^{page 108 note 1} The work of Gedney Clarke is described in Storm van's Gravesande (2 vols., Hakluyt Society, Series II, Vols. XXVI and XXVII). Further light on his activities can be obtained from the unpublished letter-books of Messrs. Lascelles and Maxwell, West India merchants, in the possession of Messrs. Wilkinson and Gaviller, 34, Great Tower Street, London.

^{page 109 note 1} Professor A. B. Keith uses the term in his recent book, The Constitution, Administration and Law of the Empire, in the commonly accepted sense of colonies other than dominions: see p. xvii.

^{page 110 note 1} Cf. List of “crown” and “representative” colonies drawn up by Sir P. Julyan in 1860, C.O. 323/254. Sir P. Julyan was the crown agent, and from the history of that office much light can be obtained as to the origin of the distinction. See my article in E.H.R., April, 1925. The term in the early nineteenth century meant “conquered possession,” being used to describe the conquests of the Napoleonic War (cf. “Ceded Islands,” in 1763). Conquered possessions were subject to constitutional traditions different from those of settled colonies (see Campbell v. Hall, 1774; 20 St. Tr., pp. 322 et seq.); then the term came to be used of all colonies having the form of government looked upon as characteristic of conquered colonies, and the fact of conquest was no longer essential to it.

^{page 111 note 1} H. MSS. C. Bathurst MSS., p. 413.

^{page 111 note 2} A consideration of the difficulties that faced English administrators in enforcing amelioration even in Demerara (and much more in the old West India Colonies) tempers criticism of the delay in carrying through the programme of the humanitarians. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the personal enfranchisement of the slaves meant the political disenfranchisement of the planter.

^{page 111 note 3} Draft No. 54 to Sir Ben D'Urban, 1 October, 1831. C.O. 111/116. The draft is annotated in pencil. The notes are unsigned, but appear to be by Stephen.

^{page 112 note 1} The terms are in C.O. 111/5. They are printed in Parl. Papers, 1848, XXXIX.

^{page 112 note 2} The Dutch phrase is elsewhere translated “the Law-making authority.”

^{page 113 note 1} In 1789 a reorganisation took place under a scheme for reform known as the “Plan of Redress.” C.O. 111/41, pp. 1, etc. The scheme is printed with several other documents relating to the constitutional development of British Guiana in Parl. Papers, 1848, XXXIX. “Papers relating to the Constitution of British Guiana.” See also Wrong, Hume: Government in the West Indies (1923), pp. 114–123Google Scholar, for a short account of the constitution of the colony; and, for this and other aspects of the history of the colony, Netscher, P. M.: Geschiedenis van de Koloniēn Essequebo, Demerary en Berbice (1888)Google Scholar; and Rodway, J.: History of British Guiana (3 vols., 1891–1894Google Scholar). See also articles by Dr. G. C. Edmundson in E.H.R., 1901, 1903, 1904, and in Trans., 1923.

^{page 113 note 2} Report on the constitution of Demerara and Essequibo by Governor Beaujon in 1799 (C.O. 111/3, enclosure in letter dated 7 July, 1799). Cf. Report sent home by Sir W. Myers in 1804 (C.O. 111/5, enclosure and letter dated 30 Sept. 1804), drawn up by Allen Dalzell.

^{page 114 note 1} Civil Justice was based on resolutions of the States-General of 4 October, 1774, Criminal Justice on ordinances passed by that authority and by the Court of Policy at various dates from 1570. See enclosure in Sir W. Myers' letter of 30 Sept. 1804, C.O. 111/5. There was no system of jury. The Regulations of 4 October, 1774, were printed in 1805 and a copy exists in C.O. 111/6, among the “Miscellaneous” papers.

^{page 115 note 1} Details as to the franchise and method of election were set out in the Plan of Redress of 1789, C.O. 111/4 1, pp. 1, etc.

^{page 115 note 2} Full details as to the two chests are given by Sir W. Myers (then administrating the government) in a despatch of 30 Sept. 1804, C.O. 111/5. The two chests had separate Receivers: the Receiver of the Government chest was appointed from home, of the Colony chest by the Court of Policy.

^{page 117 note 1} Van Berckel's history as leader of the Dutch party is given in C.O. 111/11, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 16, 6 July, 1811.

^{page 117 note 2} C.O. 111/3. Petition of “The Proprietors of Lands in Demerary …” 1795. The attempt was defeated only by “a considerable number of the British Inhabitants,” standing forward in support of the Government.

^{page 117 note 3} According to Acting-Governor Carmichael this party was still powerful in 1812. C.O. 111/13, letter of 8 Sept. 1812.

^{page 117 note 4} C.O. 112/4, pp. 195–205. Despatch to Bentinck 25 February, 1812. Cf. Rodway, op. cit., II, pp. 198–9.

Bentinck had sinned in the issue of a proclamation as to slaves which greatly offended the ideas of humanitarians at home. C.O. 111/12, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 36, Feb. 1812.

^{page 118 note 1} The Colonial Secretaries of the period were 1801–4, Hobart; 1804–5, Camden ; 1805–6, Castlereagh; 1806–7, Windham; 1807–9, Castlereagh; 1809–12, Liverpool.

^{page 118 note 2} C.O. 111/11, Bentinck to Liverpool, 16 June, 1811. The first answer to any of his despatches is dated 14 Aug. 1811. C.O. 112/4, p. 169. This was on one point only—the application for leave of absence: notice of other matters starts on 15 October.

^{page 118 note 3} Upon financial matters the eagerness of the home government, although natural enough in time of war, amounted almost to sharp practice. In 1810 an attempt was made to secure the transmission to the Treasury of balances remaining in the King's chest. C.O. 111/11, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 23, 4 Nov. 1811. Bentinck successfully opposed this. A transmission had been made earlier by Beaujon in 1801, but under protest. C.O. 111/4, Beaujon to Duke of Portland, 10 Feb. 1801.

^{page 118 note 4} C.O. 111/11, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 16, 6 July, 1811.

^{page 118 note 5} C.O. 111/7, Bentinck to Windham, No. 17, 10 April, 1807.

^{page 119 note 1} C.O. 111/41, No. 20, Meeting of Combined Court, 4 Dec. 1810. No. 21, ditto, 1 May, 1811.

^{page 119 note 2} C.O. 111/9, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 11, 30 Aug. 1809.

^{page 119 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 119 note 4} Draft to Governor Bentinck, 21 December, 1811, C.O. 111/11. All these changes had been urged by Bentinck.

^{page 119 note 5} C.O. 111/12, Bentinck to Liverpool, No. 4, 6 Feb. 1812; and No. 9, 21 March, 1817.

^{page 119 note 6} C.O. 111/12, ditto, 7 April, 1812.

^{page 120 note 1} His successor, Murray, said that he would not even let his Secretary see his despatches, with the result that none of them were properly entered. Notes of some of them existed on odd scraps of paper: and all his papers, public and private, were “scattered over different rooms in indiscriminate confusion.” C.O. 111/16, Murray to Bathurst, No. 1, 24 May, 1813. Carmichael himself reports that he acted without advice, C.O. 111/13, Carmichael to Bathurst, 23 October, 1812.

^{page 121 note 1} Carmichael states himself that this is why he adopted it. Bentinck's plan left things too much as they were, C.O. 111/12, Carmichael to Liverpool, 3 May, 1812.

^{page 121 note 2} Cf. Carmichael's speech to Combined Court, 18 Nov. 1812, C.O. 111/41. “The People chose the Parliament from whom were selected the nobles comprising the House of Lords.”

^{page 123 note 1} A convention with Holland of 13 August, 1814, provided for the sale to Britain of the Guiana settlements, F.O. 93 Holland 26/2. Subsequent negotiations were necessary on the question of naturalisation and with reference to Dutch mortgagees of lands in the colony.

^{page 123 note 2} E.g. in 1829 it was required that the Catholic Relief Bill should be declared locally operative in every colony, despite the fact that in many, as in Demerara, there were no Catholic disabilities to relieve. C.O. 111/69, No. 3.

^{page 123 note 3} For the history of the Poor's Fund, see C.O. 111/40. Enclosures in Murray to Bathurst, No. 240, 20 May, 1823. The Poor's Fund was organised by regulation from the States-General in 1792 as a system for administering Poor Relief. It was reorganised by ordinance of the Court of Policy in 1816. Stephen in 1822 expressed doubt as to the validity of the ordinance since it was a repeal of a law made by the States-General of Holland. C.O. 111/43, Stephen to Horton, 24 Dec. 1823.

^{page 124 note 1} E.g. in 1815, and again in 1820–1, Murray referred home the disputes with the President of the Court of Justice (C.O. 111/20, No. 43 of 19 Oct. 1815. CO. 111/25–34, passim).

So also in 1820 Murray made the first of many reports on the difficulties of financial control (C.O. 111/29. Letter of 30 March, 1820. Cf. Letters of 19 April, 1823, C.O. 111/37, No. 237, enclosing volume of evidence; C.O. 111/41, and letters from D'Urban of 4 June, 21 Sept., 1824; 6 Feb., 27 April, 1 Sept., 1825; C.O. 111/44, 45 and 49).

And in 1823 Murray referred home the question of the Poor's Fund (C.O. 111/40, Letter No. 240 of 20 May, 1823).

^{page 126 note 1} It is noteworthy that James Stephen, who was largely concerned in the political argument, was a member of a family closely connected with “the saints.”

^{page 128 note 1} For each vacancy the Court submitted two names to the Governor, and he selected one of them.

^{page 128 note 2} P.C. 2/199, pp. 433–5. Order dated 31 May, 1817.

^{page 128 note 3} P.C. 2/207, pp. 2–6. Order dated 30 January, 1826.

^{page 128 note 4} For an account of this debt, see letter from Horace Twiss to J. P. Stewart, 26 Aug. 1820. C.O. 112/14.

^{page 129 note 1} Goderich to D'Urban, No. 1, 18 March, 1831. C.O. 112/15.

^{page 129 note 2} Twiss and Stephen here use the term to signify the colonies conquered in the Napoleonic Wars.

^{page 129 note 3} The draft of this “special order” is in C.O. 111/115 under head “Memoranda.” It is endorsed “This to be sent to Mr. Stephen.” I have not been able to find the text of the “General Order.”

^{page 129 note 4} I.e. Trinidad, St. Lucia, Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, Demerara and Essequibo, and Berbice.

^{page 129 note 5} It is in C.O. 111/98 amongst miscellaneous papers relating to the constitution of Demerara and Berbice.

^{page 130 note 1} Stephen further pointed out that although the Capitulations “are not to be understood in such a manner as to prevent useful and necessary innovation,” they made it essential that the necessity should “be clear and the utility undesirable, to justify a change in fundamentals.”

^{page 130 note 2} Stephen's letter is interlined with pencilled replies to the criticisms made.

^{page 130 note 3} The matter was the subject of a correspondence between Stephen and Horton in 1826. Here the plan of reverting to the old system is spoken of as the result of a decision of Lord Bathurst. Stephen then agreed. C.O. 111/58, James Stephen. Letter of 5 December, 1826.

^{page 130 note 4} C.O. 111/118. Letter from Attorney and Solicitor-General to Lord Goderich, 2 February, 1831. Stephen had expressed his preference for this method in 1826, C.O. 111/58, James Stephen. Letter of 5 Dec. 1826.

^{page 131 note 1} The Commission is in Pat. Roll. I W. IV, Part 22, No. 8. It is printed in Parl. Papers, 1848, XXXIX.

^{page 131 note 2} I have not been able to find a copy of the Instructions. Extracts from them are printed in Parl. Papers, 1848, XXXIX.

^{page 131 note 3} The delay was caused by his wish to publish at the same time the Order in Council regulating the judicial system. This did not arrive until 14 July. C.O. 111/116, D'Urban to Goderich, No. 5, 1 Aug. 1831.

^{page 131 note 4} “… We do hereby reserve to ourselves our heirs and successors our and their undoubted right and authority … to make and establish from time to time with the advice and consent of Parliament, or with the advice and consent of our or their Privy Council, all such laws as may … appear necessary.”

^{page 131 note 5} The effect of this Order was to put the administration of justice in the hands of trained judges, more fully restricting the system of colonial representation in the Court.

^{page 133 note 1} Stephen would have preferred to assert that the validity of the capitulation ceased when the colony was ceded to Britain. As yet, however, the Colonial Office was only gradually feeling its way towards this attitude. Its adoption by 1835 is suggested by the following references in a despatch from Aberdeen to Sir Lionel Smith: “the Articles of Capitulation even were they to be considered in force after the final cession under Treaty …” C.O. 112/18/1317, cf. p. 332. How great a revolution this involved can be seen if this view is compared with Lord Mansfield's in 1774. See 20 St. Tr., p. 323.

^{page 133 note 2} Stanley to Sir J. Carmichael-Smyth, No. 61, 22 Feb. 1834. C.O. 112/18, pp. 106–8. The abolition of slavery automatically necessitated financial rearrangement in some particulars.

^{page 133 note 3} The mission of Sir Lionel Smith in 1835 was sent out with the object Of reaching a decision on this matter.

^{page 134 note 1} See the details set out in Stephen's letter of 1826. C.O. 111/98.