Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T10:38:49.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Great Britain and the Bay Islands, 1821–61

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Waddell
David Waddell
Affiliation:
University College of the West Indies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1852 a new British Colony, the Colony of the Bay Islands, was set up by Letters Patent. In 1859 Great Britain signed a Treaty, subsequently ratified in 1860 and put into effect in 1861, recognizing the Bay Islands as part of the Republic of Honduras. These facts are well known in the diplomatic history of the Central American question, and in the history of Anglo-American relations. The diplomatic historians have not, however, been able to find any convincing diplomatic explanation for the creation of the Bay Islands Colony in 1852; and, while they have fully explained the diplomatic reason for the cession of the islands in 1859, they do not seem to have considered it necessary to inquire how such a rare event in the history of the British Empire as the peaceful cession of a regularly constituted British colony to a foreign nation was brought about. This article seeks to explain the history of the Bay Islands Colony by showing that the colonization was effected by the Colonial Office without the Foreign Office being informed, and that the cession was effected by the Foreign Office without the Colonial Office being informed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 59 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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 Newton, A. P., The Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans (New Haven, 1914), 267, 315Google Scholar; Winzerling, E. O., [The] Beginning [of British Honduras] (New York, 1946), 45, 63Google Scholar; Caiger, S. L., British Honduras[—Past and Present] (1951), 40Google Scholar. But cf. Bancroft, H. H., [History of] Central America (San Francisco, 1886), 11, 647–8Google Scholar; Crowe, F., [The] Gospel [in Central America] (1850), 184Google Scholar; Squier, E. G., Notes [on Central America] (New York, 1855), 370; where Ruatan is said to have been taken by English pirates in 1642 and recaptured by the Spaniards in 1650. Besides Ruatan (which is also spelt Ruattan, Roatan, Rattan, and Ratan) the only islands in the group worthy of any note are Bonacca (or Guanaja) and Utilla.Google Scholar

2 Burdon, J. A., Archives [of British Honduras] (1931), 1, 69–70, 77–8, 130; Caiger, British Honduras, 70–3, 86–7, 92; Squier, Notes, 371.Google Scholar

3 Caiger, British Honduras, no; Winzerling, Beginnings, 87; Squier, Notes, 371—2.

4 CaptHenderson, , Account of the British Settlement at Honduras (1811), 168.Google Scholar

5 Burdon, Archives, in, 50; Crowe, Gospel, 38, 53; Rippy, J. F., ‘British Investments in Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba’ (Inter-American Economic Affairs, vi (1952), 90).Google Scholar

6 Burdon, Archives, II, 368.

7 Anderson to Cockburn, 15 Sept. 1830, A[rchives of] B[ritish] H[onduras], R 2; Cock-burn to Commandant of Truxillo, 23 June 1830, to H.M. Consul in Guatemala, 9, 16 Sept. 1830, A.B.H. R 8. This incident was represented as a seizure of the island, subsequently disavowed by the British Government (Crowe, Gospel, 133; Squier, Notes, 372–3; Bancroft, Central America, in, 319 n.; Dunlop, R. G., Travels in Central America (1847), 179)Google Scholar, and this version is perpetuated in Williams, M. W., [Anglo-American] Isthmian Diplomacy [1815–1915] (Baltimore, 1916), 37; but it is clear from the documents cited that this was not the case. See also Merivale to Hammond, 12 June 1854, P[ublic] R[ecord] O[fffice], CO. 123/89, and enclosures.Google Scholar

8 F[oreign] O[fffice] Memo[randum], Aug. 1844, in Confidential] Print of 1853, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, PP- 12—15. I am indebted to Dr K. Bourne of the London School of Economics for drawing my attention to this print. The C[olonial] O[ffice] Memo[randum] was prepared by Henry Taylor in Jan. 1835, and is in Conf. Print of 1852, enclosed in Cardwell to Eyre, 16 Jan. 1865, Archives of Jamaica (cited as A.J.A.) C.S. 701/12, no. 104. A manuscript copy, with the first few pages missing, is in A.B.H. R. 12, and is summarized in Burdon, Archives, 11, 367ff.

9 CO. Memo, of 1835, A.J.A. C.S. 701/12, pp. 20–1, 11–12.

10 Miller to Cockburn, 10 Mar. 1835, A.B.H. R 11, no. 2.

11 It transpired that the British firm involved had no authority to make such an arrangement. See CO. Memo, of 1835, AJ.A. C.S. 701/12, pp. 14–15.

12 Miller to Cockburn, 23 Apr. 1835, A.B.H. R 11, no. 3.

13 Rose, R. H., Utilla, Past and Present (New York, 1904), 20.Google Scholar

14 Estimates of population are as follows: 1834, about 50, ‘principally British’ (Cockburn to Miller, 24 Nov. 1834, A.B.H. R 11); 1836, less than 25 (Petition of 9 Jan. 1850, in Conf. Print of 1853, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, p. 29); 1841, under 30 (Elwin to Fancourt, 6 Sept. 1848, A.B.H. R 34, fo. 16); 1843, 85 (ibid.), 250–300 (Bodden (?) to Fancourt, 24 July 1843, A.B.H. R 17, fo. 115); 1844, 280 (Petition of 1850, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, p. 29); 1845, 600 (Fancourt to Elgin, 15 Jan. 1845, AJ.A. C.S. 704/5, no. 1); 1848, 1200–1300 (Elwin to Fancourt, 6 Sept. 1848, A.B.H. R 34, fo. 16); 1850, 1800 (Petition of 1850, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, p. 29); 1851, 1600–1700 (Elwin to Wodehouse, 12 Sept. 1851, A.B.H. R 34, fo. 55); 1858, 1548—Census Return (Moir to Seymour, 8 Feb. 1858, A.B.H. R 59, no. 6). This is broken down as follows: Ruatan 1379, Bonacca 37, Utilla IOI, Other Islands 31. Most of the earlier figures may be presumed to refer only to Ruatan.

15 Garwen to Macdonald, 3 Sept. 1838, A.B.H. R 2, fo. 170; Macdonald to Commandant of Truxillo, 10 Sept. 1838, A.B.H. R 8d. This interference must have continued as Macdonald had to repeat his warning (to Commandant, 23 Feb. 1839, A.B.H. R 16, fo. 15).

16 Normanby to Macdonald, 5 Apr. 1839, A.B.H. R 15, no. 2.

17 Crowe, Gospel, 212; Squier, Notes, 373; Young, T., Narrative of a Residence on The Mosquito Shore (1842), 146; F.O. Memo, of 1844, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, p. 18.Google Scholar

18 F.O. Memo, of 1844, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, pp. 19–21.

19 Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 36, 41–4.

20 Russell to Metcalfe, 3 Apr. 1841, A.J.A. C.S. 101, no. 204 (enclosing Macdonald to Russell, ? Jan. 1841, no. 3); Metcalfe to Macdonald, 22 Oct. 1841, A.B.H. R 18, no. 11 (enclosing Russell to Metcalfe, 20 Aug. 1841, no. 15).

21 Macdonald to Metcalfe, 18 Dec. 1841, A.J.A. C.S. 704/1, no. 24; Stanley to Elgin, 14May 1842, A.J.A. C.S. 701/1, no. 6.

22 F.O. Memo, of 21 Aug. 1844, in Conf. Print of 1853, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, pp. 23–6; Elgin to Fancourt, 17 Feb. 1845, A.B.H. R 24, no. 13. See also Colonial Office precis of 27 Jan. 1844, P.R.O. CO. 123/65. For Belgian interest see Bancroft, Central America, in, 589–90.

23 Bodden (?) to Fancourt, 24 July 1843, A.B.H. R 17, fo. 115; Grey to Bodden, 7 Aug. 1843, A.B.H. R 22. On the Public Meeting see Petition of Jan. 1850, in Conf. Print of 1853, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, pp. 29—30.

24 Fancourt to Elgin, 15 Jan. 1845, A.J.A. C.S. 704/5, no. 1.

25 Elwin to Fancourt, 27 Feb. 1847, A.B.H. R 27; Fancourt to Sir Charles Grey, 8 June 1848, A.B.H. R 25, no. 29. See also miscellaneous correspondence in A.B.H. R 34, R 27 passim.

26 The Petition, Sir C. Grey’s Dispatch (no. 3, of 19 Feb. 1850), Henry Taylor’s Minute of 29 Apr. 1850, Lord Grey’s Minute of 17 May 1850, and Lord John Russell’s Minute of 23 July 1850 are in P.R.O. CO. 123/79. They were reproduced in Conf. Print of 1853 in P.R.O. F.O. 39/9.

27 Grey to Russell, 24 July 1850, P.R.O. (Russell Papers) 30/22/8, part 2; Russell to Grey, 25 July 1850, Grey of Howick Papers, Durham University, 111., Box 99.

28 Russell in his minute of 23 July said Palmerston should be informed, and the Colonial Office thought that there had been discussion with him, see Minute by Merivale, 28 Oct. 1852, P.R.O. CO. 34/1, no. 13. For reaffirmation of British sovereignty, see Miller, H. (ed.) Treaties [and other International Acts of the United States] (Washington, 1937), v, 772.Google Scholar

29 Minute of Lord Grey, undated, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, p. 41; various minutes on Sir C. Grey to Lord Grey, 19 Feb. 1850, P.R.O. CO. 123/79, no- 3.

30 See Commander Michell, R. C., ‘A Statistical Account and Description of the Island of Ruatan’ (United Service Magazine and Naval and Military Journal, Aug. 1850, 545), and Chatfield to Palmerston, 26 July 1850, P.R.O. CO. 123/80.Google Scholar

31 Honduras Watchman, 15 June 1850 (Jubilee Library, Belize).Google Scholar

32 Enclosures to Sir Charles Grey to Lord Grey, 11 Dec. 1850, P.R.O. CO. 123/80, no. 33; Manning, W. R., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Inter-American Affairs 1831— 60 (Washington, 1934), IV, 790–5.Google Scholar

33 Lord Grey to Sir Charles Grey, 14 Apr. 1851, A.J.A. C.S. 701/3, no. m; Wodehouse to Sir Charles Grey, 18 Aug. 1851, A.J.A. C.S. 704/12, no. 15. The Letters Patent are printed in Parliamentary] Papers, [House of] Commons (1856), vol. XLIV, no. 141, ‘Bay Islands’.Google Scholar

34 Draft Letters Patent and Instructions in P.R.O. CO. 123/80 show that it was at first intended that there should be a Council as well as an Assembly, that the franchise for the latter should be restricted to freeholders, and that the Superintendent of British Honduras should be the Governor.

35 See the eyewitness account in Illustrated London News, 29 Jan. 1853, 71–2 (Jubilee Library, Belize).

36 See Moir to Darling, 28 Feb. 1860, A.J.A. C.S. 804/4, no. n; and Journal of the Assembly, A.J.A. C.S. 808/1 passim.

37 Minute by Merivale, 28 Oct. 1852, P.R.O. CO. 34/1, no. 13.

38 See Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, chs. 11, m; the same author’s article on Clayton in Bemis, S. F. (ed.), American Secretaries of State and their Diplomacy (New York, 1928), VI, 41–70Google Scholar; and Van Alstyne, R. W., ‘British Diplomacy and the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty’ (Journal of Modern History, xi (1939) 491). The text of the treaty is in Miller, Treaties, v, 671.Google Scholar

39 Miller, Treaties, 681–5, 688, 698, 772, 789–91.

40 Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 141—4, 150; Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, VII, 87, 100, 504.

41 Merivale to Addington, 28 Nov. 1853, P.R.O. F.O. 55/109, no. 40; Minute by Henry Taylor, 16 Nov. 1853, Conf. Print, in P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, pp. 2–6.

42 Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, VII, 518.

43 Addington to Clarendon, 20 Jan. 1854, Bodleian Library (Clarendon Papers), MS. Clar. dep. c. 103, fo. 310-n; Aberdeen to Clarendon, 17 Apr. 1854, Clar. dep. c. 14, fo. 33; Palmerston to Clarendon, 22 Apr. 1854, Clar. dep. c. 15, fo. 99; Russell to Clarendon, 13 Apr., 14 Apr., 24 Apr. 1854, Clar. dep. c. 15, ff. 449, 453, 462; Clarendon to Russell, 13 Apr., 17 Apr., 23 Apr. 1854, P.R.O. 30/22/11. I am indebted to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Clarendon for permission to quote from the Clarendon Papers.

44 Bulwer to Clarendon, Mar. 1854, Bodl. MS. Clar. dep. c. 24, fo. 160, 167–8.

45 Clarendon to Crampton, 5 May 1854, Bodl. MS. Clar. dep. c. 128, p. 253.

46 Addington to Clarendon, 20 Jan. 1854, Bodl. MS. Clar. dep. c. 103, fo. 310; Clarendon to Crampton, 22 Dec. 1854, 5 Jan. 1855, 2 Feb. 1855, Clar. dep. c. 131, pp. 156, 237, 434.

47 Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, VII, 537, 556; Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 160–86.

48 Buchanan drafted a Memo, in the hope that Clarendon would accept it, and return it as a formal communication between governments. A copy in Clarendon’s hand was printed, as if it had originated with Clarendon, in Alstyne, R. W. Van, ‘Anglo-American Relations 1853–57’ (American Historical Review, XLII (1937), 496). But for Buchanan’s authorship see his Memo, in Bodl. MS. Clar. dep. c. 25, ff. 258–60; Hammond to Clarendon, 28 Nov. 1854, dep. and enclosures, Clar. dep. c. 25, ff. 346–54; Clarendon to Crampton, 3 Nov. 1854, Clar. c. 130, p. 343; Clarendon to Crampton, 5 Jan. 1855, Clar. dep. c. 131, p. 237.Google Scholar

49 See R. W. Van Alstyne, ‘British Diplomacy, etc.’, 176–8.

50 Squier, Notes, ch. xiv; Van Alstyne,’ British Diplomacy, etc.’, 179; Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, vn, 639–43, 646–8, 651–53; see also P.R.O. F.O. 15/92, ff. 1, 11, 20, 33.

51 Board of Trade to Foreign Office, 21 May 1856, P.R.O. F.O. 15/93, fo. 150

52 Clarendon to Napier, 17 Apr. 1857, Bodl. MS. Clar. dep. c. 138, p. 540; Clarendon to Napier, 23 Oct. 1857, Clar. dep. c. 140, p. in. The location of the proposed railroad was given as the reason for the cession of the Bay Islands in the preamble to the Treaty.

53 Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 212–30; Miller, Treaties, v, 793–8.

54 The conventions are printed in Part. Papers, Commons (1860), LXVIII, ‘Correspondence respecting Central America 1856–60’, 21–9.Google Scholar

55 Stevenson to Bell, 10 Nov. 1856, A.J.A. C.S. 804/2, no. 11.

56 On the filibusters see Alstyne, R. W. Van, ‘American Filibustering and the British Navy’ (American Journal of International Law, xxxII, 1938)Google Scholar; Rippy, J. F., ‘Anglo-American Filibusters and the Gadsden Treaty’ (Hispanic American Historical Review, v, 1922)Google Scholar; Scroggs, W. O., Filibusters and Financiers (New York, 1916).Google Scholar

57 Barkly to Stevenson, 25 July 1854, A.J.A. C.S. 803/1, Conf.; Stevenson to Barkly, 15 May, 7 July 1854, A.J.A. C.S. 804/1, Conf. nos. 30, 38; Stevenson to Barkly, 17 Feb. 18ss, AJ.A. C.S. 804/2, no. 4; Newcastle to Barkly, 11 Sept. 1854, A.J.A. C.S. 801/1, Conf.

58 Stevenson to Moir, 2 Feb., 20 Feb. 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 805/2, Conf. nos. 62, 68; Seymour to Moir, 22 Apr. 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 805/2, Conf. no. 8; Stevenson to Bell, 20 Feb. 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 804/2, Conf. no. 2; Seymour to Bell, 17 June, 17 July 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 804/2, Secret.

59 Stevenson to Moir, 12 Jan. 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 805/2, Secret and Conf.; Labouchere to Bell, 16 Jan. 1857, C.S. 801/1, no. 10.

60 Seymour to Bell, 17 Mar. 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 804/2, no. 1; Labouchere to Bell, 21 May 1857, A.J.A. C.S. 801/2, no. 14.

61 Seymour to Bell, 3 June 1857, AJ.A. C.S. 804/2, no. 3.

62 Seymour to Darling, 17 Aug. 1857, AJ.A. C.S. 804/2, Conf.

63 Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 228—30; Parl. Papers, loc. cit. 29—40.

64 Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 230; Parl. Papers, loc. cit. 40; Van Alstyne, ‘Anglo-American Relations, etc' (American Historical Review, XLII, 499–500).

65 Parl. Papers, loc. cit. 49.

66 Printed in Parl. Papers, loc. cit. 308–10. For the reasons for the delay in reaching a settlement, see Williams, Isthmian Diplomacy, 231–64 and Van Alstyne, ‘ British Diplomacy, etc.’, 178–82.

67 Hammond to Merivale, 30 Jan. 1860, P.R.O. CO. 34/9, and minutes.

68 Merivale to Hammond, 10 Feb. 1860, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, fo. 20.

69 Hammond to Merivale, 16 Feb. 1860 (draft), P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, fo. 26.

70 Merivale to Hammond, 1 Mar. 1860 (minutes and draft), P.R.O. CO. 34/9.

71 Hammond to Merivale, 10 Mar. 1860, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, fo. 45.

72 Merivale to Hammond, 17 Mar. 1860, P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, fo. 56.

73 Darling to Newcastle, 24 Feb. 1860, P.R.O. CO. 34/9, no. 1, and enclosures and minutes.

74 Hammond to Merivale, 7 Apr. 1860 (draft), P.R.O. F.O. 39/9, fo. 133.

75 Newcastle to Darling, 30 Mar., 16 Apr. 1860, A.J.A. C.S. 801/1, nos. 8, 10.

76 Price to Darling, 23 May, 2 Aug. 1860, A.J.A. C.S. 804/4, nos. 2, 20.

77 Fortescue to Darling, 6 Nov. 1860, A.J.A. C.S. 801/1, no. 26 and enclosures.

78 Darling to Newcastle, 24 May, 30 June, 9 July, 23 Aug. 1860, P.R.O. CO. 34/9, nos. 10, 11, 12, 17 and enclosures. See also Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, iv, 179—81, 930, 961.

79 Price to Darling, 12 Sept., 11 Oct. 1860, A.J.A. C.S. 804/4, nos. 24, 27. See also Scroggs, Filibusters and Financiers, 382.

80 Darling to Newcastle, 23 Mar., 22 Apr., 17 June 1861, P.R.O. CO. 34/10, nos. 4, 6, 7.

81 Price to Darling, 3 June 1861, A.J.A. C.S. 704/22, no. 67.

82 Taylor to Merivale, 2 Mar. 1860, P.R.O. CO. 34/9.

83 Moyne, Lord, Atlantic Circle (1938), 98–102.Google Scholar