² For a detailed discussion of this activity, see Newitt, M. D. D., Portuguese Settlement on the Zambezi (London, 1973), passim.Google Scholar

³ Axelson, Eric, Portugal and the Scramble for Africa (Johannesburg, 1967), 157–85Google Scholar; Reach, David, ‘Ndebele Raiders and Shona Power’, J. Afr. Hist., xv, 4 (1974), 648.Google Scholar

⁴ F.O. 84/1538, Morier to Salisbury, 28 July 1879. See also Axelson, , Portugal and the Scramble, 120–4Google Scholar, for a discussion of d'Andrada's early efforts.

⁵ Galbraith, John S., Crown and Charter: The early years of the British South Africa Company (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974), 184.Google Scholar

⁶ F.O. 84/1901, O'Neill to Salisbury, 7 Sept. 1888. Henceforth the Companhia de Moçambique will be called the Mozambique Company.

⁷ Hammond, R. J., Portugal and Africa, 1815–1910: a study in uneconomic imperialism (Stanford, 1966), 148.Google Scholar

⁸ Galbraith, , Crown and Charter, 178.Google Scholar

⁹ de Moçambique, Companhia, O Territorio de Manica e Sofala e a Administraçao da Companhia de Moçambique (1892–1900) (Lisbon, 1902), 9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ I. D. 1189, A Manual of Portuguese East Africa (London, 1920: compiled by the Naval Intelligence Division of the Admiralty), 155.

¹¹ F.O. 371/15027, Memorandum by Godwin, H. on the Mozambique Company, 8 Feb. 1930.Google Scholar

¹² I. D. 1189, Manual of Portuguese East Africa, 156.

¹³ Hammond, , Portugal and Africa, 147–8Google Scholar. Henceforth the Companhia do Niassa will be called the Nyassa Company. In 1892 the Portuguese also granted extensive rights to the Companhia da Zambesia, which was founded upon the remnants of d'Andrada's original Zambezi valley concessions of the late 1870s. This company attracted considerable investments from such firms as the Oceana Consolidated Company and the North Charterland Exploration Company. While it did not possess rights of sovereignty, the company did have immense powers over the area north of the Zambezi river, between the coast and Zumbo. See I.D. 1189, Manual of Portuguese East Africa, 163–4.

¹⁴ F.O. 371/15027, Memorandum by Godwin, H. on the Mozambique Company, 8 Feb. 1930.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Rhodes blocked this attempt, calling Ochs ‘a low cad’. Galbraith, , Crown and Charter, 118Google Scholar. Ochs was also deeply involved in the Oceana Consolidated Company, which specialized in the acquisition of mining rights throughout southern Africa, the Companhia da Zambesia, and several other African ventures. As a means of augmenting his position in southern Africa, perhaps in rivalry with Rhodes, the Mozambique Company, with its strategically located territories, was particularly inviting to Ochs.

¹⁶ F.O. 63/1310, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 5 Mar. 1896.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Folha Popular, 15 July 1896, encl. in F.O. 63/1311, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 21 July 1896.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pauling, George, Chronicles of a Contractor, 2nd ed. (Bulawayo, 1969), 150.Google Scholar

¹⁹ F.O. 63/1254, Walsh to F.O., 17 Sept. 1893.

²⁰ d'Ornellas, Ayres, ‘O Caminho de Ferro de Beira…’Google Scholar, quoted in Hammond, , Portugal and Africa, 218Google Scholar. The only newspaper was published in English by British editors. That this took great delight in ridiculing the Portuguese rubbed salt into wounded Portuguese national pride.

²¹ F.O. 179/346, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 19 Apr. 1899.Google Scholar

²² F.O. 368/120, Maugham, to , F.O., 31 July 1907Google Scholar. Ochs's agent, Colonel Arnold, had been seconded from the British army to Beira at Salisbury's request in 1899 to look after British interests there. F.O. 371/48, War Office to F.O., 21 Nov. 1907.

²³ Maugham, R. C. F., Zambezia (London, 1910), 96.Google Scholar

²⁴ Report on the Trade of the Portuguese Possessions in East Africa for the Year 1911 (Foreign Office Annual Series No. 4881), 7.

²⁵ F.O. 367/188, Richards, to , F.O., 19 Nov. 1910Google Scholar; Gilmour, to Tilley, [F.O.’, 21 Nov. 1910.Google Scholar

²⁶ F.O. 367/235, ‘Report on the Mozambique Company’, by Col. O'Sullivan, G., 20 Apr. 1911Google Scholar. This was not surprising, since the local police numbered only about two hundred, half of whom were conscripted from among convicted criminals. Further, there was no rifle range in the territory and the Company possessed only about 30,000 rounds of ammunition. See F.O. 367/236, War Office to F.O., 16 Mar. 1911.

²⁷ F.O. 63/1449, Hale, to Secretary, , Transvaal Chamber of Mines, 6 Feb. 1902Google Scholar; Crowe, F. to Milner, , 10 Mar, 1902Google Scholar; Arnold, to Milner, , 22 Apr. 1902.Google Scholar

²⁸ Maugham, , Zambezia, 100.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. 96.

³⁰ Ranger, T. O., ‘Revolt in Portuguese East Africa: The Makombe Rising of 1917’, St Antony's Paper No. 15: African Affairs, No. 2 (London, 1963), 63.Google Scholar

³¹ National Archives of Malawi [N.A.M.’, GOA 2/4/29, Oury to Gov. Smith, , 7 Sept. 1917.Google Scholar

³² Report for the Year 1908 on the Trade and Commerce of the Province of Mozambique (Foreign Office Annual Series No. 4261), 29.

³³ Maugham, , Zambezia, 97.Google Scholar

³⁴ F.O. 84/1505, Pro-Consul, , Mozambique to Derby, 5 Apr. 1878Google Scholar; F.O. 84/1901, O'Neill, to , F.O., 20 Apr. 1888 and 6 Dec. 1888Google Scholar; F.O. 881/5762, ‘Report by Consul O'Neill on the Financial Condition of the Portuguese East African Possessions (1888–89)’. The total revenue for all northern Mozambique in 1888–89 was a trifling £23,044.

³⁵ Report for the Year 1900 on the Trade of Mozambique (Foreign Office Annual Series No. 2608), 6.

³⁶ C.O. 525/59, Memorandum on the Nyassa Company, encl. in Williams, R. to Crowe, E. [F.O.’, 22 Apr. 1914.Google Scholar

³⁷ Alpers, E. A., ‘Trade, State and Society among the Yao in the Nineteenth Century’, J. Afr. Hist., x, 3 (1969), 420.Google Scholar

³⁸ Marks was a great friend of Kruger and reputedly the wealthiest man in the Transvaal, being deeply involved in the notorious liquor and dynamite monopolies. When Kruger attempted to extend the Transvaal's influence into the Delagoa Bay area, he turned to Marks. One of Marks's associates, Leon Cohen, acquired a pier concession in Lourenço Marques that was intended as the base for future Transvaal influence in the port. See Headlam, Cecil, ed., The Milner Papers: South Africa, 1897–1905 (London, 1931), 1, 75Google Scholar; van Onselen, Charles, ‘The Randlords and Rotgut, 1886–1903’, unpublished seminar paper given at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, May, 1975, 2Google Scholar; Marais, J. S., The Fall of Kruger's Republic (Oxford, 1961), 27–33Google Scholar; Jackson, Stanley, The Great Barnato (London, 1970), 140Google Scholar; The South African Mining Journal, 25 July 1896, encl. in F.O. 63/1332, Casement to F.O., 4 Aug. 1896; F.O. 179/359, MacDonnell, H. to Lansdowne, , 30 May 1901.Google Scholar

³⁹ F.O. 63/1449, Crowe, F. to , F.O., 15 Apr. 1901Google Scholar and MacDonnell, H. to Lansdowne, , 6 Nov. 1901Google Scholar. See Duffy, James, A Question of Slavery (Oxford, 1967), 142–6Google Scholar, for a discussion of the modus vivendi.

⁴⁰ F.O. 179/390, MacDonnell, H. to Lansdowne, , 9 Feb. 1904.Google Scholar

⁴¹ C.O. 525/6, Lyttelton, to Milner, , 13 Jan. 1905.Google Scholar

⁴² F.O. 371/48, Villiers, to , F.O., 22 Mar. 1907Google Scholar. At Palma, an alliance of forces belonging to the local Swahili rulers together with the forces of the Yao chief, Machemba, routed a Nyassa Company expedition of four hundred men. Chief Machemba had earlier fled from German oppression in Tanganyika. F.O. 371/48, Maugham, to , F.O., 12 Mar. 1907Google Scholar; Iliffe, John, Tanganyika under German Rule: 1905–1912 (London, 1969), 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Report for the Year 1909 on the Trade and Commerce of Mozambique (Foreign Office Annual Series No. 4430), 6.

⁴⁴ See F.O. 371/2086, Rowsell, to Williams, R., 30 Mar. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in Williams, R. to Crowe, E., 22 Apr. 1914Google Scholar, for details regarding the Nyassa Consolidated Company.

⁴⁵ I.D. 1189, Manual of Portuguese East Africa, 178–80.

⁴⁶ See Report for the Year 1913 on the Trade and Commerce of Lourenco Marques and Other Portuguese Possessions in East Africa (Foreign Office Annual Series No. 5385), 42.

⁴⁷ F.O. 367/342, Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 22 Jan. 1913.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ C.O. 525/59, Williams, R. to Lane, D., 19 Mar. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in Williams, R. to Crowe, E., 22 Apr. 1914Google Scholar; see also Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 25 Feb. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 31 Mar. 1914Google Scholar. Katanga was short of labour because of its sparse population and also because the Northern Rhodesian Government had closed the Congo-Rhodesian border in adherence to the Sleeping Sickness Regulations. This action cut off a traditional source of the Congo's labour.

⁴⁹ CO. 525/59, Memorandum on the Nyassa Company, encl. in Williams, R. to Crowe, E., 22 Apr. 1914.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ F.O. 367/291, Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 10 July 1912Google Scholar, encl. in MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 5 July 1912.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. The rubber company never achieved very much because of Makonde resistance to its brutalities, which paralleled those in the Congo Free State. The chief enforcer of the rubber collection campaign, Simms, admitted ‘that he shot and killed more than sixty Makondi’ on one occasion. C.O. 525/59, Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 25 Feb. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 31 Mar. 1914.Google Scholar

⁵² F.O. 371/2992, MacDonnell, E. to Long, , 4 Sept. 1917Google Scholar, encl. in Long, to , F.O., 29 Nov. 1917.Google Scholar

⁵³ F.O. 371/15014, Portuguese Colonial Minister to Portuguese Foreign Minister, 29 Nov. 1929, encl. in Lindley, to Howard-Smith, [F.O.’, 28 Jan. 1930.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ F.O. 367/237, ‘Report on Portuguese Nyassaland’, encl. in Maugham to F.O., 29 Nov. 1911.

⁵⁵ Ibid. Maugham reports that certain Yao chiefs sent slaves from the central and northern parts of the Nyassa Company's territory to ‘the markets of the Persian Gulf. Especially prized were youths castrated in Mozambique and sold in the Gulf as eunuchs. That this trade could exist as late as 1911 was due to the fact that the British had virtually withdrawn their anti-slave trade squadron from the East African coast a few years earlier, leaving the way open for a recrudescence of the traffic. This report indicates that Duffy is incorrect in implying that Portuguese naval activity brought an end to the trade in 1902 (A Question of Slavery, 160–1).

⁵⁶ F.O. 367/237, F.O. to C.O., 14 Aug. 1911, reporting Freire d'Andrade's remarks.

⁵⁷ Thus, for example, when the Portuguese Government's Intendente in the company's territories, Dr. Temudo, attempted in 1912 to launch a campaign against the company's abuses, he was dismissed at the behest of powerful figures in Lisbon. F.O. 371/2992, MacDonnell, E. to Long, , 14 Sept. 1917Google Scholar, encl. in Long, to , F.O., 24 Sept. 1917.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ For example, one official, Sanchez, was reported to have crucified women on the shores of Lake Malawi when they resisted his edict to work. Another at Arimba compelled women with infants at breast to labour in the fields without supplying food to them, while another official, at the coast, paid his forced labour with used gramophone needles. CO. 525/59, Hemming, to Bostock, , 7 Feb. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 25 Feb. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 9 Mar. 1914Google Scholar; F.O. 371 /2992, MacDonnell, E. to Long, , 14 Sept. 1917Google Scholar, encl. in Long, to , F.O., 24 Sept. 1917.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ C.O. 525/59, Hemming, to Bostock, , 7 Feb. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in Bostock, to MacDonnell, E., 25 Feb. 1915Google Scholar, encl. in MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 9 Mar. 1914Google Scholar. H. J. Read of the Colonial 26 AH xvii Office minuted, ‘It is to be hoped that the general public will become aware of this disgraceful state of affairs & that pressure will be brought to bear as in the case of the Congo,’ while Harcourt agreed that the situation was ‘disgusting’. Minutes of Read, 21 Apr. 1914, and of Harcourt, 17 Feb. 1914. Consul E. MacDonnell explained why the public was being kept in the dark: ‘The scandalous state of affairs which at present exists has for many years been kept from the public through the all-powerful influence of Dr. Centeno in Lisbon, and the apparently strong social and financial position of the British Board of Directors.’ MacDonnell, E. to Grey, , 31 Mar. 1914Google Scholar. Some years before, in 1906, Marks had been charged with being involved in the forced labour business in Mozambique. He was acquitted by Lord Selborne, the High Commissioner, who assured Whitehall that ‘Mr Marks is a man in whose honour and respectability I have complete confidence’. F.O. 367/19, Selborne, to Elgin, , 16 July 1906.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See The Central African Times, 23 Aug. 1902, for a report of the beginnings of this migration into British Central Africa. Also, F.O. 367/237, Manning [Gov. of Nyasaland] to Harcourt, 4 Nov. 1911, comments that unrest and maladministration in the Nyassa Company's territories resulted in a constant flow of people from them into the Nyasaland Protectorate over the preceding ten years. Consul Maugham, in his report for 1911, remarked that in coastal areas that had formerly been densely populated, the population had shrunk to a bare remnant. F.O. 367/237, encl. in Maugham, to , F.O., 29 Nov. 1911Google Scholar. See also Bandawe, Lewis M., Memoirs of a Malawian (Blantyre, Malawi, 1971), 43.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hammond, , Portugal and Africa, 139–47Google Scholar; Galbraith, , Crown and Charter, 160–202, passim.Google Scholar

⁶² F.O. 63/1250, MacDonnell, H. to Rosebery, , 2 Apr. 1893Google Scholar. See Robinson, Ronald and Gallagher, John, with Denny, Alice, Africa and the Victorians (London, 1963), 410–49Google Scholar, for a discussion of British motives, and Butler, Jeffrey, ‘The German Factor in Anglo-Transvaal Relations’, in Gifford, Prosser and Louis, Wm. Roger, eds., Britain and Germany in Africa: Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule (New Haven, 1967), 191–203Google Scholar, for a consideration of Germany's role in Mozambique.

⁶³ F.O. 63/1359, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 24 Feb. 1897Google Scholar. The British feared that the Portuguese might grant concessions in Mozambique injurious to British paramountcy throughout southern Africa in order to obtain French loans. Chamberlain at the Colonial Office and Bertie at the Foreign Office were strong advocates of a firm policy towards Portugal to prevent the growth of French influence in the area. See, for example, F.O. 63/1359, Bertie, to Selborne, , 8 Apr. 1897Google Scholar; Memorandum of Chamberlain, J., 18 June 1897Google Scholar; Chamberlain, to Bertie, , 24 Nov. 1897Google Scholar; and Bertie's minute of 25 Jan. 1898, among others.

⁶⁴ The French takeover of the company resulted largely from Ochs's disenchantment with his position in Mozambique. In 1896 he had attempted to persuade the Portuguese to allow a merger of the Mozambique Company with the Companhia da Zambesia, in which he was a powerful force. Aware of the denationalization occurring south of the Zambezi, the Portuguese refused. Subsequent to this rebuff, Ochs lost interest in the Mozambique Company and approached Dr Leyds, Kruger's Secretary of State, in an unsuccessful attempt to sell his shares to the Transvaal. F.O. 63/1311, Thornton, to Salisbury, , 7 Sept. 1896Google Scholar; Hammond, , Portugal and Africa, 263.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ F.O. 179/340, Thornton, to Salisbury, , 26 Sept. 1898Google Scholar. The other twelve thousand shares were deposited with the Portuguese government, which had a right to 10 per cent of all share issues.

⁶⁶ F.O. 179/340, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 19 Jan. 1898.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ F.O. 179/340, MacDonnell, H. to Salisbury, , 5 Nov. 1898Google Scholar. Nothing was done along these lines, however, perhaps because of the outbreak of the South African war, and French control remained for several years.

⁶⁸ The agreement was that Portugal should take a loan from Britain and Germany that would be guaranteed by the customs revenues of the Portuguese colonies. The areas assigned to the lenders would ‘amount to a declaration of future ownership of the part of the Power accepting the security’. Having agreed, they coolly offered the Portuguese a loan, pushing it upon them with considerable vigour. The Portuguese government, wary of their intentions, resisted the pressures effectively. F.O. 63/1359, Salisbury, to Gough, , 17 June 1898Google Scholar; MacDonnell, H. to Bertie, , 14 June 1898Google Scholar. Also F.O. 179/340, Thornton, to Salisbury, , 30 Sept. 1898Google Scholar, in which the British Charg6 d'Affaires relates the pressures he has put upon the Portuguese Prime Minister to accept an Anglo-German loan. Thornton's report casts serious doubts upon subsequent British claims that they really did not want Portugal to accept a loan and that they had been forced to accept the loan stratagem because of German threats. See, for example, F.O. 800/176, Bertie, to Grey, , 12 Jan. 1912Google Scholar(Private Papers of Sir Francis Bertie). For a discussion of the Anglo-German agreement, see Hammond, , Portugal and Africa, 245–71.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ F.O. 63/1446, Antrobus, [C.O.] to Lansdowne, , 20 Oct. 1902.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ F.O., 179/368, Gosselin, to Lansdowne, , 25 Oct. 1902Google Scholar; also Thornton, to Lansdowne, , 15 Oct. 1902.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For a brief account of this struggle, see Vail, Leroy, ‘The Making of an Imperial Slum: Nyasaland and its Railways, 1895–1935’, J. Afr. Hist., xvi, 1 (1975), 95Google Scholar. The intricacies of the dispute are covered in the F.O. 63/1446 file. It should be noted that the takeover resulted in a noisy nationalist reaction in Lisbon, especially as Ochs was accused of using his position in the Mozambique Company to yield lucrative sub-concessions to his other enterprises, most notably the Oceana Consolidated Company. See The Central African Times, 17 Oct. 1903 and F.O. 179/377, Gosselin, to Lansdowne, , 25 Sept. 1903.Google Scholar

⁷² F.O. 63/1446, Gosselin, to Lansdowne, , 10 Dec. 1904.Google Scholar

⁷³ F.O. 367/17, Memorandum of Arnold, J., 19 Aug. 1906.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Smuts requested in 1907 that the Foreign Office induce Portugal to allow labour recruiting in the territory of the Mozambique Company. No reply was received from the Portuguese, and the area remained closed to recruiting. See CO. 417/455, Selborne, to Elgin, , 17 Feb. 1908Google Scholar and F.O. 367/88, , C.O. to , F.O., 23 May 1908.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ C.O. 417/455, Minute of Lambert, H. M., 2 July 1907.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ F.O. 368/188, Richards, to , F.O., 19 Nov. 1910Google Scholar; C.O. 537/550, Harcourt, to Gladstone, , 15 May 1911Google Scholar and Minute of 9 Oct. 1911. The Colonial Office warned the B.S.A.C against such a plot, supposedly sponsored by Abe Bailey with the connivance of General Botha. See Minute of Earle, J., 10 Oct. 1911.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ For a brief account of Oury's initial involvement with Mozambique, see Vail, , ‘Imperial Slum’, 97.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See ‘Mr. Libert Oury's Life and Work’, East Africa and Rhodesia, 11 May 1939, 998, and d'Erlanger, Emile, The History of the Construction and Finance of the Rhodesian Transport System (privately printed, n.p., n.d. [London, 1938]), 42–3.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ C.O. 537/553, Memorandum of Lambert, H. M., 9 Jan. 1913.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ C.O. 537/553, Crowe, E. to Harcourt, , 17 Dec. 1912Google Scholar; Harcourt, to Gladstone, , 18 Jan. 1913Google Scholar; see also F.O. 367/288, Minute of Tilley, , 7 Dec. 1912.Google Scholar

⁸¹ F.O. 367/341, Gladstone, to Harcourt, , 7 Jan. 1913Google Scholar; Minute of Crowe, E., 23 Jan. 1913Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the agreement, see Warhurst, P. R., ‘The Tete Agree ment’, Rhodesian History, i (1970), 31–42.Google Scholar

⁸² F.O. 800/176, Grey, to Bertie, , z Jan. 1912.Google Scholar

⁸³ See F.O. 367/284 for details of the protracted discussions. The new agreement was never signed because of a dispute as to whether the 1898 agreement should be published.

⁸⁴ C.O. 525/59, Grey to Harcourt, 30 Mar. 1014. The purchases were carried out by proxies under the direction of Dr W. C. Regendanz, who represented a syndicate of German banks and shipping lines and who enjoyed the full support of the German Foreign and Colonial Offices. The final deal was completed on 28 May 1914, with Pieter Vuyk, a Dutchman, the chief proxy for the Germans. Pick, F. W., Searchlight on German Africa: The Diaries and Papers of Dr. W. Ch. Regendanz (London, 1939), 128.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ C.O. 525/59, Williams, R. to Lane, , 19 Mar. 1914Google Scholar, encl. in Williams, R. to Crowe, E., 22 Apr. 1914.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Louis, Wm. Roger, Great Britain and Germany's Lost Colonies, 1914–1919 (Oxford, 1967). 2.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid. 7, 83.

⁸⁸ Buxton, to Harcourt, , 28 Apr. 1915Google Scholar, quoted in Hyam, Ronald, The Failure of South African Expansion, 1908–1948 (London, 1973), 27Google Scholar; see also ibid., 28.

⁸⁹ C.O. 525/64, Minute of Harcourt, , 8 Feb. 1915.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ F.O. 371/2440, Carnegie, to Grey, , 10 Jan. 1915.Google Scholar

⁹¹ C.O. 525/70, Grey, to Law, Bonar, 14 Apr. 1916.Google Scholar

⁹² F.O. 371/2440, Williams, R. to Langley, , 25 Oct. 1916.Google Scholar

⁹³ Louis, , Germany's Lost Colonies, 82–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ C.O. 525/77, Long, to ‘Bob’, 11 May 1917Google Scholar; see also Smuts to Read, 30 May 1917.

⁹⁵ C.O. 525/76, Memorandum of General Smuts, 15 Jan. 1918.

⁹⁶ F.O. 371/2992, Minute of Sir Langley, W., undated [ca. May 1917].Google Scholar

⁹⁷ F.O. 371/2992, Minute of Sir Langley, W., 9 July 1917Google Scholar; see also C.O. to F.O., 13 July 1917.

⁹⁸ C.O. 525/76, Minute of Read, H., 25 June 1917Google Scholar. See also 371/3371, Minute of Snow, T. M., 5 Jan. 1918.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ C.O. 525/76, Memorandum of General Smuts, 15 Jan. 1918.

¹⁰⁰ F.O. 371/3371, Memorandum of Malkin of a Meeting of Representatives of the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, 31 Feb. 1918.

¹⁰¹ C.O. 525/81, Phillips to Read, n Sept. 1918.

¹⁰² C.O. 525/85, Read [C.O.] to Barstow [Treasury], 11 Aug. 1919. For a full discussion of the railway and related projects, see Vail, , ‘Imperial Slum’, 89–112.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ F.O. 371/4119, Carnegie, to Curzon, , 2 June 1920.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Louis, , Germany's Lost Colonies, 7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ As reported, for example, in F.O. 371/8368, Hall-Hall, to , F.O. 13 Jan. 1922.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ F.O. 371/8378, telegram of Smuts to Walton, 6 Feb. 1922, encl. in Walton, to Crowe, E., 9 Feb. 1922Google Scholar. Smuts argued that such a loan would allow Portugal ‘to be independent of the Union. This should be prevented. [The] Portuguese should not be allowed [to] flout Union Government with help of British money.’ Smuts was also concerned with Beira, feeling that this, Rhodesia's port, would be important to South Africa if Rhodesia were to join the Union. The Portuguese protested to the Foreign Office over Smuts's ‘undisguised imperial ambitions’. See F.O. 371/8374, de Santos, Jorge to Curzon, , 31 Aug. 1922Google Scholar; Minute of Villiers, , 4 Sept. 1922.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ For a discussion of the currency regulations, see Smith, , ‘Reversal of Portuguese Colonial Policy’, 660–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ F.O. 371/11930, Minute of Villiers, , 10 Mar. 1926Google Scholar. Elsewhere Villiers noted that the Western Department had ‘more trouble with Portugal than with all our other countries put together… The real solution would be British cruisers in the Tagus and off Lourenco Marques’. F.O. 371/i 1934, Minute of 10 Mar. 1926. Twenty-four British claims were then outstanding, and the Portuguese were fearful that one of their colonies might be sacrificed to Germany to maintain the spirit of Locarno. Villiers felt that this was the time to play on the Portuguese fears. F.O. 371/11933, Carnegie, to Tyrell, , 31 Mar. 1926Google Scholar and Minute of Villiers, 24 Mar. 1926.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ F.O. 371/11927, Minute of Villiers, 19 June 1926.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ N.A.M. GOA 2/4/29, Oury, to Smith, , 23 Oct. 1919.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Vail, , ‘Imperial Slum’, 100–4.Google Scholar

¹¹² N.A.M. GOA 2/4/29, Oury, to Smith, , 2 Nov. 1921.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Vail, , ‘Imperial Slum’, 104–8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ F.O. 371/7110, Prince Arthur of Connaught to C.O., 6 Apr. 1921; Minute of Campbell, 21 Apr. 1921.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ N.A.M. S2/16/24, ‘Colonial Office Correspondence with the British South Africa Company Relative to the Port of Beira’, Davis, [C.O.] to Sec, B.S.A.C, 18 Feb. 1924.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ F.O. 371/13427, Carnegie, to Rodrigues, Bettancourt, 31 Jan. 1928.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ F.O. 371/11136, Minute of Villiers, 19 Aug. 1926.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ F.O. 371/4131, Read [Vice Consul, Porto Amelia] to MacDonnell, E., 10 Feb. 1920Google Scholar, end. in MacDonnell, E. to , F.O., 27 Mar. 1920.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ F.O. 371/7104, Folliott, to Hall-Hall, , 31 Oct. 1920Google Scholar, end. in Hall-Hall, to , F.O., 14 Dec. 1920Google Scholar; ‘A Report Prepared for the Transvaal Chamber of Mines in 1922’, South African Labour Bulletin, ii, 2 (1975), 24–5.

¹²⁰ F.O. 371/8375, Governor of Tanganyika to C.O., 9 Oct. 1922.Google Scholar

¹²¹ F.O. 371/i5014, Hogg, to Pyke, , 7 Jan. 1927Google Scholar, encl. in Pyke, to , F.O., 18 Feb. 1930.Google Scholar

¹²² F.O. 371/8377, Governor of Tanganyika to C.O., 4 Oct. 1922Google Scholar. At this time British sterling circulated in Mozambique as legal tender and was preferred to Portuguese money.

¹²³ F.O. 371/8377, Hall-Hall, to , F.O., 13 Apr. 1922.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ F.O. 371/8377, Villiers, to Phillips, , 26 May 1922Google Scholar; see also Villiers, to Phillips, , 27 Nov. 1922.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ F.O. 371/8377, Phillips, to , F.O., 11 July 1922.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ C.O. 525/109, Long, to , F.O., 15 Feb. 1924.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ F.O. 371/12710, Minute of Villiers, 3 Nov. 1927Google Scholar; Chamberlain, [F.O.] to Balfour, [D.O.’, 7 Nov. 1927Google Scholar; Minute of Villiers, 10 Nov. 1927.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ F.O. 371/13427, Osborne, to , F.O., 13 Oct. 1928.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ F.O. 371/13423, Osborne, to , F.O., 22 June 1928Google Scholar. The Colonial Office, in the old Chamberlain-Milner tradition, resisted initially, but the Foreign Office was unimpressed. When Lord Kylsant tried, in 1929 to raise the German bogey, the Foreign Office was sceptical of the danger, in spite of Amery's apprehensions. The fall of Amery and the coming to power of Lord Passfield in 1929 at the Colonial Office ended its resistance to the changes. See also F.O. 371/13423, C.O. to F.O., 29 Dec. 1928; F.O. 371/14152, C.O. to F.O., 11 Mar. 1929; C.O. 525/127, Gent, [C.O.] to , F.O., 6 July 1929Google Scholar; and Pick, , Searchlight, 162 ffGoogle Scholar. for Kylsant's attempts to interest German capital in purchasing his Nyassa Consolidated shares.

¹³⁰ F.O. 371/15014, Salazar, to Kylsant, , 21 Feb. 1930.Google Scholar

¹³¹ F.O. 371/15015, Minute of G.M., 6 Sept. 1930.Google Scholar

¹³² F.O. 371/26796, Memorandum of Fone, C. H., 14 Feb. 1941.Google Scholar