First published in 1929 by P. S. King & Co.
Published in 1963 by Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
This edition first published in 2018 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
1929 by Taylor and Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Publishers Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.
A Library of Congress record exists under ISBN: 82089688
ISBN 13: 978-0-367-17589-4 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-429-05750-2 (ebk)
THE HISTORY OF FRENCH COLONIAL POLICY 1870-1925
THE HISTORY OF FRENCH COLONIAL POLICY 1870-1925
by
STEPHEN H. ROBERTS
First published in 1929 by
P. S. King & Co. and now reprinted
by arrangement with Staples Press Ltd.
This edition published by
Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.,
10 Woburn Walk, London, W.C.1.
First edition | 1929 |
New impression | 1963 |
Printed in Great Britain by
Thomas Nelson (Printers) Ltd.
London and Edinburgh
PREFACE
T HIS book is an attempt to cover an obvious gap in modern European history. It is strange that, despite the importance of the subject, nothing exists on it in English, even in the slightest form. My own connection with the topic goes back a long way. During earlier researches on the Pacific, and while still in Australia and the Pacific, I worked out French policy in that part of the world. From that, I went on to submit it as a doctorial thesis at the University of London, working both in London and in France. I am particularly indebted to the resources of the Paris Libraries and Government Departments, and to those persons in Marseilles who gave me much information on the mercantile aspect and the connection of the mainland with North Africa. By that time the theme had outgrown the original idea of a doctorial thesis, and assumed its present form.
It seems fitting at this stage to point out that the book does not pretend to be an interpretation based on actual colonial experience: it is a piece of historical research and analysis, the main colonial element coming from the fact that the author himself has lived for most of his life in a colony and thus has some capability of understanding the colonial point of view. It would be foolish to assume that actually living in the French colonies would not result in a more living presentation: but, on the other hand, one can write of the Middle Ages without having lived in them. Such a work as this has to be considered in light of what is claimed for itand the claim is for historical presentation and comparative analysis rather than for a narration of personal colonial experience.
The book itself divides into two parts, each with a distinct approach. The raw material is contained within a regional survey, which takes each colony in turn and gives the full details of its particular history and position. As against this, are the chapters in which general principles are discussed and conclusions drawnchapters in which some knowledge of the events dealt with is assumed. These include all of Part I, and the long chapter on a comparison of French colonization with that of other Powers. In the first section, the aim is a succinct presentation of the relevant facts: in the second, the view-point is more consciously analytical and criticaland hence more or less personal. The writer asks for a more elastic acceptance of these critical chapters, because, being interpretative, they are open to conflicting conclusions. They are more constructive, less fixed, more suggestive; and nothing like finality or dogmatism is claimed for themfar less, indeed, than for the regional survey, and even there, the writer is conscious of the fluidity of his conclusions. As a whole, therefore, the book resolves itself into an academic and supposedly impartial presentation of the facts of fifty years of French colonization, and a discussion, avowedly influenced by the personality of the critic, of those facts and the theories behind them. One part is thus fixed, the other more elastic: and the reception of each should be tempered by a consideration of the different approach in each case.
The exigencies of a general plan demanded that the general sections should come first, in order to enable the reader to get some idea of the background. But this, in turn, necessitated writing of many facts and treating them as known to the reader, before they were fully explained. To have explained them all, as they occurred in the general section, would have taken away whatever clarity that section may possess: the reader is requested, therefore, should such a position arise, to refer to the index and the regional survey that follows. This particularly applies to much of the material in Part Ithe theory. As this is in part a commentary on Part IIthe practiceit is obvious that many points can only become clearer by reference to the succeeding part. This seemed preferable, however, to having Part II precede Part I, and to having a long regional survey tire the reader before any attempt was made to state the general theory. For a somewhat similar reason, the comparative chapter was isolated from the remainder of the general material and placed lastthe general plan seemed to demand this.
With respect to the conclusions, it must be remembered that any conclusion about colonization remains somewhat in the nature of a hazard. The very nature of the problems dealt with makes this so. The author, therefore, accompanies his conclusions with the proviso that most of them are tentative, and may be changed. All that can be said is that there is not the slightest conscious bias, either of approach or treatment: the writer had no preconceived ideas to warp his facts. Actually, there were constant changes. The analysis of Algeria was approached with much admiration for the French effort there, but the pressure of facts gradually forced the writer into a distinctly opposite position: and this happened frequently. It may be said that this particular conclusion is controversial, but the writer holds that it is a legitimate deduction from the facts, with no attempt to withhold or distort relevant matter. Beyond that one may not go, save to voice the opinions of a reader,Can anyone say whether Algeria or any other colony has been a success or a failure? With deference, I should insist that there are relative successes and failures, and that these can be discernednot absolutely, but in comparison with other efforts, either by France or other Powers. The conclusions given are thus only tentative and relevant: that is all that is claimed for them.
