British South Africa Company

The British South Africa Company (BSAC or BSACo)was chartered in 1889 following theamalgamation of CecilRhodes' Central Search Association and the London-based Exploring Company Ltd, which hadoriginally competed to capitalize on the expected mineral wealth of Mashonaland butunited because of common economic interests and to secure British government backing. The companyreceived a Royal Charter modelled on that of the British East India Company. Its first directorsincluded The 2nd Duke of Abercorn, Rhodes himself, andthe South African financier Alfred Beit.Rhodes hoped BSAC would promote colonisation and economic exploitation acrossmuch of south-central Africa, as part of the "Scramble for Africa". However, his mainfocus was south of the Zambezi,in Mashonaland and the coastal areas to its east, from which he believed thePortuguese could be removed by payment or force, and in the Transvaal, which he hoped would return toBritish control.^[1]

It has been suggested that Rhodes' ambition was to createa zone of British commercial and political influence from "Cape to Cairo", but this was far beyondthe resources of any commercial company to achieve and would not have giveninvestors the financial returns they expected. The BSAC was created in theexpectation that the gold fields of Mashonaland would provide funds for thedevelopment of other areas of Central Africa, including the mineral wealth of Katanga.When the expected wealth of Mashonaland did not materialise and Katanga wasacquired by the Congo Free State, the company had little moneyleft for significant development after building railways, particularly in areasnorth of the Zambezi. BSAC regarded its lands north of the Zambezi as territoryto be held as cheaply as possible for future, rather than immediate,exploitation.^[2]

As part of administering Southern Rhodesia until1923 and Northern Rhodesia until 1924, the BSACformed what were originally paramilitary forces, but which later included morenormal police functions. In addition to the administration of Southern andNorthern Rhodesia, the BSAC claimed extensive landholdings and mineral rightsin both the Rhodesias and, although its land claims in Southern Rhodesia werenullified in 1918, its land rights in Northern Rhodesia and its mineral rightsin Southern Rhodesia had to be bought out in 1924 and 1933 respectively, andits mineral rights in Northern Rhodesia lasted until 1964. The BSAC alsocreated the Rhodesian railway system and owned the railways there until 1947.

Royal charter[edit]

The Royal Charter of the British South Africa Company(BSAC) came into effect on 20 December 1889. This was initially for a period of25 years, later extended for a further 10 years, thus it expired in 1924.^[3]

The company had been incorporated in October 1888, andmuch of the time after Rhodes arrived in London in March 1889 (and before itsCharter was granted) was taken up in discussions on its terms. In thesediscussions, Rhodes led the BSAC negotiators. Although the British governmentbroadly supported the scheme, it demanded that it and the High Commissioner for Southern Africa itappointed should have the ultimate responsibility for any territory BSAC mightacquire and for approving or rejecting all BSAC actions. Although Clause 3 ofthe Charter appeared to grant BSAC powers to administer a wide (if unspecified)area of Central Africa on behalf of the British government, this was subject toit obtaining those powers through treaties with local rulers. Under Clauses4 and 9, the British government also had to accept those treaties and agree toassume any powers to govern that the rulers had granted before authorising BSACto exercise those powers in its behalf.^[4]

Board divisions[edit]

The BSAC was an amalgamation of a London-based groupheaded by Lord Gifford and George Cawston andbacked financially by Baron Nathan de Rothschild, and Rhodes and hisSouth African associates including Alfred Beit with the resources of the De BeersSyndicate and Gold Fields ofSouth Africa. These two groups had originally been in competitionbut united because of common economic interests. Gifford and Cawston'sinterests were represented by the Bechuanaland Exploration Company and itsoffshoot, the Exploring Company. Rhodes and his associates secured the Rudd Concession fromthe Ndebele king, Lobengula,which was transferred to the Central Search Association (later renamed UnitedConcession Company), and the Exploring Company was given approximatelyone-quarter of the shares in it. The British South Africa Company leasedmineral rights from the Central Search Association, paying it half the netprofits from mineral exploitation.^[2][5]

From the start, Gifford disliked Rhodes, who he thoughthad acquired too much power in BSAC and had marginalised him. Cawston supportedRhodes only in those commercial activities likely to make a profit and not inany less commercial ventures. The four other directors were appointed torepresent the other shareholders. The dukes of Abercorn and of Fife, respectively chairman andvice-chairman were appointed to give the company prestige but they took littlepart in running the company. Neither had previous interest in Africa and Fifehad no business experience. Albert Grey, later Earl Grey had anactive role as a liaison between Rhodes in South Africa and governmentofficials in London. He and Horace Farquhar, a prominent London banker,completed the first Board.^[6]

The Jameson Raid and after[edit]

Main article: Jameson Raid

Sir Henry Loch, the High Commissioner forSouthern Africa, had planned the overthrow of the Transvaal Government in theevent of a rising in Johannesburg by British subjects denied civil andpolitical rights as early as 1893, and the Colonial Secretary, Lord Ripon, did nothing to discourage this.Loch's successor as High Commissioner from 1895, Sir Hercules Robinson inherited theseplans, but neither Loch, Robinson or Ripon took any steps to promote such arising^{[citationneeded]}. Joseph Chamberlain, who succeeded Ripon in1895, was almost certainly aware that Rhodes was planning a rising, but not thedetails.^[7] Rhodesand Jameson made plans to assist, andprobably to promote, a Johannesburg rising. Earl Grey was the only London-baseddirector to know about plans for the Jameson Raid,and he, like Rhodes and Beit, did not share this knowledge with the other BSACdirectors. Grey communicated at least some of the plan to Joseph Chamberlain,who avoided specifically endorsing it.^[8]

News of the Raid shocked the BSAC directors who, exceptfor Beit and Grey, knew nothing of the plan. Rhodes at first deniedresponsibility for Jameson's actions but, in the face of further revelations,he assumed full responsibility for them. The BSAC Board recognised that thecompany would be attacked, and asked Rhodes to come to London to meet them. Ata Board meeting of 5 February 1896, Rhodes claimed that he had given Jamesonpermission to assist an uprising only, not to start one, and that he believed hadthe support of the British government. He offered to resign as managingdirector, but a decision on this was deferred despite the demands of Cawstonand Gifford for its acceptance. However, after the trial of the Jameson raidersimplicated Rhodes further and following pressure from Chamberlain, Rhodes andBeit were removed as directors in June 1896.^[9]

After his removal, Rhodes remained a major shareholder inthe BSAC and he continued to be involved unofficially in its affairs. In 1898,the Duke of Fife and Lord Farquhar both resigned from the Board; Rhodes andBeit replaced them and another supporter of Rhodes also joined the Board. AsRhodes had recaptured full control over the company, Cawston decided to resign.Lord Gifford, however, remained on the Board, which Rhodes dominated until hisdeath.^[10]

After Rhodes[edit]

Rhodes retained effective control of the BSAC until hisdeath in 1902, but after the Jameson Raid the company's relations with theColonial Office over Rhodesia were difficult, as the Colonial Office wasunwilling to recognise the company had to give priority to its commercialinterests rather than administration. After Rhodes' death, the BSAC directorsattempted to make the company commercially profitable, but until 1924 it wasdeeply unprofitable because its administrative costs outweighed its commercialincome, and it never paid a dividend in that period. After a financial crisisin Britain in 1908, the value of its shares declined sharply: its share capitalhad to be increased from £6 million to £12 million between 1908 and1912, and it needed large loans to stay in business.^[11] Asthe accumulated deficits increased, the value of the shares continued todecline until the 1920s.^[12]

From around 1920, the company favoured a union ofSouthern and Northern Rhodesia, followed by their inclusion in the Union ofSouth Africa, and it was in discussion with South African leaders about this.South Africa offered favourable terms for buying out the BSAC's interests, andthe company would be relieved of any future administrative costs. The BSAC didnot want to be left with responsibility for the administration of NorthernRhodesia when Southern Rhodesia gained responsible government, but did want topreserve its commercial interests there, in particular its mining and landrights. To do this, it had to negotiate a settlement with the Britishgovernment for both parts of Rhodesia. The two parties began negotiations in anatmosphere of mutual suspicion at the end of 1922, but nevertheless reached anagreement of 29 September 1923 to settle all the outstanding questions onSouthern and Northern Rhodesia.^[13]

From 1925 until his death in 1937 Sir Henry Birchenough,a former Director of the company, served as president.

After 1924 the BSAC's rights allowed it to collect vastsums in royalties, particularly from the development of the Northern RhodesianCopperbelt, from the late 1920s until its mineral rights were liquidated justbefore Zambian independence in 1964. In the 1930s, the BSAC was able to collectroyalties on all copper mined and was a large shareholder in the main miningcompanies. Until decolonization, the company therefore became a very lucrativeinvestment opportunity, yielding very high return to investors.^[14]

Rhodesia[edit]

Main article: Company rule in Rhodesia

The first stage in acquiring territory was to enter intotreaties with local rulers. Although the Ndebele king, Lobengula, had agreednot to enter into a treaty with any other power without prior British consent,and had granted mining concessions to the BSAC (including the right for thecompany to protect them), he consistently refused to delegate any generalpowers of government to the British South Africa Company. However, the BSACconvinced the Colonial Office that it should declare a protectorate on thebasis that a group of citizens of the Transvaal Republic led by Louis Adendorffplanned to cross the Limpopo River to settle and proclaim a republic inMashonaland. A protectorate was proclaimed by an Order-in-Council of 9 May1891, initially covering Mashonaland and later Matabeleland.The Adendorff party did attempt to cross the Limpopo in June 1891, but wasturned back by a force of the BSAC police.^[15][16]

The Lozi ofthe Barotseland formeda kingdom whose king, Lewanika hadbegun his rule in 1876, but had been driven from power in 1884. After hisreturn in 1885, his concerns about further internal power struggles and thethreat of Ndebele raids prompted him to seek European protection. He asked François Coillard of the Paris Evangelical Missionary Society, whichhad set up a mission to the Lozi, to help him draft a petition seeking aBritish protectorate. This reached the Colonial Office in August 1889, but noimmediate action was taken to accept it. Even before this, Cecil Rhodes, whileattempting to obtain a Royal Charter for the BSAC, considered Barotseland as asuitable area for company operations and as a gateway to the copper deposits ofKatanga.^[17] Rhodessent Frank Lochner to Barotseland to obtain a concession and made an offer tothe British government to pay the expenses of a Barotseland protectorate.Lochner sponsored the misconception that BSAC represented the British government,and on 27 June 1890, Lewanika gave his consent to an exclusive mineralconcession. This (the Lochner Concession) gave the company mining rights overthe whole of the area in which Lewanika was paramount ruler in exchange for anannual subsidy and the promise of British protection, a promise that Lochnerhad no authority to give. However, the BSAC advised the Foreign Office that theLozi had accepted British protection.^[18]

The Foreign Office had reservations over the nature andextent of the supposed protectorate and it never sanctioned the LochnerConcession, because it did not grant BSAC any administrative rights and itinvolved monopolies, prohibited in the BSAC Charter.^[19] However,in negotiations with the Portuguese government, Barotseland was claimed to fallwithin the British sphere of influence and the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1891 allocatedthe Barotse Kingdom's territory to the British sphere, although the boundarywith Angola was not fixed until 1905.^[20] Lewanikaprotested that the terms of the treaty had been misrepresented to him. No BSACAdministrator was sent to Barotseland until 1895, and the first Administrator,Forbes who remained until 1897, did little to establish an administration. Asthe Foreign Office was not convinced that the Lochner Concession hadestablished a British protectorate over Barotseland or given BSAC any rights toadminister the territory, it considered that a new concession was necessary. Itagreed in 1896 that a BSAC official would be appointed as Resident Commissionerto secure this concession. The first appointee died before taking up his post,but in October 1897, Robert Coryndon reachedBarotseland as Resident Commissioner. Coryndon, a former secretary of CecilRhodes and member of the Pioneer Column,had been proposed by the BSAC, and his appointment was approved by the HighCommissioner for South Africa as representing the British government. In hiscapacity as Resident, Coryndon declared Barotseland to be a Britishprotectorate, resolving its previously anomalous position. Coryndon alsoconfirmed that the 1890 mineral concession gave the BSAC no right to make landgrants.^[21] In1897 Lewanika signed a new concession (the Coryndon Concession) that gave theBSAC the rights to make land grants and to establish jurisdiction in parallelto the king's courts. Next, in 1900, Lewanika signed a further agreement, (theBarotse Concession), which resolved some details that were in dispute followingthe earlier concessions and was drafted in terms compatible with theBarotseland-North Western Rhodesia Order in Council, 1899. .^[22][23]

Up to 1899, Northern Rhodesia outside of Barotseland wasgoverned according to the Order-in-Council of 9 May 1891, which did not fixclear boundaries to the area involved. Before 1911, Northern Rhodesia wasadministered as two separate territories, North-Western Rhodesia and North-Eastern Rhodesia. The former wasrecognised as British territory by the Barotseland and North-Western RhodesiaOrder-in-Council of 1899 and the later by the North-Eastern RhodesiaOrder-in-Council of 1900. Both Orders-in-Council regularised the position ofthe BSAC Administrators, the first of whom for North- Eastern Rhodesia wasappointed in 1895. In North-Western Rhodesia the first Administrator wasappointed for Barotseland in 1897, becoming Administrator for all North-WesternRhodesia in 1900.^[24][25]

Other areas[edit]

In 1890, Alfred Sharpe undertookan expedition with the objective of acquiring Katanga. He only managed to maketreaties with local rulers in North-Eastern Rhodesia, a number of whom laterclaimed that the contents of the treaty documents had been misrepresented tothem. Katanga became part of the Congo Free State.The boundary between the Congo Free State and British territory was fixed by atreaty in 1894. It was only after this treaty and the appointment of a separateAdministrator for North- Eastern Rhodesia in 1895 that the area was broughtunder effective BSAC control.^[26]

The British South Africa Company also consideredacquiring interests in Bechuanaland Protectorate and Nyasaland,which was initially called the British Central Africa Protectorate. Duringnegotiations for its charter in 1889, the company discussed the possibilitiesof taking over the administration of Bechuanaland, which was already a Britishprotectorate, and of working with, and possibly amalgamating with, the African Lakes Companywhich was operating in Nyasaland. On 29 October 1889, a Royal Charterauthorised the formation of the British South Africa Company's Police.^[27] Inthe event, BSAC did not take over the administration of Bechuanaland, but from1892 it took over the cost of the Bechuanaland Border Police, which from 1896was merged with the British South Africa Police.^[28][29] On1 Apr 1896 the Bechuanaland Border Police was renamed as the BechuanalandMounted Police (BMP).^[27]

The African Lakes Company was itself attempting to becomea Chartered Company in the late 1880s, andRhodes discussed its possible amalgamation with the BSAC in 1889. However, theForeign Office judged the African Lakes Company as unsuitable to administer anyterritory, and by 1890 BSAC wished to take control of that company rather thanamalgamate with it. The Lakes Company directors resisted, but by 1893 they hadbeen ousted. In 1891, the British Central Africa Protectorate wasproclaimed on the understanding that the BSAC would contribute to the costs ofits administration. However, its Commissioner, Harry Johnson, refused to act asa BSAC appointee, in particular on Rhodes' demand that all Crown lands in theprotectorate should be transferred to BSAC control and that Johnson should alsofacilitate the transfer of African lands to it^[30]

Dispute with Portugal[edit]

At the start of the 19th century, effective Portuguesegovernment in Mozambique was limited to the ports of Mozambique Island, Ibo, Quelimane, Sofala, Inhambane and Lourenço Marques and the outposts at Sena and Tete inthe Zambezi valley. Although Portugal claimed sovereignty over Angoche and a number of smaller Muslimcoastal towns, these were virtually independent.^[31][32] Inthe Zambezi valley, Portugal had also initiated the Prazo system of large leased estatesunder nominal Portuguese rule. By the end of the 18th century, this area in thevalleys of the Zambezi and lower Shire River werecontrolled by a few families that claimed to be Portuguese subjects but whichwere virtually independent.^[33] Inthe interior of what is today southern and central Mozambique, there was noteven a pretence of Portuguese control. The nadir of Portuguese fortunes wasreached in the 1830s and 1840s when Lourenço Marques was sacked in 1833 and Sofala in 1835; Zumbo was abandoned in 1836;Afro-Portuguese settlers near Vila de Sena wereforced to pay tribute to the Gaza Empire andAngoche fought off a Portuguese attempt to prevent it from slave-trading in1847. However, around 1840 the Portuguese government embarked on a series ofmilitary campaigns to bring the prazos and the Muslim coastal towns under itseffective control.^[34][35]

The General Act of the Berlin Conference dated26 February 1885, which introduced the principle of effective occupation waspotentially damaging to Portuguese claims in Mozambique. Article 34 required apower acquiring land on the coasts of Africa outside of its previouspossessions to notify the other signatories of the Act so they could protestagainst such claims. Article 35 of the Act provided that rights could only beacquired over previously uncolonised lands if the power claiming them hadestablished sufficient authority there to protect existing rights and thefreedom of trade. This normally implied making treaties with local rulers,establishing an administration and exercising police powers. Initially,Portugal claimed that the Berlin Treaty did not apply, and it was not requiredto issue notifications or establish effective occupation, as Portugal's claimto the Mozambique coast had existed for centuries and had been unchallenged.^[36][37]

However, British officials did not accept thisinterpretation, as Henry O'Neill, the British consul based at Mozambique Islandsaid in January 1884:

"There is a field of action open to her (England) inSouth Africa which only a slight political barrier interposes to shut her outfrom. We refer, of course, to the area of Portuguese rule. This, it is true, atpresent is an undefinable area. Portugal has been a colonising power only inname. To speak of Portuguese colonies in East Africa is to speak of a merefiction—a fiction colourably sustained by a few scattered seaboard settlements,beyond whose narrow littoral and local limits colonisation and government haveno existence."^[38]

To forestall British designs on the parts of Mozambiqueand the interior that O'Neill claimed Portugal did not occupy, Joaquim CarlosPaiva de Andrada was commissioned in 1884 to establish effective occupation,and he was active in four areas. Firstly, in 1884 he established the town of Beira andPortuguese occupation of much of Sofala Province.Secondly, also in 1884, he acquired a concession of an area within a 180kilometre radius of Zumbo, which had been reoccupied and west of whichAfro-Portuguese families had traded and settled since the 1860s. AlthoughAndrada did not establish any administration immediately, in 1889 an outpostwas established beyond the junction of the Zambezi and Kafue River andan administrative district of Zumbo was established.^[39][40][41] Thirdly,in 1889 Andrada was granted another concession over Manica, which covered theareas both of the Manica Province of Mozambique and the Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe. Andradasucceeded in obtaining treaties over much of this area and establishing arudimentary administration but he was arrested in November 1890 by BritishSouth Africa Company troops and expelled. Finally, also in 1889, Andradacrossed northern Mashonaland, approximately the area of the Mashonaland Central Province of Zimbabwe, obtaining treaties. He failed toinform the Portuguese government of these treaties, so these claims were notformally notified to other powers, as required by the Berlin Treaty. TheBritish government refused to submit any disputed claims to arbitration, and on11 January 1890, Lord Salisbury sentthe British Ultimatum of 1890 to the Portuguesegovernment demanded the withdrawal of the Portuguese troops from the areaswhere Portuguese and British interests in Africa overlapped.^[42]

Fixing boundaries[edit]

The final stage in acquiring territory was to makebi-lateral treaties with other European powers. The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of1891 was an agreement signed in Lisbon on 11 June 1891 between the UnitedKingdom and Portugal.It fixed the boundaries between the territories administered by the BritishSouth Africa Company in Mashonaland and Matabeleland,now parts of Zimbabwe, and North-Eastern Rhodesia (now part of Zambia) and Portuguese Mozambique. It divided Manica,granting the western portion to the British South Africa Company. It also fixedthe boundaries between the BSAC-administered territory of North-Western Rhodesia (now in Zambia),and Portuguese Angola.^[43][44] Thenorthern border of the British territories was agreed as part of anAnglo-German Convention in 1890. The border between the British Central AfricaProtectorate and the territory of the British South Africa Company in what istoday Zambia was fixed in 1891 at the drainage divide betweenLake Malawi and the Luangwa River.^[45]

Early administration[edit]

The terms of the treaties under which the variousprotectorates were created north or south of the Zambezi provided for therulers that signed them to retain significant powers over their own people.Despite this, the British South Africa Company either ended the powers oftraditional rulers through warfare or eroded them by encouraging its ownofficials to take most of them over. By the end of the first decade of the 20thcentury, those traditional rulers that remained were restricted to largelyceremonial roles only.^[46]

The BSAC appointed an Administrator of Mashonaland, whowas intended to have a similar function to a colonial governor, and laterassistants in charge of districts. The first Administrator, A. R. Colquhoun,was appointed in October 1890, soon after the Pioneer Column hadarrived at Fort Salisbury.As first, the British government refused to recognise Colquhoun, and placed thegovernor of Bechuanaland in immediate charge of thenew protectorate, with the High Commissioner for South Africa given oversightof it. The governor legitimated the Administrator in July 1891 by appointinghim Chief Magistrate, and as the British government did not want the expense ofadministration, it acquiesced to BSAC control. The Administrator, as ChiefMagistrate, appointed assistants charged with keeping order in the variousparts of Mashonaland, and from these a district administration developed.However, under Colquhoun and his successor from August 1891, Leander Starr Jameson, there were less than 20administrative staff, mostly inexperienced, so government was minimal.^[47][48] Asthe High Commissioner was usually resident in Cape Town, a ResidentCommissioner was appointed to represent him in Rhodesia. The early BSACAdministrators had a dual role, being appointed Administrators by the companyand Chief Magistrate by the Crown. Their position was regularised in 1894, whenthe British government appointed the British South Africa Company to administerwhat was beginning to be called Rhodesia, which at that time was not split intoNorthern and Southern sections. A Legislative Council was created in 1898 inSouthern Rhodesia to advise the BSAC Administrator and the High Commissionerfor South Africa in legal matters.^[49][50]

Administration north of the Zambezi was rudimentarybefore 1901. In North-Eastern Rhodesia, Abercorn andFife were fortified outposts and the Administrator of North-Eastern Rhodesiawas resident in Blantyre inthe British Central Africa Protectorate until Fort Jameson was founded in 1899 as itsheadquarters. In Barotziland-North-Western Rhodesia, there was no Secretariatuntil 1901.^[51]

Southern Rhodesia[edit]

After the entry of the Pioneer Column into SouthernRhodesia, the provision of land for European settlers was one of the firstmatters to be taken up by the British South Africa Company. Matabele authorityceased, freehold ownership of land wasintroduced, and large tracts were acquired by the BSAC for alienation toEuropeans.^[52] Jameson,who became Administrator of Mashonaland in 1891, was Rhodes' appointee and heexecuted what he thought were Rhodes' plans with little supervision from Rhodesand none from the BSAC Board in London. Jameson made very large land grantsbetween 1891 and 1893 for little return until the directors' complaints stoppedhim (although Rhodes' approved several other large grants up to 1896). Thispolicy discouraged later settlers, who could only acquire good quality land ata high price from these grantees.^[53]

As English law applied in both in Southern Rhodesia andNorthern Rhodesia, all land that had not already been alienated should inprinciple have been Crownland. However, in both territories, BSAC claimed ownership of theland not in other private ownership either because it, not the Crown, hadconquered it or under the various concessions it had obtained. It also claimedthe right to alienate this land as its owner. In 1890 and 1891, the ColonialOffice and the High Commissioner accepted that BSAC had obtained title to theland in Mashonaland.^[54] Afterthe Matebele wars, the company also claimed in 1894 to have the right todispose of all land in Matebeleland, on the basis that the Ndebele king, Lobengula hadowned it, but had forfeited it. The Colonial Office objected, but only to theextent of requiring BSAC to reserve sufficient lands for the African population.^[55]

In 1894, a Land Commission was appointed to deal with thesettlement of Africans on the land. The Commission recommended that two largeterritories be set aside for native occupation, the Shangani andGwaai Reserves in Matabeleland, of about 2,486,000 acres. Before the arrival ofthe Europeans, Africans had held nearly 100,000,000 acres in what becameSouthern Rhodesia. The Land Commission's plan showed such poor judgment, andthe bases of allocation were so ill-considered, that the attempt to confine thenative population within these two areas was never really practicable. Failureto make suitable provision for African lands may have been one of the primecauses of the Matabele and Mashona rebellions of 1896. Following theserebellions, BSAC was required to assign sufficient land to Southern RhodesianAfricans for their agricultural and pastoral requirements, including access tosufficient water. Native Reserves were set up under this directive, which by1902 had an estimated indigenous population of 530,000. Although latermodifications were made, the basic pattern of land allocation persisted untilindependence. The European district officers who responsible for defining thereserves were advised to allow between 9 and 15 acres of arable land for eachfamily, and adequate pasture, but they had little geographic knowledge of thecountry and no maps. In 1910, a Native Affairs Committee of Enquiry was set up,which made very few changes. The committee's land apportionment was19 million acres for Europeans and 21.4 million acres for NativeReserves with an African population of about 700,000. A further51.6 million acres was unassigned, but available for future alienation toEuropeans.^[56]

In 1918, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decidedin the Southern Rhodesia case that, even although the British South AfricaCompany may have conquered Mashonaland and Matabeleland, it had acted as anagent of the British Crown, so the land had become Crown land.^[57] Thecourt recognised that the indigenous people of what became Southern Rhodesia,had previously owned the land, but had lost it through the BSAC conquest.^[58] However,even after the Privy Council decision, the British government allowed BSAC tocontinue to administer the unalienated lands in Southern Rhodesia and agreedthat, when their Charter expired, it was to recover the loss it had incurred inadministering the territory either from future sales of these lands or from theBritish government. In negotiations for the ending of the Charter in 1923, theBritish government agreed to fund part of this deficit, but placed theobligation to pay off the rest on Southern Rhodesia itself.^[59]

In 1920, some smaller reserves were reorganised, and 83Native Reserves of 21.6 million acres were recognised, which were for theexclusive use and occupation almost 900,000 Africans. Of this total, about3 million acres were unsuitable for any agricultural use. A review afterthe end of BSAC administration in 1925 enforced stricter segregation ofEuropean and African land, while allowing only a little more land for Africanuse.^[60]

Northern Rhodesia[edit]

In Northern Rhodesia, the BSAC claimed ownership of allthe unalienated land in the territory, and the right to alienate it. Europeansoccupied land along the line of the railway and near the towns, but generallythere was no land shortage, as the population density was lower than inSouthern Rhodesia, and the European population was much lower. In 1913, BSACdrew up plans for Native Reserves along Southern Rhodesian lines, outside whichAfricans would have no right to own or occupy land, but these plans were notimplemented until 1928, after company administration ended.^[61]

The Privy Council decision on Southern Rhodesia raisedquestions about the BSAC claim to the unalienated lands north of the Zambezi.However, the company's claim in Northern Rhodesia was based on concessionsgranted rather than conquest and, although a parliamentary Committee in 1921recommended that these claims also should be referred to the Privy Council, theBritish government preferred to negotiate an overall settlement for the end ofBSAC administration in Northern Rhodesia. This effectively acknowledged thecompany's claim.^[59] Underan Agreement of 29 September 1923, the Northern Rhodesian government took overthe entire control of lands previously controlled by BSAC from 1 April 1924,paying the company half the net rents and the proceeds of certain land sales.^[62]

Railway policies[edit]

The British South Africa Company was responsible forbuilding the Rhodesian railway system in the period of primary constructionwhich ended in 1911, when the main line through Northern Rhodesia reached theCongo border and the Katanga copper mines. Rhodes' original intention was for arailway extending across the Zambesi to Lake Tanganyika, popularly consideredas part of a great "Cape to Cairo" railway linking all the Britishcolonies of Africa. Rhodes was as much a capitalist in his motivation as avisionary, and when little gold was found in Mashonaland, he accepted that eventhe scheme to reach Lake Tanganyika had no economic justification. Railwaysbuilt by private companies without government subsidies need enough of the typeof traffic that can pay high freight rates to recover their construction costs.The agricultural products that fuelled much of Rhodesia's early economic growthcould not provide this traffic; large quantities of minerals could. Most earlyrailways in Africa were built by the British government rather than CharteredCompanies. The need to raise capital and produce dividends prevented mostChartered Companies from undertaking such infrastructure investments. However,in the early period of railway construction, the BSAC obtained finance fromSouth African companies including Consolidated Gold Fields and De Beers inwhich Rhodes was a dominant force. BSAC also benefitted from the large, but notunlimited personal fortunes of Rhodes and Beit before their deaths.^[63][64]

Development of routes[edit]

Lord Gifford and his Bechuanaland Exploring Company hadwon the right to construct a private railway north from the terminus of the Cape Government Railways at Kimberley into Bechuanaland in 1888.Rhodes was initially against this extension, in part because Gifford was acompetitor but also for reasons of Cape politics. However, when Rhodes andGifford joined forces, BSAC had to take on this railway obligation to gain itsCharter. Rhodes promised that BSAC would spend £500,000 on building a railwaythrough Bechuanaland, half of BSAC's total initial share capital. The railwayreached Vryburg in1890, stopping there until 1893 because of the poor financial state of BSAC anddisappointing reports about gold in Mashonaland and Matabeleland. BSAC remainedcautious about railway building until 1896, when African uprisings threateningits investment made railway links to Southern Rhodesia imperative.^[65]

The line from Kimberley reached Bulawayo in 1897, and aconnection to Salisbury wascompleted in 1902. By then Southern Rhodesia already had a rail outlet to theMozambican port of Beira. This was completed by the Beira Railway Company, asubsidiary company of the BSAC, as a narrow gauge railway as far as Umtali in 1898. In the next year, a linefrom Salisbury to Umtali was completed which, like the Kimberley to Bulawayoline, was at the Capegauge of 3 feet 6 inches. The Umtali to Beira section waswidened to Cape gauge in 1899 and 1900. These lines were proposed before theeconomic potential of the Rhodesias was fully known, and in the hope that theexpected gold discoveries would promote economic development. Rhodesia's golddeposits proved disappointing, and it was the coal of Wankie that first provided the trafficand revenue to fund railway construction to the north. After the discovery ofits huge coal reserves, a branch to Wankie from the main line from Bulawayo(which had been extended to cross the Victoria Falls in 1902) was completed in1903.^[64][66]

The next section was to Broken Hill, which the railwayreached in 1906. BSAC was assured that there would be much traffic from itslead and zinc mines, but this did not materialise because technical miningproblems. The railway could not meet the costs of the construction loans, andthe company faced major financial problems, which were already serious becauseof the cost of widening the Beira railway. The only area likely to generatesufficient mineral traffic to relieve these debts was Katanga. Initially, theCongo Free State had concluded that Katanga's copper deposits were not richenough to justify the capital cost of building a railway to the coast, butexpeditions between 1899 and 1901 proved their value. Copper deposits found inNorthern Rhodesia before the First World War proved uneconomic to develop.^[67]

In 1906 Union Minière du Haut Katanga was formedto exploit the Katanga mines. King Leopold favoured a railway route entirely inCongolese territory, linked to the Congo River. An Angolan railway from LobitoBay to Katanga was also proposed, but in 1908, the BSAC agreed with Leopold tocontinuing the Rhodesian railway to Elizabethville andthe mines. Between 1912, when full-scale copper production began, until 1928when a Congolese line was completed, almost all of Katanga's copper was shippedover the Rhodesian network to Beira. Even after the Congo route was opened, upto a third of Katanga's copper went to Beira, and the mine's the supply of coaland coke mostly came from Wankie, the cheapest available source. This railway'srevenue from Katanga enabled it to carry agricultural produce at low rates.Large-scale development of the Copperbelt only began in the late 1920s, with anincreasing world market for copper. Transport was no problem as only shortbranches had to be built to connect the Copperbelt to the main line. The Beiraroute was well established and the BSAC wanted to prevent the Copperbeltcompanies taking advantage of other routes it did not control. The BenguelaRailway to Angola, completed in 1931, provided the shortest, most direct routefor copper from both Katanga and Northern Rhodesia, but it was never used tofull capacity because both the Congo and the Rhodesias restricted its trafficin favour of their own lines.^[68]

When the BSAC administration of the Rhodesias wasterminated, an agreement between the Colonial Secretary and the company of 29September 1923 recognised that BSAC was entitled to protection because of thesize of its railway investment in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. The agreementrequired the governors of each territory to refer any Bill authorisingthe construction of new railways or altering the rates that the existingrailways charged to the Colonial Secretary. This prevented the legislatures ofNorthern or Southern Rhodesia from introducing competition or exerting pressureon the BSAC-controlled railways to reduce rates without British governmentsanction.^[69]

Railways and the settlers[edit]

European settlers had two main criticisms of BritishSouth Africa Company railway policy. Firstly, that its financial arrangementsunfairly benefited the company and its shareholders, and secondly, that thesettlers paid for these benefits through exorbitant railway rates. Although theallegations were probably ill-founded, they caused tensions between thesettlers and the BSAC. On the shorter east coast route from Beira, runningexpenses were high because of construction debts and because the Mozambique Company,which was granted the original concession to build the railway in 1891, imposeda transit duty of up to 3% on goods destined for Rhodesia in return for thesub-concession to the Beira Railway Company. From 1914, the European settlershad a majority in the Advisory Council, and called for the replacement of BSACcontrol of the railways through nationalisation. In 1923 responsible governmentwas achieved, but rather outright nationalisation, the settler government optedfor a form of public control under the Railway Act of 1926. This left BSAC asowner of the railways, which were called Beira and Mashonaland and RhodesiaRailways until 1927, and Rhodesia Railways Limitedafter. This remained the situation until 1947, when the Government of Southern Rhodesia acquiredthe assets of Rhodesia Railways Limited.^[70]

Early trading[edit]

The company was empowered to trade with African rulerssuch as King Lobengula; to form banks; to own, manage and grant or distributeland, and to raise a police force (the British South Africa Police). In return, thecompany agreed to develop the territory it controlled, to respect existingAfrican laws, to allow free trade within its territory and to respect all religions.Rhodes and the white settlers attracted to the company's territory set theirsights for ever more mineral rights and more territorial concessions from theAfrican peoples, establishing their own governments, and introducing laws withlittle concern or respect for African laws. The BSAC was not able to generateenough profit to pay its shareholders dividends until after it lost directadministrative control over Rhodesia in 1923.

BSAC claims[edit]

Initially, the British South Africa Company claimedmineral rights in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia. During the period of itsCharter, the BSAC was not involved in mining directly, but received mineral royalties andheld shares in mining companies. Often the main source of income of thesecompanies was not in mining itself but in speculation markets.^[71] InMoshanaland, complaints arose at the delay of development of mines in order tofuel speculation profits further.^[72]

In 1923, the British government agreed that it would takeover the administration of both Southern and Northern Rhodesia from BSAC. TheAgreement for Southern Rhodesia provided that the company's mineral rightsthere should be granted protection, and any Bill under which the SouthernRhodesian legislature proposed to alter arrangements for collecting miningrevenues or imposing any new tax or duty on minerals would require Britishgovernment. The same condition applied to any Northern Rhodesian legislation.^[73] In1933, the company sold its mineral exploration rights south of the Zambezi tothe Southern Rhodesian government, but retained its rights in NorthernRhodesian mineral rights, as well as its interests in mining, railways, realestate and agriculture across southern Africa.^[74]

BSAC claimed to own mineral rights over the whole ofNorthern Rhodesia under one series of concessions granted between 1890 and 1910by Lewanika covering a poorly defined area of Barotziland-North-WesternRhodesia, and under a second series negotiated by Joseph Thomson and AlfredSharpe in 1890 and 1891 with local chiefs covering a disputed area ofNorth-Eastern Rhodesia. This claim was accepted by the British Government.^[75] Afterthe Charter ended, BSAC joined a group of nine South African and Britishcompanies which financed the development of Nchanga Mines,to prevent them falling under US control. However, its main concern was toreceive royalties.^[76]

Ancient surface copper workings were known at Kansanshi(near Solwezi), Bwana Mkubwa and Luanshya, all on what later became known asthe Copperbelt,and BSAC exploration in the 1890s indicated there were significant deposits inthe area. However, they could not be commercially exploited until a railway hadbeen built. A railway bridge across the Zambezi was constructed in 1903 and theline was continued northward, reaching Broken Hill in 1906, where the lead andzinc vanadium mine was opened, and reaching the Belgian Congo border in 1909.At that time, mining had started in Katanga, where rich copper oxide oresoccurred near the surface. In Northern Rhodesia, the surface ores were ofpoorer quality, and copper was only worked intermittently at Bwana Mkubwa,until in 1924 rich copper sulphide ores were discovered about 100 feet belowthe surface.^[77]

In 1922, the Southern Rhodesian voters rejected theoption of inclusion in the Union of South Africa and opted for responsiblegovernment: the Northern Rhodesian settlers were not consulted. The BSAC wantedto give up responsibility for administering Northern Rhodesia, but to preserveits mining and land rights by negotiating a settlement with the Britishgovernment for both parts of Rhodesia. For Northern Rhodesia, the mostimportant provision of that agreement was that the Crown would recognise thatBSAC was the owner of the mineral rights acquired under the concessionsobtained from Lewanika in North Western Rhodesia Certificates of Claim issuedby Harry Johnston in North Eastern Rhodesia.^[78]

Under the Northern Rhodesian settlement, the companydropped its claim for reimbursement of a £l.6 million administrativedeficit: in return the British Government agreed to give the BSAC half the netrevenue from certain rents and land sales and recognised (or appeared torecognise) the company as the owner of Northern Rhodesia's mineral rights inperpetuity. The British Government could have bought out these rights by payingBSAC £l.6 million to meet its reimbursement claim, but declined to makethe money available. This agreement was criticised then and later time by bothAfrican and European inhabitants of the territory. The elected unofficialmembers of the Legislative Council pressed for the royalties issue to bereferred to the Privy Council, as the BSAC's title to unalienated land inSouthern Rhodesia had been. Instead, for forty years up to Zambianindependence, successive British Governments recognised the BSAC as owner ofall underground minerals in Northern Rhodesia, and compelled anyone mining themto pay royalties to the company.^[79]

In 1923, the Northern Rhodesian copper industry waslittle developed, and the British government did not anticipate the futurevalue of these mineral rights. It regarded them as a not very important part ofthe overall deal with the company. The lack of any challenge to the BSAC's claimsand the decision not to refer them to the Privy Council led to suspicion thatthe company received favoured treatment. There were family links between ajunior Colonial Office minister and the BSAC director leading its negotiations,but no evidence to suggest this led to any bias. The most probable explanationis that the importance of the minerals was overlooked in the haste to achieve asettlement. Because of lack of time, the agreement was not approved by theAttorney-General.^[80]

The 1923 Agreement stated that the Crown recognisedBritish South Africa Company mineral rights acquired under the concessionseither from Lewanika in Barotziland-North-Western Rhodesia or under Certificates of Claim in North-EasternRhodesia. These concessions did not cover all of Northern Rhodesia. Inparticular, they could not have conveyed mineral rights in the area of theCopperbelt from which most of the BSAC's royalties came, as the Copperbelt wasoutside these areas. However, the British Government had legal advice that theColonial Office's recognition of the BSAC's rights in practice over a longperiod, and specific recognition of those rights in Rhodesia mininglegislation, prevented it from challenging the rights.^[81]

Claims disputed[edit]

The first attempts to challenge BSAC royalty claims weremade by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia between 1935 and 1937. The Governor, Sir Hubert Young, attempted to convince theColonial Office that BSAC only owned mineral rights in the areas of theconcessions from Lewanika and the Certificates of Claim from Johnston. Thisexcluded most of the Copperbelt, as the area east of the Kafue River hadnever been ruled by Lewanika. The Colonial Office response was that BSACownership of mineral rights throughout Northern Rhodesia had been accepted inpractice, and the references to the Lewanika concessions and Certificates ofClaim should not be interpreted in a narrow sense.^[82]

Northern Rhodesian settler politicians were not convincedby the Colonial Office arguments, in particular the suggestion that, since theBritish government had previously recognised the BSAC claims, it could notchallenge them now on the basis of a reinterpretation of terms of the 1923agreement. Settler representatives proposed either that the BSAC mineral rightsshould be bought out or that punitive levels of tax should be imposed on BSACroyalties. After years of BSAC obstruction, the company was forced to agree in1950 that it would surrender their mineral rights in 1986 without compensation,and meanwhile give 20% of its royalties to the Northern Rhodesian government.^[83]

The 1950 agreement continued through the period of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but atthe end of Federation in 1963 the African leaders of what became Zambia sought its revision, proposing tobuy out the British South Africa Company's mineral rights for a lump sum. TheBSAC refused, and the Northern Rhodesian government of Kenneth Kaunda commissioneda full legal enquiry into the validity of the company's claims. The resultswere published as a White Paper which considered the validity of commercialrights held and exercised under the colonial legislative and administrativesystem.^[84]

The Northern Rhodesian government argued that many of thetreaties on which BSAC relied were of doubtful validity and probably could nothave effectively transferred mineral rights. Even if the treaties were valid,none if them covered the Copperbelt, and any subsequent agreements merelyconfirmed the company's rights if they were originally valid: they did not givethe treaties retrospective validity. It further argued that, as the Britishgovernment had wrongly allowed the BSAC to claim royalties it was not entitledto, the British government should pay any compensation it thought the companywas due, and not place this burden on an independent Zambia. Shortly before theplanned date for independence of 24 October 1964, Kaunda threatened toexpropriate the BSAC immediately afterwards if no agreement were reached. On 23October, BSAC agreed to give up any mineral rights it might have in return forcompensation of £4 million, the British and Zambian governments payinghalf each.^[85]

Financial returns[edit]

Traders of B.S.A.C stock profited handsomely from thespeculative trading of the stock which was trading for multiple times higherthat its nominal book value on the LSE and the Rhodesian Stock Exchange whichwas initiated in the Masonic Assembly Room on 20 June 1894.^[86]A History of the Zimbabwean Stock Exchange Aninvestor who invested in the original one million shares at £1 each andparticipated in each rightsissue up to 1904, would have paid an average of £1.66 for eachshare. No dividends were received before 1924, but from then the average annualdividend for the next 26 years was 7.5 pence, a poor rate of return. However,from 1950, dividend rates increased sharply, reaching 75 pence a share in 1960,largely from Northern Rhodesian copper royalties. Each share was splittwo-for-one in 1955 and each of the new shares was exchanged for three Charter Consolidated shares at thebeginning of 1965.^[87]

Clause 3 of the BSAC Charter allowed the company toobtain powers necessary for the preservation of public order in, or for theprotection of, the territories comprised in its concessions, and Clause 10allowed the company to establish and maintain a police force.^[3] Thisdid not permit the formation of an army but BSAC created a paramilitary forceof mounted infantrymen in 1889 which was virtually its army and which allowedit to defeat and replace the Matabele kingdom and then overcomeresistance of the Shona northof the Limpopo river in the First Matabele War and Second Matabele War. It was the first Britishuse of the Maximgun in combat (causing five thousand Ndebele casualties). Thecompany carved out and administered a territory which it named Zambezia,and later, Rhodesia, which now covers the area occupiedby the republics of Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Southern Rhodesia[edit]

Main article: British South Africa Police

At first, the BSAC force was named the British SouthAfrica Company's Police, but from 1896 it was called the British South Africa Police. The ColonialOffice initially authorised a force of 100 men, but Rhodes increased this to480 before the Pioneer Column entered Mashonaland.^[88] Itsnumbers had risen to 650 men by the end of 1890, an unsustainable burden on theBSAC resources. Rhodes ordered a reduction in its manpower to 100 at the end of1891, and later to only 40 men. This was supplemented by the Mashonaland Horse,an unpaid volunteer force of up to 500 men. The police force was greatlyincreased in size at the time of the First Matabele War, although much if thisincrease was in the form of volunteer police reservists.^[89]

Although the police force had been created by the BSACand was at first under the command of a company official, after the Jameson Raid itwas renamed the British South Africa Police and ceased to be a company force.From then, it reported to the British High Commissioner for South Africa, notthe BSAC, and was commanded by a British-appointed officer. This British SouthAfrica Police had four divisions: two policed the countryside (but not thetowns) of Matabeleland and of Mashonaland, another covered "NorthZambesia" until the creation of the Barotse Native Police in 1899 and thefourth dealt with Bechuanaland until its own police force was formed in 1903.Also in 1903, the previously separate urban police forces were combined as theSouthern Rhodesia Constabulary and handed over to BSAC control. In 1909, theMatabeleland and Mashonaland divisions were handed back to BSAC control and theseparate urban police force was amalgamated with the British South AfricaPolice. Only in 1909 did the British South Africa Police constitute a policeforce for the whole of Southern Rhodesia and for Southern Rhodesia only. TheBritish South Africa Police was initially formed as a wholly European force,but in 1903 an African unit was organised as the British South African NativePolice. In 1909, this was merged into the British South Africa Police, whichthereafter had an increasing number of African police officers. The volunteerforces raised for the Matabele wars and Mashona rebellion were disbanded soonafter, but the Southern Rhodesia Volunteers, raised for service in the Boer War,remained in being and in 1914 formed the basis of the 1st and 2nd RhodesiaRegiments. Although these were severely reduced in size after the First World War,they formed the basis of the Rhodesian Territorial Force, set up in 1926 afterthe end of BSAC administration.^[29]

Northern Rhodesia[edit]

Main article: Northern Rhodesia Police

The BSAC considered that its territory north of theZambezi was more suitable for a largely African police force than a Europeanone. However, at first the British South Africa Police patrolled the north ofthe Zambezi in North Western Rhodesia, although its European troops wereexpensive and prone to diseases. This force and its replacements wereparamilitaries, although there was a small force of European civil police inthe towns. The British South Africa Police were replaced by the Barotse NativePolice force, which was formed in 1902 (other sources date this as 1899 or1901). This had a high proportion of European NCOs as well as all Europeanofficers and was merged into the Northern Rhodesia Police in 1911. Initially,Harry Johnson in the British Central Africa Protectorate had responsibility forNorth Eastern Rhodesia and Central Africa forces, including Sikh and Africantroops, were used there until 1899. Until 1903, local magistrates recruitedtheir own local police, but in that year a North Eastern Rhodesia Constabularywas formed, which had only a few white officers, all its NCOs and troopersbeing African. This was also merged into the Northern Rhodesia Police in 1912,which then numbered only 18 European and 775 African in six companies, dividedbetween the headquarters of the various districts. The Northern Rhodesia Policeremained after the end of BSAC administration.^[90][91]

Medal[edit]

Further information: British South Africa Company Medal

In 1896, Queen Victoria sanctionedthe issue by the British South Africa Company of a medal to troops who had beenengaged in the First Matabele War. In 1897, the Queensanctioned another medal for those engaged in the two campaigns of the SecondMatabele War: Rhodesia (1896) and Mashonaland (1897). The government of Southern Rhodesia re-issuedthe medal to commemorate the earlier 1890 Pioneer Column, in 1927.

Legislature and administration[edit]

A legislative council for Southern Rhodesia was createdin 1898 to advise the BSAC Administrator and the High Commissioner for SouthAfrica on legal matters. Initially, this had a minority of elected seats, andthe electorate was formed almost exclusively of those better-off white settlerswho held BSAC shares. Over time as more settlers arrived, disputes betweensettlers and BSAC grew, and the company attempted to keep these in check byextending the franchise to some non-shareholders. However, in 1914, the RoyalCharter was renewed on condition that settlers in Southern Rhodesia were givenincreased political rights, and from 1914, there was an elected majority on theSouthern Rhodesian Legislative Council.^[92][93]

In Northern Rhodesia, there was neither an Executive Council nor a legislativecouncil, but only an Advisory Council, which until 1917 consisted entirely ofofficials. After 1917 and a few nominees were added to represent the smallEuropean minority: Northern Rhodesia had no electedrepresentation while under BSAC rule.^[94] Provisionfor elected unofficial members was only made after BSAC rule there came to anend in 1924. In both parts of Rhodesia, the BSAC Administrators were requiredto submit all draft Proclamations affecting Europeans to the High Commissionerfor South Africa for approval before they were issued. The High Commissionercould in theory, and subject to certain restrictions, also make, alter orrepeal Proclamations for the administration of justice, the raising of revenue,and for the peace, order and good government of either territory, withoutreference to their Administrators, although this power was never used.^[95][96]

The British South Africa Company was planning tocentralise the administration of the two Rhodesias at the time of the JamesonRaid in 1896. Following the raid, the British government increased itsoversight of BSAC affairs in Southern Rhodesia, and insisted on a separateadministration in Northern Rhodesia. In both 1915 and 1921, BSAC again failedto set up a single administration for both Rhodesias. In part, this was becausethe Southern Rhodesian settlers feared that it more would be difficult for a unitedRhodesian state to achieve responsible government.^[97]

Self-government[edit]

In 1917, the Responsible Government Association wasformed as a political party to press for responsible government, and fought the 1920Legislative Council election in opposition to those advocating union with the Union of South Africa. When the British courtsdecided that the ultimate ownership of all land which had not already beenalienated into private ownership lay with the Crown, not with BSAC, thecampaign a self-government gained strength.^[98]

In 1921, General Smuts andhis government wished for the early admission of Southern Rhodesia into the Union of South Africa. When the Union wasestablished, Natal and the Free State were given representation in the UnionParliament considerably in excess of the number of their electors, and Smutspromised that this would apply in the case of Rhodesia, which would receive 12to 15 seats in the Union Parliament, which then had 134 members. Smuts alsopromised that South Africa would make the financial provision necessary to buyout the commercial rights of the BSAC. If those rights continued underresponsible government, they would create a serious financial problem for thatgovernment. In 1922, the company entered negotiations with the Union governmentfor the incorporation of Southern Rhodesia. However, as the BSAC charter wasdue to expire in 1924, a referendum was held in 1922 in which the electoratewas given a choice between responsible government and entry into the Union ofSouth Africa. Those in favour of responsible government won a significant, butnot overwhelming, majority. In 1923, the British government chose not to renewthe company's charter, and instead accorded self-governing colony status toSouthern Rhodesia and protectorate statusto Northern Rhodesia.^[99]

The end of BSAC administration[edit]

An agreement of 29 September 1923 between the BritishSouth Africa Company and the Colonial Secretary settled the outstanding issuesrelating to Southern and Northern Rhodesia. It terminated the company'sadministration of Northern Rhodesia by the British South Africa Company as from1 April 1924: Northern Rhodesia continued to be a protectorate, but nowgoverned by a Governor. All laws were to continue in force, and all rightsreserved to indigenous peoples under treaties they had made with BSAC also continuedin force. From 1 April 1924, control of all lands that the company claimed inNorthern Rhodesia, were taken over by the Northern Rhodesian administration, toadminister in the interests of their African populations, but BSAC were toreceive half the net rents from these lands.^[100]

Main article: Charter International

In 1964, the company handed over its mineral rights tothe government of Zambia, and the following year, the business of the BritishSouth Africa Company was merged with the Central Mining & InvestmentCorporation Ltd and The Consolidated Mines Selection Company Ltd into themining and industrial business of Charter Consolidated Ltd, of whichslightly over one-third of the shares were owned by the British/South Africanmining company Anglo American Corporation. In the 1980s thecompany disposed of its overseas mining concerns to concentrate on its Britishengineering interests.

In 1993 Charter Consolidated Ltd changed its name toCharter plc, and in 2008 to Charter Limited, which is incorporated in Englandand Wales, Company Number 02794949. The British South Africa Company stillexists, and is registered asa non-trading business incorporated in England and Wales, Company NumberZC000011.