarily, at a distance which policy-makers could welcome. The government appointed, in December 1865, a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Jamaican troubles. Its report, which alone amongst official sources has attracted much attention from writers on the subject, was released shortly before the end of June 1866, when the Liberals, defeated in parliament, resigned. The Derby Conservatives then taking office continued the Liberals' policies over Jamaica and Governor Eyre, a deceptively simple task.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 877 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

N.B. Frequent reference is made to the Russell Papers, Cardwell Papers, and Carnarvon Papers. Their Public Record Office prefixes will be cited in full on first appearance only. Thereafter, they will be abbreviated as, respectively, R.P., Card. P., C.P., followed by the appropriate volume number (e.g. Cardwell Papers, P.R.O. 30/48/7/43 becomes Card. P. 43) and, where possible, folio numbers. Similarly, the Gladstone Papers will appear as G.P., followed by the British Museum Add. MSS number and folio numbers.

C.O. series are located in the Public Record Office; C.O. 137 contains no folio numbers. Hansard refers to Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, third series.

1 A short account of the Jamaica rebellion may be found in Morrell, W. P., British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian Age (Oxford, 1969), ch. XIIIGoogle Scholar - in which official sources are not neglected, but their use restricted. The ‘debate’ is treated in its public aspects by Semmel, Bernard in The Governor Eyre Controversy (London, 1962).Google Scholar Gilliam Workman's excellent article, ‘Thomas Carlyle and the Governor Eyre Controversy: An Account with Some New Material’, Victorian Studies, XVIII (1974), 77–102,Google Scholar is not concerned with government policy, except in a brief and misleading reference (p. 30). A different perspective appears in Geoffrey Dutton, The Hero as Murderer. The Life of Edward John Eyre (Sydney and Melbourne, 1967).Google ScholarBolt, Christine, Victorian Attitudes to Race (London, 1971), ch. III, examines the debate in a particular context.Google Scholar

2 Morrell, Colonial Policy, passim; Dalton, B. J., War and Politics in New Zealand 1855–1870 (Sydney, 1967), chs VII and VIII;Google ScholarMclntyre, W. D., The Imperial Frontier in the Tropics, 1865–1875 (London, 1967),CrossRefGoogle Scholar chs 3 and 4; Knox, B. A., The Rise of Colonial Federation as an Object of British Policy, 1850–1870', Journal of British Studies, XI (1971), 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cardwell to Russell, 3 Nov. 1865, Russell Papers, P.R.0.30/22/15G, fo. 23; memorandum 13–26 Nov. 1865, R.P. 15G, fos. 79–86.

4 Eyre to Cardwell, 20 Oct. 1865 (received 16 Nov.), Parliamentary Papers 1866, LI, 151.Google Scholar

5 Cardwell to Eyre, 17 Nov. 1865, ibid. 395; Cardwell to Eyre, 17 Nov. 1865, Cardwell Papers, P.R.O. 30/48/7/42, fos. 36–37. See also, Public Record Office, W.O. 32/6235, for an early, and hardly repeated, instance of War Office-C.O. collaboration - framing a rebuke to Colonel (local Brigadier-General) Nelson for his conduct towards Gordon: minutes, c. 17 Nov. 1865, on General O'Connor to W.O., 24 Oct. 1865.

6 Phipps to Cardwell, 18 Nov. 1865, Cardwell to Phipps, 20 Nov. 1865, Brougham to Cardwell, 22, 25 Nov. 1865, Card. P. 42.

7 Cardwell to Eyre (2 dispatches), 23 Nov. 1865, Parliamentary Papers 1866, LI, 396; Cardwell to Eyre, 23 Nov. 1865, Card. P. 42, fos. 51–54; minute, 25 Nov. 1865, on James Carson (a W.I. proprietor) to Cardwell, 23 Nov. 1865, CO. 137/398; Cardwell to Phipps, 20 Nov. 1865, Card. P. 42. Inflated estimates continued to bedevil the question, until the Royal Commission Report in June 1866 established 439 as the approximate number of deaths.Google Scholar

8 Memorandum by Gladstone, 1 Dec. 1865, Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 44754, fos. 136–137; Cardwell to Eyre, I Dec. 1865, Parliamentary Papers 1866, LI, 401; Cardwell to Eyre, I Dec. 1865, Card. P. 42, fos. 67–68; Cardwell to Storks (letter and telegram), 4 Dec. 1865, Card. P. 43, fos. 1–2. Storks had gone from the Staff to be Lord High Commissioner in the Ionian Islands in 1859, following Gladstone's mission and Sir John Young's recall; in Oct. 1865, Cardwell had had him ‘ready in case of need’ to supersede Sir George Grey in New Zealand (Cardwell to Gladstone, 2 Oct. 1865, G.P. 44118, fo. 201).Google Scholar

9 Cardwell to Storks, 1 Feb. 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 28–29.

10 Paper ‘Read to the Cabinet’, 6 Dec. 1865, Card. P. 44, fos. 105–110; Cardwell to the queen, 7 Dec. 1865, Card. P. 42, fos. 69–70; Gladstone to Cardwell, 4 Dec. 1865, G.P. 44535, fo. 157. See also, Phipps to Cardwell, 24 Dec. 1865 (conveying his own and the queen's opinions), Card. P. 42, fos. 88–89.

11 Cutting from the Evening Star, II Dec. 65, Card. P. 44, fos. 39–41; Cardwell to Eyre, 16 Dec. 1865, Parliamentary Papers 1866, LI,Google Scholar 410; report of Cardwell's speech at Oxford, 1 Jan. 1866, The Times, 2 Jan. 1866; Gladstone to Charles Buxton, 8 Dec. 1865, G.P. 44535, fo. 159; Gladstone to Cardwell, 13 Dec. 1865, ibid. 161. Papers printed confidentially at this time are in CO. 884/2.

12 Gladstone to Cardwell, 13Dec. 1865, G.P. 44535, fo. 161; Cardwell to Russell, “n.d.” Dec. 1865, R.P. 16D, fos. 174–175; Cardwell to Storks, 31 Dec. 1865, Card. P. 43, fos. 5–8. Russell Gurney is not to be confused with Samuel Gurney, M.P. (Liberal), President of the Anti-Slavery Society.

13 Storks to Cardwell, 8 Jan. 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 15; Gladstone to Sir Roderick Murchison (President, Royal Geographical Society), 27 Feb. 1866, G.P. 44536, fo. 29; Hansard 181, cols. (91–94 6 Feb. 1866); minute by Stanley, 9 May 1858, on Eyre to Merivale, 9 Apr. 1858, CO. 260/91 Semmel (Eyre Controversy, p. 31), relying on a dubious source, seriously exaggerates the officials' favour towards Eyre (cf. Dutton, Hero as Murderer, pp. 202,211,231, and below).

14 Eyre to Cardwell, 9 Jan. 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 19–21; Eyre to H. Taylor, 23 Feb. 1866, J R.P. 16A, fos. 252–256.

15 Cardwell to Storks, I Feb. 66, Card. P. 43, fos. 28–29; Taylor to Eyre, 31 Jan. 1866, Eyre to Taylor, 23 Feb. 1866, fair copies in R.P. 16A, fos. 248–256. One must observe G. Dutton's judgment (Hero as Murderer, p. 338) that Eyre in England ‘was betrayed by his supporters;’ the evidence cited here and below suggests that Sir Henry Storks was closer to the mark in opining that, in Jamaica as well as later, Eyre had ‘thrown away a great chance of extricating himself from a very dangerous position - but the obstinacy of his nature, & the imprudent promptings of those about him have gone far to ruin him’ (Storks to Cardwell, 29 Aug. 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 115; also, W. E. Forster to Cardwell, 24 Aug. 1866, ibid. fo. 112).

16 Cardwell to Storks, 1 Feb. 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 28–29; Memorandum by Cardwell, n.d., R.P. 16B, fos. 386–387.

17 Hansard, 181, cols. 91–94, 101–102. Storks secured from the Jamaica Assembly powerto compel attendance of witnesses: Storks to Cardwell, 20 Jan. 1866 (received 12 Feb.), CO. 137/399. Conservative forbearance enabled easy passage of a bill authorizing reduction of Jamaica's constitution to that of a Crown Colony, for which Eyre had prepared the way in Jamaica (memorandum by Cardwell, n.d., R.P. 16B, fos. 379–389; Morrell, Colonial Policy); this process, described by Taylor as ‘of all political revolutions on a small scale, the most singular as well as the most beneficial’ (Taylor to Carnarvon, 21 Oct. 1866, Carnarvon Papers, P.R.O. 30/6/157, fos. 432–436), is construed by Miss Bolt (Victorian Attitudes, p. 105) as ‘abandonment of the democratic experiment’ in Jamaica, on account of the 1865 rebellion.

18 Cardwell to Storks, 16 Feb. 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 47–52; Gladstone to Cardwell, 28 Feb. 1866, G.P. 44536, fo. 29.

19 Bishop of Kingston to Cardwell, 14 Jan. 1866 (received 9 Feb.), CO. 137/410; Addresses to Eyre, enclosed in Storks to Cardwell, 8 Feb. 1866 (received 2 Mar.), CO. 137/399; Eyre to Cardwell “n.d.” Jan. 1866, enclosed in Storks to Cardwell, 19 Feb. 1866 (received 16 Mar.), with minutes C.O. 137/400; Cardwell to Storks, 16 Mar. 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 66.

20 Messrs Shaen & Roscoe (solicitors for the Jamaica Committee) to Cardwell, 6 Apr. 1866, with minutes, and draft reply 23 Apr., CO. 137/410; Gladstone to Cardwell, 28 Feb. 1866, G.P. 44536, fo. 29: Gladstone had doubts of the wisdom of keeping the case so close.

21 Storks to Cardwell, 16 Mar. 1866 (received 12 Apr.), with Taylor's minute, 24 Apr., Cardwell's, 27 Apr., C.O. 137/401; a fair copy of Taylor's ‘Project of Rules’ is at the end of C.O. 137/408. In view of what follows, it is worth noting that Taylor had long advocated the cause of West Indian negroes: see, for example, Murray, D. J., The West Indies and the Development of Colonial Government, 1801–1834 (Oxford 1965), pp. 190, 192–4, 218–19. That 1865 was a shock for him, of the kind that Miss Bolt argues (Victorian Attitudes, ch. III) it was for middle class England generally, is likely: see his consideration of the lack of impact which the Sepoy mutiny could have on the West Indies, minute, 2 Mar. 1859, on Wodehouse to Lytton, 7 Jan. 1859, C.O. 111/323; see also, Taylor to Carnarvon, 21 Oct. 1866, C.P. 157, fos. 432–436. His attitudes in 1865 must be compared with those of 1858, when martial law was briefly in force in Antigua: minute, 22 Apr. 1858, on Hamilton to Stanley, 27 Mar. 1858, C.O. 7/109.Google Scholar

22 Cardwell to Russell, 30 Apr. 1866, R.P. 16B, fos. 377–378; Storks to Cardwell, 9 Apr. 1866, C.O. 137/411, enclosing the Report: minute by Taylor incomplete and n.d., ditto Rogers' notes: Forster's minute, 14, 22 May. Report printed Parliamentary Papers 1866, xxx, 489; see also the works of Semmel and Dutton already cited: space does not permit a useful summary in this article.

23 Taylor to Rogers, 16 June 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 101–103.

24 Cardwell to Storks, I May 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 83; C. S. Parker (Cardwell's private secretary) to Editor, Pall Mall Gazette, 4 May 1866, ibid. fo. 85.

25 C.O. to Law Officers, 15 May 1866, C.O. 137/410, Section ‘W’; Cardwell to Storks, I June 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 91.

26 C.O. to Law Officers, 12 June 1866, CO. 137/410, Section‘W’;Gladstone to Cardwell, 13 June 1866, G.P. 44536, fo. 60; Cardwell to Storks, 16 June 1866, Card. P. 43, fos. 93–99; Cardwell to Storks, 18 June 1866 (presented to parliament that day), Parliamentary Papers 1866, LI, 139.Google Scholar

27 Cardwell to Russell, 27 June 1866, R.P. 16C, fos. 425–427; Cardwell to Storks, 30 June 1866, Card. P. 43, fo. 105.

28 Draft dispatch to Vice-Admiral Sir James Hope and letter to C.O., following C.O. to Admiralty, 18 June 1866, P.R.O., Adm. 1/5990; minutes by Rogers, 6 July, Carnarvon, 7 July, on Admiralty to C.O., 6 July 1866, CO. 137/409; minutes by Rogers, Adderley, 12 July, Carnarvon 17 July, on Admiralty to CO. 5 July 1866, C.O. 137/409; Adderley to Gurney, 18 July 1866, C.O. 137/410 (no official reply was received); minute by Carnarvon, 16 July, on Council Office to C.O., 3 July 1866, C.O. 137/409.

29 Minutes by Cardwell, 30 June, Carnarvon, 18 July, on Storks to Cardwell, 16 Mar. 1866, C.O. 137/401.

30 Minute by Carnarvon, 23 July, on draft dispatch to Grant, 1 Aug. 1866, C.O. 137/407; Carnarvon to Grant, n.d. (‘seen H.T. 25 Aug/66’), C.O. 137/407.

31 C.O. to W.O., 24 July 1866, C.O. 137/409; W.O. to C.O., 25 Aug. 1866, C.O. 137/409; Peel I replied privately to Carnarvon, for parliamentary purposes, much earlier; Peel to Carnarvon, 2 Aug. 1866, C.P. 152.

32 Hansard, 184, cols. 1064–1069 (19 July 1866).

33 Minute by Taylor, 18 July 1866, C.O. 137/410, end of volume.

34 Text of Buxton's motion and full debate are in Hansard, 184, cols, 1763–1840; Cardwell, Forster and Gurney took part, as well as Jamaica Committee men and one or two extreme Tories. Adderley, as well as others, was sure to have been influenced in his speech by the publication in The Times, 30 July 1866, of a manifesto by the Jamaica Committee, explaining lengthily and harshly why they proposed to prosecute Eyre.

35 Adderley to Carnarvon, 6 Aug. 1866, C.P. 134, fos. 27–28; Carnarvon to Adderley, 1 Aug. 1866, C.P. 134, fos. 25–26.

36 Carnarvon to Adderley, Adderley to Carnarvon, ibid.; cuttings from The Times, 1 Aug. 1866, marked heavily in red and lead pencil, C.P. 173; Rogers to Carnarvon, 1 Aug. 1866, C.P. 154, fos. 100–104.

37 Adderley to Cardwell, 3 Aug. 1866, Card. P. 42.

38 Hansard, 184, cols. 1889–1896 (2 Aug. 1866)

39 E.g. Economist, 5 Aug. 1866; Spectator, 4 Aug. 1866 (comparison is made in ‘News of the Week’, not in article ‘The End of the Jamaica Affair’). The Commons debate naturally received most attention in the press, and Adderley seems to have been universally, at least an embarrassment: even The Times, in its leader, 1 Aug. 1866, failed to mention Adderley's speech, while referring to those of Forster and Sir Roundell Palmer as being capable, if anything was, of changing the Jamaica Committee's attitude.

40 Carnarvon to Grant, 15 Aug. 1866, C.P. 143, fo. 896: minutes by Adderley and Carnarvon on Storks to Cardwell, 9 July 1866, enclosing Eyre's reply to his dismissal (received 30 July), C.O. 137/406; minutes by Adderley and Carnarvon on Storks to Cardwell, 24 July 1866 (received 13 Aug.), C.O. 137/406.

41 Various minutes, drafts, and Admiralty replies, 16 Aug.to 13 Oct., following Admiralty to C.O., 5 July 1866, C.O. 137/409. Carnarvon's opinion of Adderley is in a letter, drafted but not sent, to Derby, 7 Jan. 1867, C.P. 139, fos. 20–22.

42 Carnarvon to Grant, 29 Sept. 1866, CP. 143, fo. 913: in view of the Reform agitation, it is curious that Carnarvon also wrote that ‘the controversy…has, in the absence of other more important matters, been protracted in the papers: but “as”…a merely personal question’ (idem). The Prorogation Speech on 1 o Aug. had contained no mention of Jamaica: Hansard, 184, cols. 2155–2160

43 Carnarvon to Grant, 1, 14 Nov. 1866, Grant to Carnarvon, 8 Oct. 1866, C.P. 143, fos.932, 942, 915–917; Grant to Carnarvon, 24 Oct. 1866 (3 dispatches), Carnarvon to Grant, 16 Nov. 1866 (two dispatches), C.O. 137/407.

44 Taylor to Carnarvon, 30 Aug. 1866, C.P. 157, fos. 418–419; T.F. Elliot (assistant under-secretary) to C. C. Graham (Carnarvon's private secretary), 7 Sept. 1866, C.P. 140, fos. 444–445; Carnarvon to Peel, 25 Oct. 1866, C.P. 153; Carnarvon to duke of Cambridge (C-in-C), 28 Oct. 1866, C.P. 136, fos. 567–568; draft Instructions for the Committee (initialled by Carnarvon, 14 Nov. 1866), C.O. 323/289, fos. 11–12.

45 Derby to Carnarvon, 5 Dec. 1866, C.P. 138, fo. 152; Carnarvon to Derby, 5 Dec. 1866, ibid. fos. 153–156; Derby to Carnarvon, 7 Dec. 1866, C.P. 139, fos. 9–10; Carnarvon to Derby, 9 Dec. 1866, ibid. fos. 13–15.

46 Elliot to Carnarvon, 10, 15 (‘I hope that our proposals may not be useless:-and if they should appear elementary, one may remark that experience has shown that they are not superfluous’) Dec. 1866, C.P. 140, fos. 483,488. Report of Committee and Proposed Rules, 14 Dec. 1866, followed by supplementary correspondence and draft circular to Governors, 26 Jan. 1867, C.O. 323/287.

47 Carnarvon to Sir Hugh Cairns, 30 Oct. 1866 (Jamaican magistracies), C.P. 136; Taylorto Carnarvon, 21 Oct. 1866 (garrisons), C.P. 157, fos. 432–436.

48 Eyre to Rogers, 21 Jan. 1867, C.O. 137/429. For an 1872 ‘Epilogue’ to this and following letters, see Semmel, Eyre Controversy, pp. 174–7.

49 Minutes and drafts, 22 Jan. to 7 Feb. 1867, following Eyre to Rogers, 21 Jan. 1867, C.O. 137/429.

50 Carnarvon to Derby, 6 Feb., Derby to Carnarvon, 7 Feb. 1867, C.P. 139, fos. 34–38; Parliamentary Papers 1867–8, XLVIII,Google Scholar 427, print only the ‘expenses’ extract from Adderley to Eyre, 7 Feb. 1867 (moved for, 15 June 1867, by Peter Taylor, M.P., of the Jamaica Committee). Carnarvon resigned (over the Reform bill) on 4 Mar. 1867. It is a measure of the state of the Jamaica problem by then, that the queen's speech, 4 Feb. 1867, mentioned only one colonial subject, the approaching confederation of British North America; nor did any speaker in either House of parliament raise the subject during the Address-in-Reply debate, ‘Reform’ being well and truly their concern (Hansard, 185, cols. 9–76). When Buxton asked, 21 Mar. 1867, what the government had done in fulfilment of Adderley's pledges of 31 July 1866, Adderley gave a stricdy correct answer, at which Buxton did not cavil ibid. 186, cols. 275–279.

51 Semmel, Eyre Controversy, pp. 174–7; Dutton, Hero as Murderer, pp. 390–1.

52 Eyre to Carnarvon, 24 Feb. 1874, C.O. 449/4, fos. 226–228. Section 4 of 28 & 29 Viet. c. 113, under which Eyre applied, was amended in 1872 to make it easier for a pension to be granted on grounds of permanent infirmity: as a result, Eyre, had he chosen, could have applied a year earlier than he did. It should be observed here that the usual supposition, perpetuated by both Semmel and Dutton, is that Eyre's application was granted immediately by the Disraeli ministry in 1874.

53 Private letter, Eyre to Henry Norris (principal clerk, C.O.), 23 Feb. 1874, C.O. 449/4, fos. 224–226. Applications he had made to Gladstone's government for re-employment had notoriously failed: see Dutton, 393.

54 E.g. minutes, 5 Mar. (Herbert), 6 Mar. 1874 (Lowther), C.O. 449/4, fos. 239, 240. Lowther, a country gentleman of no previous experience of colonial affairs, had been a subscriber to the Eyre Defence Fund.

55 Note, II Mar., by Carnarvon explaining his cancellation of an amendment by Lowther to draft C.O. to Treasury (referring Eyre's application), 14 Mar. 1874, C.O. 449/4, fos. 242–244.

56 Minutes, 5 and 6 Mar. 1874, by W. Robinson, Sir H. Holland, R. Herbert, C.O. 449/4, fos. 238–240; draft, C.O. to Treasury, 14 Mar. 1874, C.O. 449/4, fos. 242–244.

57 Treasury to C.O. (enclosing Law Officers' opinion), 15 May 1874, C.O. 449/4, fos. 289–293.

58 Minute, ibid, by Herbert, 17 May; Eyre to Carnarvon, 12 May 1874, C.O. 449/4, fo. 254; minute, ibid., by Herbert, 13 May; Eyre to Carnarvon, 17 Aug. 1874, with minutes by Herbert and Carnarvon, C.O. 449/4, fos. 273–276; Eyre to Carnarvon, 26 May 1874, with minutes by Herbert and Carnarvon, C.O. 449/4, fos. 260–266; minute by Carnarvon, 8 Aug. 1874, C.O. 449/4, fo. 270. In neither text nor footnotes of this article is there space to describe the full range of argument and tactics which the C.O. employed on Eyre's behalf.

59 C.O. to attorney-general and solicitor-general, 4 Dec. 1874 (enclosing draft bill), C.O. 449/4, fos. 281–285; law officers to C.O., 18 Dec. 1874, with minutes by Malcolm, Herbert, Lowther, 24 Dec. 1874–6 Jan. 1875, C.O. 449/4, fos. 306–316.

60 Carnarvon to Disraeli, 12 Feb. 1875, C.P. II, fos. 55–57; minute, 19 Feb. 1875, by ‘Herbert, C.O. 449/5, fos. 38–39; Carnarvon to Eyre, II Mar. 1875, C.O. 449/5, fos. 5–6.

61 Eyre to Carnarvon, 19 Mar. (private), 20 Mar. 1875, with minutes by Carnarvon and Herbert, C.O. 449/5, fos. 42–49; drafts to Eyre, 27 and 30 Mar. 1875, ibid. fos. 50–52.

62 The Times, 18 June 1875 (‘Parliamentary Notices’);Carnarvon to Disraeli, 18 June 1875, C.P. II, fos. 75–78.

63 Goodfellow, C. F., Great Britain and South African Confederation, 1870–1881 (Cape Town, 1966), pp. 56–57Google Scholar and passim. For a narrative of and comment on Langalibalele's rebellion, see, Welsh, D., The Roots of Segregation. Native Policy in Colonial Natal 1845–1910 (Cape Town, 1971).Google Scholar

64 Hansard, 223, cols. 681–694 (12 Apr. 1875); see comment in, for example, Pall Mall Budget (weekly edn of Pall Mall Gazette) 16 Apr. 1875, The Times, 13 Apr. 1875.

65 Semmel, Eyre Controversy, ch. IV.

66 B. A. Knox, ‘Lord Carnarvon, Robert Herbert, and the Confederation Dispute with the Cape Colony, 1874–1876: Imperial Attitudes and Responsible Government’ (unpublished typescript, 1961, Royal Commonwealth Society Library, London). C. F. Goodfellow, Britain and South African Confederation, does not accept this argument.Google Scholar

67 Memorandum, 20 June 1866, enclosed in Bowen to Carnarvon, 12 Nov. 1866 (received 19 Jan. 1867), C.O. 234/16, fos. 298–303, with minutes and draft.

68 E.g. minute, 17 May 1871, C.O. 60/44, fo. 316; minutes on Barkly to Carnarvon, 7 Sept. 1874, C.O. 48/471.