Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:37:37.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anglo-German Negotiations Concerning the Future of the Portuguese Colonies, 1911–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Richard Langhorne
Richard Langhorne
Affiliation:
University of Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The negotiations between England and Germany over the future of the Portuguese Empire which were in progress between 1911 and 1914 have been given little attention by historians. Such as there is has usually taken the form of en passant remarks to the effect that the successful conclusion of an agreement was part of the evidence for something like an Anglo-German détente just before war broke out. Although the view that the episode does not rate full treatment is certainly correct, considerable importance was attached to the negotiations at the time, and their course does reveal some interesting features. There is useful evidence for discussing such problems as the views and influence of the permanent officials at the Foreign Office, the importance of imperial considerations in international politics at the time, and the attitudes of Sir Edward Grey and Mr ‘Lulu’ Harcourt (Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1910–15). The resolution of the divisions on the British side and the way in which the negotiations were handled has not before been put together from the available papers, and to do so gives an opportunity to reconsider what was the true significance of the episode in Anglo-German relations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 361 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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 See for example, Brandenburg, E., From Bismarck to the World War (London, 1938), pp. 465–7;Google ScholarDickinson, G. Lowes, The International Anarchy, 1904–1914 (London, 1926), pp. 346–8;Google ScholarFay, S. B., The Origins of the World War (New York, 1934), p. 359;Google ScholarSchmitt, B. E., The Coming of the First World War (New York, 1966), 1, 73;Google ScholarTaylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (London, 1954), pp. 502–4;Google ScholarGeiss, I., July 1914 (London, 1967), p. 44;Google Scholar for a more suspicious view, see Fischer, Fritz, Germany's Aims in the First World War (London, 1967), pp. 38–9;Google ScholarRenouvin, P., ‘ L'Afrique centrale dans les relations anglo–allemandes en 1912–1914 ’, Mélanges Charles-André Julien (Paris, 1964);Google ScholarWillequet, J., ‘ Anglo-German Rivalry in Belgian and Portuguese Africa? ’, pp. 245—73 in Gifford, P. and Louis, W. R. (eds.), Britain and Germany in Africa (New Haven, 1971);Google ScholarSpringborn, A., Englands Stellung zur Deutschen Welt und Kolonialpolitik in den Jahren 1911–1914 (Würzburg, 1939);Google ScholarDubois, P., ‘ Les négociations anglo-allemandes relatives aux colonies portugaises 1912–1914 ‘ in Revue d'histoire de la guerre mondiale, 1939;Google ScholarHatton, P. H. S., ‘ Harcourt and Solf: the Search for an Anglo-German Understanding through Africa, 1912—1914 ‘ in European Studies Review, I, no. 2 (1971).Google Scholar

Sources: Both the British (B.D.) and the German (G.P.) published documents cover this subject well, particularly Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, H. W. V., British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914 (London, 1938), x, pt. 11, pp. 421—579;Google ScholarAmt, Auswärtiges, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1898—1914 (Berlin, 1923–1928),Google Scholar in particular vols. XXXI, XXXVII and XXXIX. The British selection, when checked against the originals in the Public Records Office, turns out to be quite unusually full and, except insignificantly in the early part of 1912, there is nothing to add from the Foreign Office files.

There was, however, another part of the negotiations on the English side, which at least to begin with was not conducted by the Foreign Office, but by the Colonial Secretary, Mr Lewis Harcourt. His private papers, which are preserved at Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire, together with those of Sir Edward Grey (F.O. 800), provide most valuable additional information on the very private discussions which went on with an official of the German embassy. Further evidence is provided from the private papers of Lord Carnock, Lord Bertie and Lord Hardinge of Penshurst.

2 1373, 1661, 1703 and 1710.

3 Minute by Grey, 17 July 1912, sent to a cabinet on 24 July 1912. See ed. note in B.D., x, pt. II, 485.

4 See Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy (London, 1964), ch. VIII.Google Scholar

5 Memorandum by Bertie, 10 Jan. 1898, F.O. 63/1359.

6 Memorandum by Bertie on England and Portugal in Africa, I May 1898, B.D., I, 65.

7 Salisbury to Gough, 23 June 1898, B.D., I, 70.

8 Salisbury to Macdonell, 22 June 1898, B.D., 1, 69; Salisbury to Gough, 9 July 1898, B.D., 7, 74 and 75–90.

9 It was afterwards said that Lord Salisbury would not have signed the agreement. Bertie to Grey, 12 Jan. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 268. ‘ …The negotiations had been begun by Lord Salisbury who later on told Count Hatzfeldt, so the latter informed me, that he would not have signed the agreement, to which the latter retorted, so he said to me, that he [Lord Salisbury] certainly would have signed it for the Cabinet would have made him do so.

Lord Salisbury had no affection for the Agreement, but that was, I think, partly because he had hoped to stave off the German government and thought that his nephew had been too ready to conclude the negotiations … ’

There exists also a memorandum by Sir Edward Grey of 25 Jan. 1911 recording a conversation with Soveral: ‘…Soveral urged Lord Salisbury not to sign it, and Lord Salisbury was disinclined to do so. But he went abroad and Foreign Affairs were handed over temporarily to Mr Balfour …

On Lord Salisbury's return, Soveral reproached him about the Treaty. Lord Salisbury said that he had not signed any treaty, to which Soveral replied that Mr Balfour signed it. This Lord Salisbury admitted.’ B.D., x, pt. II, 427.

10 Balfour to Lascelles, 31 Aug. 1898, B.D., I, 90.

11 Balfour to Lascelles, 31 Aug. 1898, B.D., I, 91.

12 Balfour to Lascells, 31 Aug. 1898, B.D., I, 92.

13 Memorandum by Bertie, 10 Aug. 1898, B.D., I, 81.

14 Salisbury to Gough, 9 July 1898, B.D., 1, 74; Balfour to Lascelles, II Aug. 1898, B.D., 1, 82.

15 Jagow to Lichnowsky, 14 Mar. 1913, G.P., XXXVII, 33. ‘ The general feeling in Germany is that in 1898 we were duped by England, and done out of the price for which we stipulated in return for our attitude to England during the Boer War…’ Grey to Goschen, 13 June 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 337. ‘ He (Lichnowsky) said … that the position I seemed to assume was that of medical adviser to the Portuguese Colonies, while what Germany contemplated was that of being the heir.’

16 Macdonell to Salisbury, 18 Aug. 1899, B.D., I, 112.

17 Anglo-Portuguese Secret Declaration, 14 Oct. 1899, B.D., I 118.

18 Lansdowne to Gough, 20 Nov. 1899, B.D., 1, 121.

19 Kühlmann, Richard von, Councillor of the German embassy at London, 1908–1914 (sometimes Chargé d'Aftaires).Google Scholar

20 See my article on the Naval Question in this period in the Historical Journal, 1970.

21 For example: Harcourt to Kühlmann, 14 Apr. 1912, Harcourt Papers, Box 14: ‘ I am unwilling to waste valuable time as I am sure that we ought to profit by the favourable atmosphere which now exists. If you are authoiized to discuss these territorial matters with me I should be very happy to have an opportunity of doing so and I do not doubt that by our conversations we might come to a scheme-of course ad referendum to our respective chiefs and governments — which could form the basis of a future satisfactory settlement.’

22 See note 24, p. 16.

23 Memorandum by Harcourt, read to cabinet 13 Mar. 1912, Harcourt Papers, Box 14.

24 Grey, to Goschen, , 20 Dec. 1911, B.D., VII, p. 480.Google Scholar

25 Grey, to Goschen, , 29 Dec. 1911,Google Scholar Grey Papers, F.O. 80c/6i. The version in B.D., x, pt. II, 266 is, as the Editors explained, cut short for reasons of international courtesy.

26 Bertie, to Grey, , 21 Dec. 1911, B.D., x, pt. II, 265.Google Scholar

27 Grey, to Bertie, , 2 Jan. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 267.Google Scholar

28 Bertie to Grey, 12 Jan. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 268.

29 Memorandum by Crowe, , 26 Jan. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 270.Google Scholar

30 Minutes on B.D., x, pt. II, 270, by Grey and Nicolson.

31 Nicolson to Hardinge, 1 Feb. 1912, Hardinge Papers, 92, I, 204.

32 A. Hardinge to Grey, 6 Feb. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 272.

33 A. Hardinge to Grey, 8 Feb. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 274 and 277–80.

34 Harcourt to Grey, 21 Feb. 1912, Grey Papers, F.O. 800/90.

35 Harcourt Papers, Box 14, 29 Feb. 1912.

36 During his mission to Berlin of Feb. 1912: for this, see my chapter on ‘ Anglo-German Relations 1911–1914 ‘ in the forthcoming Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy under Sir Edward Grey, edited by F. H. Hinsley.

37 Memorandum by Harcourt, , 9 Mar. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 276.Google Scholar

38 Record of interview between Harcourt and Kühlmann, 14 Mar. 1912, Harcourt Papers, Box 14.

39 Hardinge, A. to Grey, , 16 Mar. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 281.Google Scholar

40 Minute by Crowe on above paper, 25 Mar. 1912.

41 CO. to F.O., 1 Apr. 1912 and Minutes, B.D., x, pt. II, 285.

42 Grey to Goschen, 10 Apr. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 287.

43 Grey, to Hardinge, A., 20 Apr. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 288.Google Scholar

44 Hardinge, A. to Grey, , 27 Apr. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 290.Google Scholar

45 Memorandum by Crowe, , 23 May 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 295.Google Scholar

46 Memorandum by Crowe, , and Minute by Grey, , 24 May 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 296.Google Scholar

47 Minute by Crowe on Harcourt to Grey, 26 May 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 299.

48 Minute by Crowe on Bertie to Grey, 7 June 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 306.

49 Harcourt to Grey, 26 May 1912, Harcourt Papers, Box 1, C O.

50 Grey to Harcourt, 28 May 1912, Harcourt Papers, Box 14.

51 Harcourt to Grey, 29 May 1912, Grey Papers, F.O. 800/90.

52 Grey to Harcourt, 31 May 1912, Grey Papers, F.O. 800/90. This was done, and the cabinet approved. Asquith to H.M. the king, 4 June 1912, Asquith Papers, 6.141.

53 See page 371 and note 31.

54 Hardinge to Nicolson, 19 Nov. 1912, Hardinge Papers, 92, II, 245.

55 Minute by Nicolson on Kühlmann to Tyrell, 10 July 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, pp. 483–4.

56 Nicolson to Hardinge, 21 Dec. 1912, Hardinge Papers, 92, i, 343.

57 Anderson to Crowe, 24 Dec. 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 321.

58 Bertie to Grey, 11 Dec. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 361.

59 Bertie to Grey, 12 Feb. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 362.

60 Grey to Bertie, 13 Feb. 1914, Grey Papers, F.O. 800/16.

61 Grey to Granville, 13 Aug. 1913, B.D., x, pt. 11, 342. Initialling in both languages had to wait until 20 Oct.: the original text is to be found in the Treaty Series, Germany 74.

62 Grey to Goschen, 13 June 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 337.

63 In the summer of 1912, it is clear that Kühlmann made one of his private forays. He asked Sir William Tyrell – Grey's secretary – if he could ‘ kindly let me know, if apart from the Arbitration Treaty of 1904, any Treaty or Convention confirming the old alliance treaty was signed between England and Portugal after the publication in 1898? ‘ Kühlmann to Tyrell, 10 July 1912, ed. note, B.D., x, pt. II, pp. 483–4. The minutes showed how embarrassed the Foreign Office was made by this inquiry. They concluded that it was improper and therefore need not be answered. The effect on Kühlmann was naturally bad and he clearly communicated his work to the ambassador, Baron Marschall, who made a fuss about the point in his next conversation with Grey one week later: Grey to Granville, 17 July 1912, B.D., x, pt. II, 315.

64 Kiderlen to Lichnowsky, 8 Dec. 191a, G.P., XXXVII, 13.

65 Grey to Goschen, 11 Jan. 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 323.

66 Minutes on above paper by Crowe, 17 Jan. 1913, Nicolson and Grey undated.

67 Jagow to Lichnowsky, 14 Dec. 1912, G.P., XXXVII, 33.

68 Lichnowsky to Grey, 18 Mar. 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 331.

69 Lichnowsky to Grey, 18 Mar. 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 331. Minutes by Tilley, Crowe, Anderson, Harcourt and Nicolson.

70 Grey to Goschen, 15 Dec. 1913, B.D., x, pt. II, 352.

71 Grey to Goschen, 7 Jan. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 358.

72 Grey to Goschen, 29 Jan. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 359. He was, however, wrong. For Jagow wrote to Lichnowsky on 26 Feb., saying: ‘ Grey's proposal for the simultaneous publication of the treaties of 1898 and 1899 provides no suitable solution to the problem. It would not exactly serve our purpose to force on the notice of public opinion here the fact that our agreement of 1898 was already rendered illusory by England in 1899.‘ He went on to suggest publication of the agreements except the Anglo-Portuguese Agreement of 1899, quoted in Lichnowsky, , Heading for the Abyss (London, 1928), pp. 292–3.Google Scholar

73 Minutes on Bertie to Grey, n Feb. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 361. Note by MrHarcourt, , 25 Feb. 1914:Google Scholar ‘ I think the abandonment of the initialled agreement with Germany would produce a most unfortunate effect: but I agree that Germany must agree to publication of it and of the Portuguese alliance, as part of the new Treaty.’

74 Grey to Goschen, 3 Mar. 1914, B.D., x, pt. n, 366: ‘ I said that the negotiations had been begun with Count Metternich, at a time when our relations with Germany were much less good than at present, owing to the difficulties about Morocco. Since that time, the working of the reunions of Ambassadors in London and the way in which we had dealt with one another during the Balkan crisis had greatly improved our relations … From this point of view, therefore, the thing was not as necessary as it had been as a friendly transaction between Germany and England …’

75 Grey, to SirGrey, Edward, 15 Mar. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 369;Google Scholar Asquith to H.M. the king, 18 Mar. 1914, Asquith Papers, 6.21.

76 Goschen to Grey, 28 Mar. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 370.

77 Goschen to Grey, 29 Mar. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 371.

78 Grey to Goschen, 1 Apr. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 372. Harcourt, however, wrote to Grey: Harcourt to Grey, 6 Apr. 1914, F.O. 800/90, Grey Papers: ‘ We cannot keep indefinitely in existence two secret treaties – one signed and one initialled – and if a crisis arises not know which one we are to act upon. We must know specifically which are the spheres in which we are to encourage British enterprise.’

79 Grey to Goschen, 7 Apr. 1914, B.D., x, pt. II, 373.

80 Jagow to Lichnowsky, 17 Apr. 1914, G.P., XXXVII, 118.

81 Goschen to Grey, 21 Apr. 1914, B.D., x, pt. 11, 374.

82 Carnegie to Grey, 23 June 1914, B.D., x, pt. 11, 376.

83 Lichnowsky, to Bethmann-Hollweg, , 14 July 1914, G.P., XXXI, 133.Google Scholar

84 Lichnowsky, , Heading for the Abyss (London, 1928), p. 62, alsoG.P., XXXI, 133.Google Scholar

85 Jagow to Lichnowsky, 27 July 1914, G.P., XXXVII, 137.

86 Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (London, 1954), p. 504.Google Scholar

87 Hatton, P. H. S., ‘ Harcourt and Solf: the Search for an Anglo-German Understanding through Africa, 1912–1914 ’, European Studies Review, I, no. 2 (1971).Google Scholar

88 ‘ We shall only be able to agree to communication of the Treaty to the Portuguese Government and to its publication, if it is to be carried into effect at the same time ’: Kiderlen to Lichnowsky, 8 Dec. 1912, G.P., XXXVII, 13.

89 9 See my article on the Naval Question in the Historical Journal, 1970.