Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:11:36.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joseph Chamberlain and the Jameson Raid: a Bibliographical Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Melvin G. Holli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Joseph Chamberlain, British Colonial Secretary from 1895 to 1903 in the Salisbury administration, remains a subject of controversy for historians largely because of his role in the Jameson Raid. Just as his contemporary protagonists and antagonists, known as Unionists and pro-Boers, marshalled official and unofficial documents to support their cases, so have historians of recent times. There is a difference, however, between the historians writing in Chamberlain's era and those whose work is of recent date. At the turn of the century historians and polemicists had to depend upon official Blue Books and popular sources, while recent historians have had access to more extensive forms of evidence, such as personal letters and memoirs, edited and unedited diaries, and unexpurgated governmental records. Access to original sources, although it has not resolved differences in interpretation, has enabled Jean van der Poel to construct a good case for Joseph Chamberlain's complicity in the Jameson Raid. Van der Poel defines complicity as Chamberlain's foreknowledge of, failure to stop, and alleged advice in favor of the Johannesburg uprising and the Rhodes-Jameson plan, which she argues were integral parts of the same master scheme that set off the Raid. Similarly, historians of the earlier period, although precluded by lack of evidence from asking all of Van der Poel's questions and although not inclined to link the Raid and uprising into a single master plan, did, with few exceptions, address themselves to the question of Chamberlain's responsibility as an accomplice of the Raid and uprising.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1964 , pp. 152 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1964

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. Marris, Nora Murrell, Joseph Chamberlain, The Man and the Statesman (New York, 1900), p. 332Google Scholar. Stead, W. T., The History of the Mystery (London, 1896)Google Scholar; Stead, W. T., The Scandal of the South African Committee (London, 1899)Google Scholar; Stead, W. T., Joseph Chamberlain — Conspirator or Statesman? (London, 1900)Google Scholar. Stead, a jonrnalist and pamphleteer, first attempted to cushion the impact on Rhodes and Chamberlain of any inquiry about the Raid, but later turned on Chamberlain with a vengeance. See Joseph O. Baylen, “W. T. Stead's History of the Mystery and the Jameson Raid,” to be published in the J.B.S., and Galbraith, John S., “The Pamphlet Campaign on the Boer War,” J.M.H., XXIV (1952), 111–26Google Scholar.

2. Jeyes, Samuel H., Mr. Chamberlain, His Life and Public Career (London, 1903), p. 511Google Scholar. Theodore Roosevelt, in an Anglophilic mood during the Boer War, felt that England could not submit permanently to the Transvaal's outrages against the “Outlanders” anymore than the United States could “submit to similar treatment of American citizens in Nicaragua, for instance.” Roosevelt, who later said that he took the Panama canal, seemed to understand Chamberlain's position vis-a-vis the Transvaal. Ferguson, John H., American Diplomacy and the Boer War (Philadelphia, 1939), letter cited p. 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Mackintosh, Alexander, Joseph Chamberlain, an Honest Biography (New York, 1914), p. 215Google Scholar.

4. Williams, Basil, Cecil Rhodes (London, 1921) p. 262Google Scholar.

5. Ibid., p. 263. John Hayes Hammond, an eye witness of the Johannesburg uprising, played up the Uitlander grievances, the stubborn “provincialism of Kruger,” and German intrigue as the general causes of British embarrassment in South Africa and by implication wiped away the curse of Chamberlain's complicity in the Raid. Hammond, John Hayes, The Truth about the Jameson Raid (Boston, 1918)Google Scholar.

6. Mackintosh, Alexander, From Gladstone to Lloyd George, Parliament in Peace and War (London, 1923), p. 217Google Scholar. Mackintosh affirmed his earlier opinion and suggested that it was highly improbable, if not absurd, to link Chamberlain to the Jameson Raid. Lionel Phillips, one of the participants in the Johannesburg uprising wrote: “Was Mr. Chamberlain privy to the Raid? I reply No. I was in South Africa….” Phillips, Lionel, Some Reminiscences (London, 1924), p. 166Google Scholar. By 1926 Elsie E. Gulley could ignore the whole dispute over the Raid and in the sphere of foreign relations take cognizance only of Chamberlain's interest in improving the welfare of the Africans. Gulley, Elsie E., Joseph Chamberlain and English Social Politics (New York, 1926), pp. 310–11Google Scholar.

7. Headlam, Cecil, “The Jameson Raid,” Cambridge History of the British Empire (London, 1936), VIII, 562Google Scholar. Hugh Marshall Hole suggested that the true-story of Chamberlain's involvement “would appear to lie midway between” the version of complete innocence or complete guilt. Although Chamberlain may have “guessed that Rhodes had a plan of some sort to meet the impending crisis in the Transvaal,” it was Dr. Rutherfoord Harris who “exaggerated the affect of his arrested hints and half-uttered confidences” and who bore major responsibility for the Raid. Hole, Hugh Marshall, The Jameson Raid (London, 1930), pp. 56, 61Google Scholar. Reginald Lovell for the most part accepted Basil William's view. Lovell wrote that if Chamberlain were merely preparing for the eventuality of an Uitlander uprising, “then he was playing cricket according to the M. C. C. rules, in 1895. Rhodes and Jameson, by seeking to force the subsidized revolution in Johannesburg … were cheating. Rhodes cannot escape the ultimate responsibility. But there is no definite documentary evidence to convict him [Chamberlain] of such folly.” “… there is circumstantial evidence that Chamberlain disapproved the Raid and did not know in advance of Rhodes's part in the conspiracy.” For Chamberlain condemned the Raid while there was still a chance of its success. Lovell, Reginald I., Struggle for South Africa, 1875-1899 (New York, 1934), pp. 329, 337–39Google Scholar. Of the Raid Sir Charles Petrie wrote: “… the Colonial Secretary knew nothing about it until it had taken place…. [and] of any idea of using Dr. Jameson's force to precipitate such a movement he was wholly innocent.” SirPetrie, Charles, The Chamberlain Tradition (New York, 1938), p. 117Google Scholar. Marjorie Juta, refurbishing the “Century of Wrong” theme, wrote that while “Kruger stretched out the hand of friendship to the innocent citizens of Johannesburg,” he “saw that strangulating hand of Rhodes creeping toward his throat.” The Imperial Government (Chamberlain) was behind Rhodes, but Rhodes the “pirate” failed. Juta, Marjorie, The Pace of the Ox, the Life of Paul Kruger (London, 1937), pp. 251, 228, 233, 234Google Scholar.

8. The year 1941 seems to be a breaking point in which hints of complicity were given more weight in counterbalancing the plea of innocence. Cornelis De Kiewiet wrote: “Imperial statesmanship has suffered from many illusions and many faults, but the illusion of omnipotence or the fault of an ill faith that walked deliberately into bloodshed were none of these. Yet there took place an event in 1895 which cast the gravest doubt on the honor and good faith of Imperial statesmanship.” De Kiewiet, Cornelis W., A History of South Africa (London, 1941), p. 130Google Scholar. Eric Walker contended that although “neither Chamberlain nor anyone else, save Jameson alone, desired or expected an isolated incursion,” Chamberlain “cannot escape the charge, a grave one … that he was playing with a fire whose nature either he did not understand or, understanding, ignored.” Whereas his predecessors thought in terms of using Imperial troops, Chamberlain thought in terms of a “semi-private army of the Chartered Company” under control of the “mercurial Dr. Jameson.” Walker, Eric A., “The Jameson Raid,” Camb. Hist. Jour. VI (1940), 294–97Google Scholar.

9. Garvin, James L., The Life of Joseph Chamberlain (London, 1934), III, 42Google Scholar.

10. Ibid., III, 58.

11. Ibid., III, 35, 36.

12. Ibid., III, 73.

13. Ibid., III, 56.

14. Ibid., III, 125.

15. Ibid., III, 61, 62.

16. Ibid., III, 63.

17. Ibid., III, 111.

18. Ibid., III, 72.

19. Ibid., III, 73.

20. Ibid., III, 77. [paraphrased]

21. Ibid., III, 79.

22. Ibid., III, 82, note 2.

23. Ibid., III, 82.

24. Ibid., III, 125.

25. Ibid., III, 83.

26. Winkler, Henry R., “Joseph Chamberlain and the Jameson Raid,” A.H.R., LIV (1949), 842Google Scholar. Somewhat earlier Strauss, William L. in Joseph Chamberlain and the Theory of Imperialism (Washington, 1942), pp. 84, 75, 83, 88Google Scholar, writing under what appears to be the impact of the Second World War, referred to Joseph Chamberlain's complicity and the new imperialism in terms of “Machtpolitik,” “imperialism coldly and maliciously schemed,” “the brutalization of whole peoples,” and asserted: “While his [Chamberlain's] responsibility for Jameson's actions may not have been direct, it certainly was indirect.” Strauss paired the Boer War, “for which Chamberlain had accepted personal responsibility,” with “the Italian rape of Ethiopia.”

27. Van der Poel, Jean, The Jameson Raid (Cape Town, 1951), p. 29Google Scholar.

28. Ibid., p. 259.

29. Ibid., pp. 38, 62, 63, 98.

30. Ibid., pp. 148, 149.

31. Ibid., pp. 231, 160, 161.

32. Ibid., pp. 162, 244-48.

33. Innes, James Rose, James Rose Innes: Autobiography, ed. Tindall, B. A. (London, 1949), p. 164Google Scholar. Van der Poel, , Jameson Raid, pp. 247–48Google Scholar. Van der Poel cites a letter from Bower to Innes (written in the 1930's) in which Bower declined Innes's suggestion that he clear himself because Bower felt such a revelation would be “‘morally if not technically a breach of the Official Secrets Act.’”

34. Innes, , James Rose Innes, p. 164Google Scholar. Innes contended that Chamberlain's role in the Raid “was not confined to mere knowledge; it extended to consultation and advice.” Ibid., p. 160.

35. Drus, Ethel, “The Question of Imperial Complicity in the Jameson Raid,” E.H.R., LXVIII (1953), 588CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Drus, Ethel, “A Report on the Papers of Joseph Chamberlain Relating to the Jameson Raid and the Inquiry,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXV (1952), 37Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., XXV, 62.

38. Drus, , “Question of Imperial Complicity,” E.H.R., LXVIII (1953), 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Ibid., LXVIII, 583.

40. Eric Walker, review of Van der Poel, Jean, The Jameson Raid in African Affairs; Journal of the Royal African Society, LI (1952), 347Google Scholar.

41. Drus, , “Question of Imperial Complicity,” E.H.R., LXVIII (1953), 583, 593CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Spectator, Feb. 15, 1952, p. 209. L. S. Amery, Boer War correspondent for the Times and friend of Milner's “kindergarten,” disliked Van der Poel's “pre-conceived conviction” of Chamberlain's guilt and thought that Garvin held the “balance of truth” on the Raid.

42. Patterson, Sheila, The Last Trek, a Study of the Boer Peoples and the Afrikaner Nation (London, 1957), p. 41Google Scholar.

43. Keppel-Jones, Arthur, South Africa, a Short History (London, 1956), p. 127Google Scholar.

44. Holt, Edgar, The Boer War (London, 1958), pp. 58, 59Google Scholar.

45. Ibid., p. 58.

46. Kruger, Rayne, Good-Bye Dolly Gray, the Story of the Boer War (London, 1959), p. 32Google Scholar.

47. Ibid., p. 34.

48. Pakenham, Elizabeth, Jameson Raid (London, 1960), pp. 330–31Google Scholar.

49. Wilde, Richard H., “Joseph Chamberlain and the South African Rebublic, 1895-1899,” Archives Year Book for South African History (Cape Town, 1956), pp. 150, 19Google Scholar. Van der Poel, , Jameson Raid, pp. 259, 57Google Scholar.

50. Van der Poel, , Jameson Raid, p. 259Google Scholar; Wilde, , “Chamberlain and the South African Republic,” Archives Year Book for South African History (1956), p. 151Google Scholar.

51. Wilde, , “Chamberlain and the South African Republic,” Archives Year Book for South African History (1956), pp. 18, 29, 151, 19Google Scholar.

52. Harlow, Vincent T., “Sir Frederic Hamilton's Narrative of Events Relative to the Jameson Raid,” E.H.R., LXXII (1957), 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Harlow appears to remove-Chamberlain from being a button pusher at the “center” who controlled with fingertip touch the activities of Rhodes and Jameson on the “periphery.” Thus Harlow's Chamberlain is a man whom Rhodes “induced” to take up shares “in a dud speculation.” This is not the Chamberlain, plotter at the center, one meets in the pages of Van der Poel and Drus.

53. Madden, A. F., “Changing Attitudes and Widening Responsibilities, 1895-1914,” Cambridge History of the British Empire (London, 1959), p. 357, 358Google Scholar.

54. Ibid., III, 358.

55. Ibid., III, 359.

56. Marais, J. S., The Fall of Kruger's Republic (London, 1961), p. 79Google Scholar. Marais claimed that his chapter on “Joseph Chamberlain and the Raid” was written before he had seen the manuscript of Van der Poel's Jameson Raid.

57. Marais, , Fall of Kruger's Republic, pp. 94, 95Google Scholar.

58. Woodhouse, C. M., “The Missing Telegrams and the Jameson Raid, Part I,” History Today, XII (1962), 404Google Scholar.

59. Woodhouse, C. M., “The Missing Telegrams and the Jameson Raid, Part II,” History Today, XII (1962), 514Google Scholar.

60. Ibid., XII, 512, 514.

61. Ibid., XII, 514.