Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:32:29.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fall of benin: A Reassessment1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

Philip A. Igbafe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Benin kingdom did not come into the British official reckoning until well into the second half of the nineteenth century, despite the fact that various European nations had been engaged in commercial contact with Benin for four centuries. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, Benin City fell to British troops after a dramatic build-up of rapidly succeeding events culminating in the punitive expedition of February 1897. These events, as the evidence in this article reveals, were prompted by economic rather than humanitarian considerations.

The Benin kingdom fell mainly because, in an age when the traders and the British consular officials had reasons impelling them to penetrate into the hinterland, Oba Ovonramwen was clinging to traditional policies of economic exclusiveness and monopolistic practices which inflicted economic losses on the revenues of the individual traders, the Itsekiri middlemen and the Niger Coast Protectorate government.

The increasing fear of concerted European designs on his kingdom further strengthened the Oba's adherence to his closed-door policy, which in turn increased the consul' determination to bring him under their economic and political control. This situation precipitated the events which culminated in the capture of Benin City by British forces in February 1897.

As with other powerful African rulers in the Niger Delta and on the West African Coast, the British had to settle accounts with the Oba of Benin, who had to be reconciled with the developments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The fall of Benin cannot therefore be rightly divorced from the general British economic imperialism on the Niger Coast during the second half of the nineteenth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , July 1970 , pp. 385 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

2 The most notable of these Consuls was John Beecroft. See Dike, K.O., ‘John Beecroft, 1790–1854: Her Britannic Majesty's Consul to the Bights of Benin and Biafra, 1849–1854’ Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, I, no. 1 (1956), 5–14.Google Scholar

3 Dike, K. O.: Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta (Oxford, 1956), 128.Google Scholar

4 Sir, Richard Burton, My Wanderings in West Africa by a F.R.G.S., part II, ‘The renowned city of Benin’, (1863).Google Scholar

5 See pp. 388–93 below.

6 F.O. 84/2194, Macdonald to F.O. no. 26 of 16 May 1892. See p. 387 below for the terms of this treaty.Google Scholar

7 See below.

8 British Museum, London, State Paper Room, Accounts and Papers 1895, LXXI, i: ‘Report on the Administration of the Niger Coast Protectorate 1891–August 1894, Cmd. 7596.’

9 F.O. 2/85, Moor to F.O. no. of 12 Sept. 1895 contains Moor's comments on these attempted visits to Benin; Ben Prof 7/6, I.Google Scholar

10 F.O. 84/2194, Macdonald to F.O. no. 26 of 16 May 1892 contains the details of this treaty.

11 The treaty with Oba Ovonramwen was not, broadly speaking, different from those signed with other African rulers in the Niger Coast Protectorate except that the Oba did not object to any of the articles as Nana and Jaja had done in their own cases. This raises the point whether the Oba at all understood the implications of the Treaty.

12 F.O. 84/2194, Macdonald to F.O. no. 26 of 16 May 1892;Google ScholarHenry, Ling Roth, Great Benin, its Customs, Art and Horrors (Halifax, 1903), appendix 1.Google Scholar

13 Ibid.

14 F.O. 84/2194, Gallwey's Report on visit to Ubini (Benin City), the Capital of the Benin Country, 30 march 1892, in Macdonald to F.O. no. 26 of 16 May 1892.Google Scholar

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 F.O. 84/2194, Macdonald to F.O. no. 26 of 16 May 1892.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 The Nupe invasions of Afenmai and part of Ishan in the second half of the nineteenth century are the best example (BP 473/16). Minutes by W. B. Rumann at the meeting in Ubiaja between James Watt and the people 20 July 1917; Ben Prof 7/5, I. ‘Notes on Agbor District’ by J. N. Hill.

22 Oba, Akenzua II, ‘Historical facts, being a review of the “Benin Community”, Intelligence Report, May 12th 1938’ (unpublished typescript at the S.D.A.'s Office, Benin City);Google ScholarEgharevba, J. U., A Short History of Benin (Ibadan University Press, 1960), 50. The dissident elements were those who opposed Oba Ovonramwen's accession. See footnote 25 below.Google Scholar

23 Egharevba, , Short History of Benin, 50.Google Scholar

24 Macrae-Simpson, Intelligence Report on the Agbor, Oligie and Emuhu clans of Agbor District, Asaba Division, Benin Province, p. 17.

25 Egharevba, , Short History of Benin, 50, discusses Ovonrarnwen's efforts to deal with all those who opposed his accession. This opposition to the Oba and the attempt to establish his authority were not peculiar to his reign.Google Scholar

26 CSO 5/13, 6. Moor to F.O. no. 50 of 15 June 1896.

27 Two palace officials, the Uwangwe and Eribo, were, for example, in charge of the water-side trade in European goods.

28 See CSO 1/13, 6; F.O. 2, 102, Phillips to F.O. no. 105 of 16 Nov 1896. Acting Consul-General Phillips reported that the Oba ‘has permanently placed a ju-ju on Kernels, the most profitable product of the country… he has closed the markets and he has only occasionally consented to open them on receipt of presents from Jekri Chiefs’. In the same year the Oba had contemptuously rejected presents worth £40 from Itsekiri middlemen as being too small. He received the presents only when they were doubled. The Oba also refused to start a rubber industry even on receipt of a £30 present, and he could also have extracted 1,000 corrugated iron sheets from the Itsekiri as a condition for re-opening trade if the Consul-General had not intervened.

29 See above, footnote 28.

30 CSO 1/13, 1. of 9 Sept. 1891. Extract from a private letter to Sir Percy Anderson at the Foreign Office.

31 Cal. Prof. 6/1, vol. II.

32 Ibid., Gallwey to Macdonald, 18 Jan. 1895.

33 Ibid.

34 see above, p. 388.

35 F.O. 2/85, Acting Consul-General Moor to F.O. no. 39 of 13 Sept. 1895.

36 Ibid. Compare this with Macdonald's statement on page 388 above. Here again the Oba's rule in Benin was detestable because of its effects on trade.

37 F.O. 2/85, Moor to F.O. no. 39 of 12 09 1895.Google Scholar

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 These are the dry-season months preceding the onset of the rainy season when movement of troops is difficult.

41 The letter from James Pinnock's agent was dated at Sapele, 23 Aug 1895.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 CSO, 1/12, 6. The petition, which was originally forwarded to Vice-Consul Copland Crawford, was forwarded to the Foreign Office by Acting Commissioner and Consul- General Phillips in his despatch no. 705 of 16 11 1896.Google Scholar

45 CSO, 1/13, 6, Phillips to F.O., no. 50 of 16 11 1896 (attachment).Google Scholar

46 CSO, 1/14, 6, Salisbury to Moor no. 79 of 5 03 1896.Google Scholar

47 CSO, 1/13,6, F.O. 2, lox, Moor to F.O., no. 50 of 1 06 1896.Google Scholar See also Geary, W. N. M., Nigeria under British Rule (London, 1927), 112.Google Scholar

48 CSO, 1/13, 6, Moor to F.O., no. 50 of 14 06 1896.Google Scholar For a discussion of Moor's general policy, as well as that of Claude Macdonald, see Tamuno, T. N., ‘The development of British administrative control of Southern Nigeria, 1900–1912’ (London Ph.D. thesis, 1962).Google Scholar Tamuno carries on the discussion of the actual mechanism of British administrative control to the time of Walter Egerton. See also Anene, J. C.; Southern Nigeria in Transition (C.U.P. 1966), Chaps. V & VI.Google Scholar

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 CSO, 1/53, 6, Phillips to F.O., no. 102 of 10 11 1896.Google Scholar

52 CSO, 1/13, 6, Phillips to F.O., no. 105 of 16 11 1896.Google Scholar

53 Ibid.

54 The force against Benin was to be made up of 250 troops, one maxim, two seven-£er guns, one rocket apparatus of the Niger Coast Protectorate force and 150 Lagos Hausa /diers. Phillips made all calculations as to ammunition, supplies and rations.

55 CSO, 1/14, 7, F.O., to Acting Consul-General Phillips no. a of 9 01 1897.Google Scholar

56 CSO, 1/13, 7, Gallwey to F.O., 11 01 1897.Google Scholar

57 B.M. S.P.R., Accounts and Papers, 1898,Google Scholar LX, 91, ‘Papers relating to the Massacre of British Officials near Benin, and the consequent Punitive Expedition’, Cmd. 8677. Dogho is given as Dore in the records. Chief Dogho was a British agent who was adjudged by Moor as the most trustworthy Itsekiri chief on the Benin River. See Obaro, Ikime, ‘Chief Dogho: the Lugardian system in Warri 1917–1932’, Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, III, no. 2 (1965).Google Scholar

58 The party included Major Copland Crawford, Vice Consul of Warn and Benin Districts; Mr Locke, District Commissioner, Warri; Capt Boisragon; Capt Maling; Kenneth C&bell; Dr Eliott; Mr Gordon of the African Association; and Mr Powis of Miller Brothers. There were also clerks, cooks, orderlies, store-keepers. See CSO 1/13, 7, Gallwey to F.O., 11 and 21 01 1897.Google Scholar

59 ‘Papers relating to Massacre…’, no. 54, Gallwey to F.O. 21 Jan 1897.

60 CSO, 1/13, 7, Gallwey to F.O., 11 01 1897.Google Scholar

61 CSO, 1/13, 4, p. 86, Moor to F.O. 26 10 1894.Google Scholar

62 Bacon, R. H., Benin the City of Blood (London, 1897), 57.Google Scholar The assumption here again is that the festival meant a holocaust of human beings. The Oba was celebrating the Ague festival, which was one of rededication. This did not involve human sacrifices. See also Geary, W. N. M.: Nigeria Under British Rule (London, 1927), 114.Google Scholar

63 F.O., 2/502,Google ScholarPhillips, to F.O. no. 105 of 16 11 1896.Google Scholar Phillips wrote that ‘there is nothing in the shape of a standing army…and the inhabitants appear to be if not a peace loving at any rate a most unwarlike people whose only exploits during many generations had been an occasional quarrel with their neighbours about trade or slave raiding and it appears at least improbable that they have any arms to speak of except the usual number of trade guns… When Captain Gallwey visited the city the only canon he saw were half a dozen old Portuguese guns. They were lying on the grass unmounted’. Compare this with the opinion of his immediate predecessor, Ralph Moor, who was convinced that ‘the people in all the villages are no doubt possessed of arms’ (F.O. 2/84, Moor, to F.O. no. 39 of 12 09 1895).Google Scholar

64 Galiwey, H. L., ‘West African fifty years ago’, Journal of the Royal African Society, XL. (1942).Google Scholar

65 F.O., 2/123, Moor to F.O., , no. 120 of 18 10 1897 (Attachments). See also Moor's comments dated 26 12 1896 on Phillips's dispatch no. 105 of 16 11 1896.Google Scholar

66 CSO, 1/13, 7, Moor, to F.O. no. 53 of 8 02 1897.Google Scholar

67 C.O., 520, and F.O. 2 have several volumes containing reports on these patrols, escorts, and punitive expeditions.Google Scholar See also Igbafe, P.A., ‘Benin under British administration 1897–1938: a study in institutional adaptation’ (Unpublished Ibadan Ph.D. Thesis, 1967), chap III.Google Scholar

68 CSO, 1/13, 7,Google ScholarGaliwey, to F.O. no. 6 of 21 06. 1897.Google Scholar

69 These ships were H.M.S., St George, Thesew, Phoebe, Forte, Philoniel, Barossa, Widgeon, Magpie and Alecto.Google Scholar

70 B. M. S.P.R., Accounts and Papers, 1898, LX, 91, ‘Papers relating to the massacre…’.Google ScholarMoor, to Salisbury, no. 654, 24 02, 1897.Google Scholar

71 See Read, C. H. and Dalton, O. M.; Antiquities from the City of Benin and Other Parts of West Africa (London, 1899).Google Scholar

72 The sale of Benin antiquities is still in progress. In the week ending 23 Mar. 1968 a Benin bronze taken to England during the 1897 expedition was /d for £10,000 (West Africa, 23 03 1968).Google Scholar

73 B.M. S.P.R., ; Accounts and Papers, 1898, LX 91, ‘Papers relating to the Massacre…’Google Scholar

74 CSO, 1/13, 7 Moor to F.O., , nO. 7 of 29 06 1897;Google ScholarMoor, to Roupell, 27 09 189, in BD 3/1,2, p. 25/97; CSO 1/13, II, no. 49 of 5 03 1899.Google Scholar See also C.O. 444,3, Moor, to S of S, flO. 40 of 17 02 1899; C.O. 520/9, Probyn to Chamberlain, no. 338 of 17 10 1901; and C.O., 520/45, Egerton to Elgin, no. 117 of 4 04 1907.Google Scholar

75 CSO, 1/13, 7, p. 169; Marshall, H. F., Intelligence Report on Usehin District, Benin Division, Benin Province, p. 6.Google Scholar

76 Cal. Prof. 6/1, vol. IV.

77 Footnote I above.

78 B.M. S.P.R., Accounts and Papers (10), 1864, XL. I, p. 571, ‘Correspondence on the subject of an application from the Company of African Merchants (Limited), for a subsidy towards establishing steamers on the River Niger’.Google Scholar

79 Ibid. The main opposing companies were The African Association of Liverpool, the Anglo-African Company, the Merchants of Bristol and the Merchants of London.

80 B.M. S.P.R., Accounts and Papers (13), 1899, LXIII, p. 426, C 9372.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., C.O. 657, 6, Annual General Report, 1920, p. 2.

82 B.M. S.P.R. Accounts and Papers (13), 1899, LXIII.Google Scholar

83 Ibid. pp. 433–52 contains the number, nature and form of these treaties.