Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T14:47:21.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Rights and Empire Building: Britain's Annexation of Lagos, 1861

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Antony G. Hopkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Britain's acquisiton of Lagos has already attracted considerable historical research, but it is examined here from a new perspective and with the help of unused sources. Three conclusions are drawn. First, the episode itself is reinterpreted to give prominence to changing property rights as both a cause and a consequence of annexation. Second, it is argued that the Lagos case can be placed in a broader framework of imperial expansion in which institutional change formed the centerpiece of a nineteenth-century development drive. Third, it is suggested that the study of African history might benefit from assigning higher priority to the analysis of property rights other than those embodied in slave-holding.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 777 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1980

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

1 Cain, Peter J. and Hopkins, Antony G., “The Political Economy of British Expansion Overseas, 1750–1914,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 33 (Nov. 1980), 474–81Google Scholar.

2 Cain, Peter, “Capitalism, War and Internationalism in the Thought of Richard Cobden,” British Journal of International Studies, 5 (1979), 229–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Gavin, Robert J., “Palmerston's Policy Towards East and West Africa, 1830–1865” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge Univ., 1958)Google Scholar. This outstanding study, neglected even by specialists, remains the major treatment of the subject and merits wider recognition.

4 MacPherson, Crawford B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar; idem ed., Property (Oxford, 1978); Pocock, John G. A., “Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3 (Summer 1972), 119–34Google Scholar; idem, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; Hirschman, Albert O., The Passions and the Interests (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar; Winch, Donald, Adam Smith's Politics (Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar.

5 Lewis Morgan, quoted in Kiernan, Victor G., “Private Property in History,” in Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan, and Thompson, Edward P., eds., Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200–1800 (Cambridge, 1976), p. 376Google Scholar.

6 McCulloch, quoted in Ambirajan, S., Classical Political Economy and British Policy in India (Cambridge, 1978), p. 221CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Some important individual cases have received expert analysis: Wakefield's scheme for linking white settlement to colonial land sales is one prominent example; the land revenue systems in India are another. However, the comparative aspect, touched upon in the concluding section of this article, remains undeveloped.

8 There are more studies dealing with the formulation and application of policy than with changes at the grass roots.

9 Lack of adequate source material may well prove to be a serious obstacle. But the belief that this might be the case ought not to prevent the attempt from being made. The point of citing detailed examples in the present article is precisely to show that evidence can be elicited by asking new questions of well-known sources as well as by making use of hitherto largely untapped legal and land records.

10 See especially Smith, Robert S., The Lagos Consulate, 1851–1861 (London, 1978)Google Scholar.

11 Wilmot to Bruce, 11 Feb. 1852, F.O. 84/893 (Foreign Office Records in the Public Record Office, London).

12 The treaty is conveniently reproduced in Smith, Lagos Consulate, pp. 135–37.

13 F.O. to Foote, 23 June 1861, F.O. 84/1141.

14 Minute on Foote to Russell, 9 March 1861, F.O. 84/1141.

15 (Sir) Burton, Richard F., Wanderings in West Africa (London, 1863), pp. 216–17Google Scholar.

16 See especially Biobaku, Saburi O., The Egba and Their Neighbours (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar; Gavin, “Palmerston's Policy”; Newbury, Colin W., The Western Slave Coast and Its Rulers (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar; Ajayi, Jacob F. Ade, “The British Occupation of Lagos, 1851–61: A Critical Review,” Nigeria Magazine, 69 (Aug. 1961), 96–105Google Scholar; idem, Christian Missions in Nigeria, 1841–1891 (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Kopytoff, Jean Herskovits, A Preface to Modern Nigeria: The “Sierra Leonians” in Yoruba, 1830–1890 (Madison, 1965)Google Scholar; Phillips, Earl H., “The Church Missionary Society, the Imperial Factor, and Yoruba Politics, 1842–1873” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Southern California, 1966)Google Scholar; Matheson, Jane D., “Lagoon Relations in the Era of Kosoko, 1845–1862: A Study of African Reaction to European Intervention” (Ph.D. diss., Boston Univ., 1974)Google Scholar; Lynn, Martin R. S., “John Beecroft and West Africa, 1829–54” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London, 1978)Google Scholar; and Smith, Lagos Consulate.

17 Quoted in Sheridan, Richard B., “‘Sweet Malefactor’: The Social Costs of Slavery and Sugar in Jamaica and Cuba, 1807–54,” Economic History Review, 29 (May 1976), 255Google Scholar.

18 There is now a voluminous literature on the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. For a recent survey see Temperley, Howard, “Capitalism, Slavery and Ideology,” Past and Present, 75 (1977), 94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Prince Metternich, no less. Quoted in Gallagher, Jack, “Fowell Buxton and the New African Policy, 1838–1842,” Cambridge Historical Journal, 10 (1950), 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 MacDonnell to Grey, 20 June 1849, C.O. 87/45 (Colonial Office Records in the Public Record Office, London).

21 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 June 1854, C.O. 84/950.

22 F.O. to Beecroft, 25 Feb. 1850, F.O. 84/816.

23 Beecroft to F.O., 26 Nov. 1851, F.O. 84/858.

24 Campbell to Clarendon, 2 Oct. 1855, F.O. 84/976.

25 Campbell to Malmesbury, 28 Jan. 1859, F.O. 84/1088.

26 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 May 1854, F.O. 84/950.

27 Campbell to Clarendon, 25 Sept. 1856, F.O. 84/1002.

28 Campbell to Clarendon, 2 May 1854, F.O. 84/950.

29 Bruce to Admiralty, 1 April 1852, F.O. 84/894.

30 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 June 1854, F.O. 84/950.

31 Campbell to Clarendon, 14 May 1856, F.O. 84/1002. It is likely that Docemo also suffered from the sharp and prolonged fall in the value of the cowrie which began in 1856, since the customs farm was fixed for twelve months in advance.

32 Campbell to Clarendon, 14 May 1856, F.O. 84/1002.

33 The Idejo were one of four categories of Lagos chiefs. It was they who had rights over land on the island; but the claim made by Patrick Cole that these rights were a major source of income is not supported by contemporary evidence. See his Modern and Traditional Elites in the Politics of Lagos (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

34 Evidence in Eshugbayi v. Odunyi, Civ. 24, 1900 (Supreme Court Records, Lagos).

35 Campbell to Clarendon, 30 July 1853, 1 Sept. 1853, and 19 Sept. 1853, F.O. 84/920; idem, 21 Dec. 1854, F.O. 84/950, and 2 Feb. 1855, F.O. 84/976.

36 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 Sept. 1853, F.O. 84/920.

37 Campbell to Clarendon, 23 July 1853, F.O. 84/920, and 12 Dec. 1854, F.O. 84/950.

38 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 June 1854, F.O. 84/950.

39 Campbell to Clarendon, 14 June 1856, F.O. 84/1002.

40 Campbell to Clarendon, 14 March 1857, F.O. 84/1031.

41 Campbell to Clarendon, 28 March 1858, F.O. 84/1061.

42 Bruce to Admiralty, 1 April 1852, F.O. 84/894; Campbell to Clarendon, 22 Oct. 1855, and encs., F.O. 84/976.

43 Campbell to Clarendon, 2 Aug. 1855, F.O. 84/976.

44 Campbell to Clarendon, 14 May 1856, F.O. 84/1002.

45 Fraser to Malmesbury, 11 March 1853, F.O. 84/920; Campbell to Clarendon, 20 Sept. 1853, F.O. 84/920.

46 Fraser to Malmesbury, 11 March 1853, F.O. 84/920.

47 Evidence in Coelho v. Pereira, Chief Magistrate's Court, 1864, Supreme Court Records, Lagos; also evidence of Abari in Fanojora v. Kadiri, Civ. 3, 1881.

48 Bruce to Admiralty, 1 April 1852, and enc., F.O. 84/894.

49 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 June 1854, F.O. 84/950.

50 Report by J. J. C. Healy in Denton to Chamberlain, 4 Oct. 1898, C.O. 147/135.

51 Malmesbury to Fraser, 20 Dec. 1852, F.O. 84/886; Fraser to Malmsebury, 11 March 1853, F.O. 84/920; Campbell to Clarendon, 20 Sept. 1853, F.O. 84/920; Campbell to Clarendon, 1 May 1854, F.O. 84/950; Campbell to Clarendon, 28 May 1855, F.O. 84/976; Campbell to Clarendon, 30 Aug. 1855, F.O. 84/976; Campbell to Clarendon, 22 Oct. 1855, F.O. 84/976.

52 The major decisions are outlined in Park, A. E. W., “The Cession of Territory and Private Land Rights: A Reconsideration of the Tijani Case,” Nigerian Law Journal, 1 (Nov. 1964), 38–49Google Scholar.

53 Bruce to Admiralty, 1 April 1852, F.O. 84/894.

54 Campbell to Clarendon, 1 June 1854, F.O. 84/950.

55 Campbell to Clarendon, 2 Aug. 1855, F.O. 84/976; also Campbell to Clarendon, 25 Sept. 1856, F.O. 84/1002.

56 Newbury, Colin W., “Credit and Debt in Early Nineteenth-Century West African Trade,” Journal of African History, 13 (1972), 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Newbury, The Western Slave Coast, p. 57.

58 Campbell to Malmesbury, 28 Jan. 1859 and 4 Feb. 1859, F.O. 84/1088; Brand to Russell, 28 Jan 1859, F.O. 84/1088; Hand to Russell, 8 July 1860, F.O. 84/1115; Foote to F.O., 8 Jan. 1861, F.O. 84/1141.

59 Gavin, “Palmerston's Policy,” pp. 224–31.

60 Foote to F.O., 9 Jan. 1861, and minute by Palmerston, 3 March 1861, F.O. 84/1141; Foote to F.O., 9 Feb. 1861, and minute by Palmerston, 20 March 1861, F.O. 84/1141.

61 Brand to Russell, 9 April 1860, F.O. 84/1115.

62 Brand to Edmonstone, 26 April 1860, F.O. 84/1115.

63 Brand to Edmonstone, 1 May 1860, F.O. 84/1115.

64 Minute by Wylde, 14 Aug. 1860, on Hand to Russell, 8 July 1860, F.O. 84/1115. The reasons for the delay are discussed in Gavin, “Palmerston's Policy,” pp. 243–46, and Smith, The Lagos Consulate, pp. 120–23.

65 McCoskry to Russell, 7 Aug. 1861, C.O. 147/2.

66 The Treaty is reproduced in Smith, The Lagos Consulate, pp. 140–41.

67 McCoskry to Russell, 7 Aug. 1861, C.O. 147/2.

68 McCoskry to Russell, 5 Aug. 1861, C.O. 147/1.

69 Docemo was also concerned that he might lose jurisdiction in debt cases, and indeed he did. See McCoskry to C.O., 15 Oct. 1861, C.O. 147/2, and Freeman to Newcastle, 5 March 1862, C.O. 147/1.

70 McCoskry to Russell, 30 Nov. 1861, F.O. 84/1141.

71 Freeman to Newcastle, 29 June 1863, C.O. 147/5.

72 Denton to Chamberlain, 4 Oct. 1898, C.O. 147/135.

73 Enc. in Thorburn to Crewe, 14 Jan. 1908, C.O. 520/77.

74 These voluminous records, both held in Lagos, have scarcely been used by historians. The Lands Office records date from 1862 and are identified here by the abbreviation L.O. followed by volume and page numbers. The records housed in the Supreme Court date from 1861. Unpublished records of criminal and civil cases are complete from 1876, when the Supreme Court was formed. Cases are cited here with the abbreviation Civ. followed by the volume number and the year.

75 Freeman to Newcastle, 7 Oct. 1862, C.O. 147/1; Land Board to C.O., 24 July 1863, C.O. 147/5.

76 In 1864 the colonial surveyor was sacked for being drunk and incompetent: Freeman to Cardwell, 9 July 1864, C.O. 147/6.

77 The ordinance and its history are discussed in Denton to Chamberlain, 4 Oct. 1898, C.O. 147/135.

78 McCallum to Chamberlain, 3 Jan. 1898, C.O. 147/129.

79 Denton to Chamberlain, 4 Oct. 1898, C.O. 147/135.

80 By 1872, 66 grants covering 104 acres on the mainland had also been issued. Fowler to Pope Hennessy, 14 Oct. 1872, C.O. 147/27.

81 The interpretation of the nature and extent of the property rights ceded in the treaty of 1861 has given rise to some of the most famous cases in Nigerian history. See Elias, T. Olawale, Nigerian Land Law and Custom (London, 1951), pp. 6–28Google Scholar; Coker, G. B. A., Family Property among the Yorubas (London, 1958), pp. 187–97Google Scholar, and Park, “The Cession of Territory.”

82 The examples that follow are chosen for their representativeness in illustrating general conclusions which rest on much more evidence than can be presented here.

83 A sketch of Davies's career is given in Kopytoff, A Preface to Modern Nigeria, pp. 286–87.

84 Hopkins, Antony G., “Peter Thomas (1873–1947): un commerçant nigérian à l'épreuve d'une économie coloniale en crise,” in Julien, Charles-Andre et al. , eds., Les Africains, Vol. 9 (Paris, 1977), p. 310Google Scholar.

85 Hopkins, Antony G., “Innovation in a Colonial Context: African Origins of the Nigerian Cocoafarming Industry, 1880–1920,” in Dewey, Clive and Hopkins, Antony G., eds., The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India (London, 1978), pp. 83–96Google Scholar.

86 L.O. 6, p. 345.

87 L.O. 1, p. 30; 12, p. 417; 30, p. 187; 77, p. 425; 82, p. 221; 104, pp. 49, 320; 192, pp. 120, 202; 345, p. 59; 436, p. 67; 597, p. 1; 607, p. 59; 689, p. 25.

88 Candido da Rocha continued to own the site until his death in 1959, when it was inherited by his children.

89 Freeman to Newcastle, 9 Oct. 1862, C.O. 147/1.

90 C.O. minute 20 Nov. 1862, on Freeman to Newcastle, 9 Oct. 1862, C.O. 147/1.

91 Lagos Chiefs to Glover, 8 Sept. 1863, C.O. 147/4.

92 Glover to Newcastle, 10 Nov. 1863, C.O. 147/4.

93 C.O. minutes on Glover to Newcastle, 10 Nov. 1863, C.O. 147/4.

94 The three senior categories of Lagos chiefs, the Idejo, the Akarigbere, and the Ogalade, were know collectively (from their head-dress) as the White Caps. Unfortunately, no adequate history of them has yet been written.

95 Enc. in Egerton to Harcourt, 30 May 1911, C.O. 520/103.

96 The chiefs seem to have staged a recovery in the twentieth century through court actions and by placing a commercial price on their rights when the development of Lagos suburbs began on the mainland.

97 Gavin, “Palmerston's Policy,” p. 40.

98 Malmesbury to Fraser, 22 Feb. 1850, F.O. 84/816.

99 Buxton to Normanby, 20 April 1839, C.O. 2/21; quoted in Gallagher, “Fowell Buxton,” p. 45.

100 Eddy, John J., Britain and the Australian Colonies, 1818–1831 (Oxford, 1969), p. 218Google Scholar.

101 Sinclair, Keith, The Origins of the Maori Wars (Wellington, 1957), p. 41Google Scholar. See also Adams, Peter, Fatal Necessity: British Intervention in New Zealand, 1830–1847 (Auckland, 1977), chaps. 6–7Google Scholar.

102 Galbraith, John S., Reluctant Empire: British Policy on the South African Frontier, 1834–1854 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), pp. 84–94Google Scholar, 110, 118, 191, 212, 224–25, 237, 242–45, 271.

103 Burroughs, Peter, The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, 1828–1841 (London, 1972), pp. 11, 33–34, 63, 103Google Scholar.

104 Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1959)Google Scholar; Barber, William J., British Economic Thought and India, 1600–1858: A Study in the History of Development Economics (Oxford, 1975), pp. 148–49Google Scholar, 166, 201; Ambirajan, Classical Political Economy, pp. 144–45, 153, 159, 171–72. “Modernization” was tempered, however, by the skill of the recipients in adapting policy to their own ends, and by the inclination of officials to prefer political stability to economic change.

105 Nicholls, Christine S., The Swahili Coast: Politics, Diplomacy and Trade on the East African Littoral, 1798–1856 (London, 1971), pp. 251–52, 284–86, 347Google Scholar. However, Sayʼīd's death in 1856 was followed by political instability, and led to British intervention in 1859, partly to safeguard the “life and property” of British Indian traders.

106 Ferns, Harry S., “Latin America and Industrial Capitalism: The First Phase,” Sociological Review Monograph, 11 (1967), 5–22Google Scholar; Graham, Richard, Britain and the Onset of Modernization in Brazil, 1850–1914 (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar.

107 Sketched in Hopkins, Antony G., An Economic History of West Africa (London, 1973), chap. 4Google Scholar.