Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:51:21.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French Policy and the Origins of the Scramble for West Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

C. W. Newbury  and
A. S. Kanya-Forstner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a contribution to the current debate about the origins of the scramble for West Africa. It analyses the internal dynamics of French expansion and argues that the crucial change in French African policy occurred not in 1882–3, as commonly assumed, but in 1879–80. The policies adopted at this time, although their roots can be traced back to the governorship of Louis Faidherbe in Senegal, were distinguished by a new willingness on the part of the government in Paris to establish political as well as economic claims to West African territory, and by its readiness to bear the financial and military burdens of territorial expansion. Changes in French domestic politics or foreign relations cannot adequately account for this transition from informal to formal expansion, nor can it be explained solely in terms of commercial agitation in France or West Africa. The influence of public opinion and of colonial agents on the formulation of policy was more significant, but the crucial decisions were taken by the policy-makers themselves, and in particular by Charles de Freycinet (Minister of Public Works and later Prime Minister) and Admiral Jean Jauréguiberry (Minister of Marine and Colonies). They, above all, were responsible for inaugurating the era of French imperialism in West Africa. The new imperialism was most apparent in the drive to create a vast territorial empire in the Sudanese interior. But it was also evident in the intensification of commercial rivalries along the West African coast, and the paper argues that French actions there in 1882–3 were the continuation of policies adopted three years before rather than immediate responses to the British occupation of Egypt or to the growth of popular support for African expansion. Accordingly, the beginnings of French imperialism in West Africa are advanced as the principal cause of the scramble.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1969 , pp. 253 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Robinson, R. E. and Gallagher, J., Africa and the Victorians (London, 1961), 166–75;Google ScholarHargreaves, J. D., Prelude to the Partition of West Africa (London, 1963), 278–315;Google ScholarStengers, J., ‘L'impérialisme colonial de la fin du XIXe siÈcle: mythe ou réalité?’, J. Afr. Hist. III (1962), 469–91;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrunschwig, H., ‘Les origines du partage de l'Afrique occidentale’, J. Afr. Hist. V (1964), 121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For French commercial and political activity along the West African coast, see Schnapper, B., La politique et le commerce français dans le Golfe de Guinée de 1838 à 1871 (Paris, 1961);Google Scholaridem, ‘La fin du régime de l'exclusif: le commerce étranger dans les possessions françaises ';Afrique tropicale (1817–1870)’, Annales africaines (1959), 164–9; Deschamps, H., ‘Quinze ans de Gabon (1839–1853)’, Revue française 'histoire 'outremer, LII (1965), 92–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Mémoire du Roi, 18 May 1816 [Instructions to Governor Schmaltz]; Ministre de la Marine et des Colonies [M.M.C. hereafter] to Schmaltz, 31 Dec. 1818, cited in Schefer, C., Instructions générales données de 1763 à 1870 aux gouverneurs et ordonnateurs des établissements français en Afrique occidentale, I (Paris, 1921), 230–76, 280 ff.Google Scholar

4 M.M.C. to Governor of Senegal, 15 05 1831,Google Scholar cited ibid. II, 24–5.

5 Hardy, G., La mise en valeur du Sénégal de 1817 à 1854 (Paris, 1921), 331–42.Google Scholar

6 M.M.C. to Protet, , 4 01. 1853;Google Scholar same to same, 14 December. 1853, cited in Schefer, , Instructions, 11, 216–26, 239 ff.; M.M.C. to Faidherbe, 11 1854, Section Outre-Mer des Archives Nationales [ANSOM hereafter] Sénégal I 41/c.Google Scholar

7 M.M.C. to Baudin, , 16 10. 1847,Google Scholar cited in Schefer, , Instructions, II, 188.Google Scholar

8 M.M.C. to Ministre des Affaires EtrangÈres [M.A.E. hereafter], 18 Sept. 1852, MinistÈre des Affaires EtrangÈres, Mémoires et Documents [AEMD hereafter] Afrique 46; M.M.C. to Protet, , 28 06 1854, ANSOM Afrique III 9.Google Scholar

9 M.M.C. to Gov. Sen., 15 04 1831,Google Scholar cited in Schefer, , Instructions, II, 24–5.Google Scholar See also Mémoire du Roi, 18 May 1816, cited ibid. I, 258: ‘[Il faut] s'attacher à donner à ces peuples une haute opinion de la richesse, de la puissance et surtout de Ia bonté des Français.’

10 Faidherbe, , Memorandum, I 10 1858, ANSOM Sénégal I 45/a.Google Scholar

11 ibid.

12 Faidherbe, to M.M.C., 18 01 1864, ANSOM, Sénégal, I 50/b.Google Scholar Faidherbe's plans were outlined in Faidherbe, L. L. C., L'avenir du Sahara et du Soudan (Paris, 1863). See also Délibérations du Conseil 'Administration, 10 Aug. 1863, ANSOM Sénégal III 9/c; Délibérations du Conseil 'Administration, 21 May 1864 (copy), AEMD Afrique 47.Google Scholar

13 M.M.C. to Faidherbe, , 24 12 1863, 22 06 1864, ANSOM Sénégal I 50/c; same to same, 23 July 1864 (copy), AEMD Afrique 47.Google Scholar

14 Mage, , ‘analyse succincte’, 21 07 1866;Google Scholaridem, Rapport, n.d., ANSOM Sénégal III 9/c. By 1870 the Ministry was seriously considering the abandonment of Médine. Only Governor ValiÈre's insistence on the strategic and commercial importance of the fort managed to save it. M.M.C. to ValiÈre, , 26 05 1870, ANSOM Sénégal I 56/c;Google ScholarValiÈre, to M.M.C., 14 08 1870, ANSOM Sénégal I 56/b.Google Scholar

15 Note sur… [les] colonies françaises, Rapport de la 3 e souscommission, 7 Mar. 1871, Archives Nationales [AN hereafter] C 2874.

16 Hargreaves, , Prelude, 129–36.Google Scholar

17 ibid. 110–20; Schnapper, , Politique, 245–62;Google ScholarValiÈre, to M.M.C., 22 01 1876,Google Scholar cited in Saint-Martin, Y., ‘Une source de l'histoire coloniale du Sénégal: les rapports de situation politique (1874–1891)’, Revue française 'histoire 'outre-mer, LII (1966), 171.Google Scholar

18 d'Azy, Benoist, Notes sur les droits de douane au Sénégal, 01 1876, ANSOM Sénégal IX 20/a;Google ScholarMaurel, et Prom, to M.M.C., 38 05 1878, Chamber of Commerce, Bordeaux [CCB hereafter].Google Scholar

19 Textile concerns had a particular interest in Senegalese trade because bolts of cloth, ‘blue-bafts’ —the famous guinées, were one of the principal commodities of exchange.

20 The relevant documents are in ANSOM Sénégal IX 28–29; CCB procÈs-verbaux, 1878–80; Chamber of Commerce, Marseille, MA 76–82. For an account of BriÈre's tariff policies, see Newbury, C. W., ‘The protectionist revival in French colonial trade: the case of Senegal’, Economic History Review, XXI, no. 2 (1968), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 BriÈre, to M.M.C., 22 07 1876,Google Scholar encl. in M.M.C. to M.A.E., 15 09 1876, AEMD Afrique 56;Google ScholarBriÈre, to M.M.C., 7 04 1877, ANSOM Sénégal I 61/c;Google ScholarM.M.C. to M.A.E., 24 06, 21 07 1877, AEMD Afrique 49; M.M.C. to M.A.E., 9 Apr., 26 Apr. 1879, AEMD Afrique 56;Google ScholarSaint-Martin, , ‘Une source de l'histoire coloniale du Sénégal’, 217.Google Scholar

22 BriÈre, to M.M.C., 23 10 1876, ANSOM Sénégal I 61/c.;Google ScholarM.M.C. to BriÈre 16 11 1876, ANSOM, Sénégal, I 61/d;Google ScholarBriÈre, to M.M.C., 9 12 1876, 7 10 1877, ANSOM Sénégal I 61/c.;Google ScholarSaint-Martin, , ‘Une source de l'histoire coloniale du Sénégal’, 209–86.Google Scholar

23 Briàre, to M.M.C., 23 01, 5 06 1878, ANSOM Sénégal I 61/c. The governor had long been worried by the growth of Tokolor influence on the Upper Senegal.Google ScholarBriÈre, to M.M.C., 23 10 1876, 22 08 1877,Google Scholaribid.

24 M.M.C. to ordonnateur Leguay, , 3 07 1878, ANSOM Sénégal I 62/e.Google ScholarBriÈre, to M.M.C., 22 11 1878, ANSOM Sénégal I 63/a.Google Scholar

25 BriÈre, to M.M.C., 22 12 1877 (copy), AEMD Afrique 49; same to same, 23 01, 06 1878, ANSOM Senegal I 61/c.Google Scholar

26 Same to same, 21 Apr., 5 June 1878, Ibid. For the views of Soleillet and for his mission, see Soleillet, P., Avenir de la France en Afrique (Paris, 1876);Google Scholaridem, Voyaged à Ségou, 1878–1879, ed. Gravier, G. (Paris, 1887).Google Scholar

27 M.M.C. to BriÈre, Instructions, 29 07 1876, ANSOM Sénégal I 61/a: ‘La France s'efforce, en ce moment, de concentrer ses forces et ses ressources dans le but de reconquérir la situation qu'une guerre malheureuse lui a fait perdre en Europe; elle ne peut s'épandre au dehors, prendre 'engagement onéreux, inscrire à son budget des dépenses qui réduiraient ses moyens de défense.’Google Scholar

28 Director of Colonies to M.A.E., 19 Jan., 22 Mar. 1878, AEMD Afrique 48: ‘Depuis que les Anglais de Sierra Leone et de la Gambie font des efforts pour nouer des relations avec le Ségou… notre attention est plus vivement appelée sur nos rapports avec les indigànes du Haut-Sénégal.’

29 See esp. Hargreaves, , Prelude, 198–200.Google Scholar

30 Ibid. 92–3, 112–14; Schnapper, , Politique, 195–6.Google Scholar

31 For the Gambia negotiations, see Hargreaves, , Prelude, 125–8, 136–44, 151–65, 174–95;Google ScholarCatala, R., ‘La question de l'échange de la Gambie britannique contre les comptoirs français du Golfe de Guinée’, Revue 'histoire des colonies, xxxv (1948), 114–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 The developments briefly summarized above are fully discussed in Hargreaves, , Prelude, 201–39.Google Scholar

33 The standard works on this subject are Murphy, A., The Ideology of French Imperialism (Washington, 1948);Google ScholarMcKay, D. V., ‘Colonialism in the French geographical movement’, The Geographical Review, xxxiii (1943), 214–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Brunschwig, H., Mythes et réalités de l'impéialisme colonial français, 1871–1914 (Paris, 1960), 23–8.Google Scholar

34 The deputy from Senegal, for example, estimated the trade of the Western Sudan at 300,000,000 frs a year (ProcÈs-Verbaux de la Commission du Budget, séance du 25 juin 1880 (statement by Gasconi), AN C 3176, pp. 740−1.

35 See, Murphy, , Ideology, 75–92.Google Scholar

36 Rouvier, , Rapport, 10 06 1879, Journal Official de la République Française [J.O. hereafter], Documents Parlementaires, Chambre, no. 1497, p. 6328.Google Scholar

37 J.O. Débats Parlementaires, Chambre, séance du 13 12 1879, p. 11052;Google ScholarIbid.Sénat, séance du 16 décembre 1879, pp. 11199–200.

38 In 1871 Soleillet had urged the Ministry of Public Works to encourage trade between Algeria and Senegal; his letter was not acknowledged, nor did the Ministry of Commerce respond to his trans-Sahara proposals in 1875. In 1872 the Ministry of Public Instruction gave the Dournaux-Dupéré expedition 2,000 frs., but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to make any contribution.

39 Jacqmin, Note sur le chemin de fer transsaharien proposé par Duponchel, M., 25 04 1879, An F1412436;Google Scholaridem, Rapport au Ministre des Travaux Publiques, 7 May 1879, An F14 12438; Freycinet to Pérouse, 10 May 1879; Rapport de la commission préliminaire 12 June, 1879, AN F14 12437; Freycinet, Rapport au Président de la Republique, 12 July 1879, J.O. 14 July 1879, pp. 6633–5.

40 Freycinet, C. de, Souvenirs, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1912–1913), I, 78–9, 81; II, 7–32.Google ScholarJacqmin, , Rapport au Ministre des Travaux Publiques, 7 05 1879, AN F1412438.Google Scholar

41 See Thorson, W. B., ‘Charles de Freycinet, French empire-builder’, Research Studies of the State College of Washington, xii (1944), 257–82.Google Scholar

42 Freycinet, , Rapport au Président de la République, 31 12 1879, J.O. 31 12 1879, p. 11700.Google Scholar

43 ‘ProcÈs-Verbaux de la commission préliminaire, séance du 30 mai 1879’ (statement by N. C. Legros), AN F14 12437.

44 BriÈre, to M.M.C., 9 08 1879, ANSOM Missions 55, Mousnier 1879; Decree, 25 09 1879, J.O. 28 09 1879, p. 9361; Michaux, Note pour le Ministre, 6 01 1880, ANSOM Missions 15, Carrey 1880. The Commission Supérieure had earlier refused to approve any expenditure without Parliamentary authorization.Google Scholar

45 Legros, , Note pour le cabinet du Ministre, 11 06 1879, ANSOM Afrique XII 2; Soleillet to M.M.C., 21 06 1879, ANSOM Sénégal XII 36; M.M.C. to BriÈre, 30 08 1879 (draft), ANSOM Sénégal XII 41; Rapport de la 2e souscommission, 27 10 1879, AN F1412437.Google Scholar

46 Jauréguiberry had served under Freycinet in the Government of National Defence. Freycinet was to recommend him as Minister of Marine to Gambetta in November 1881, and to reappoint him in February 1882.

47 ‘Projet 'instructions complémentaires’, encl, in Ministry of Public Works to M.A.E., 16 Jan. 1880, AEMD Afrique 75.

48 Legros, , Note sommaire, 8 11 1879, ANSOM Sénégal XII 76;Google Scholaridem, ‘évaluation des dépenses’, 10 Dec. 1879, ANSOM Sénégal XII 41/1; Jauréguiberry, Projet de loi, Feb. 1880, J.O. Doc. Parl. Chambre, no. 2266, pp. 2028–9.

49 Rouvier, , Rapport, 10 06 1879, J.O. Doc. Parl. Chambre, no. 1497, p. 6328.Google Scholar

50 Freycinet, to Flatters, , Instructions, 7 11 1879, AN F1412436.Google Scholar

51 Jauréguiberry, to Freycinet, , 8 11 1879, ANSOM Sénégal XII 76/a; Michaux, Note pour le Ministre, 6 01 1880, ANSOM Missions 15, Carrey 1880.Google Scholar

52 ProcÈ-Verbaux de la, 2e souscommission, séance du 21 juillet 1879, AN F14 12437.Google Scholar

53 Jauréguiberry, to BriÈre, , 31 07 1880, ANSOM Sénégal I 63/b; same to same, 4 08 1880, ANSOM Sénégal I 99/a, Correspondance Générale.Google Scholar

54 Decree, , 6 09 1880, J.O. 9 09 1880, p. 9876.Google Scholar

55 Grévy, to M.A.E., 18 05 1881,Google Scholar cited in la MartiniÈre, H. M. P. de and Lacroix, N. (eds.), Documents pour servir à l'étude du nord-ouest africain (Lille, 1894–1897), III, 24–5: ‘Avant de songer à traverser le Sahara par une voie ferrée, il faut, avant de ne rien entreprendre, occuper 'une maniÈre permanente et définitive le Sahara algérien, y plaçant des postes qui y assurent 'abord la sécurité.’Google Scholar

56 Rapport de la Commission Supérieure, 18 06 1881, AN F1412437. The views of Grévy were crucial to its decision.Google Scholar

57 J.O. Déb. Parl. Chambre, séance du 24 février 1881, pp. 361–2; séance du 13 mars 1882, pp. 352–5.Google Scholar

58 Peyron, , Rapport, 31 12 1883, J.O. 02 1884, pp. 585–622.Google Scholar

59 Cloué, to Borgnis-Desbordes, , Instructions, 4 10 1880; BriÈre Borgnis-Desbordes, Instructions, 23 11 1880, ANSOM Sénégal IV 73/a, Borgnis-Desbordes to Briàre, 25 01 1881, ANSOM Sénégal IV 73/b.Google Scholar

60 Michaux, , Note pour le Ministre, 3 01 1881, ANSOM Sénégal I 99/a Correspondance Générale; Cloué to BriÈre, 4 01 1881, ANSOM Sénégal I 63/b. Michaux warned the minister that the instructions as they stood contradicted his solemn declarations about the peaceful nature of his policy and might seriously compromise his parliamentary position.Google Scholar

61 Desbordes, , Note pour le Ministre, 08 1881, cited in Desbordes, Rapport… 1881–2, n.d., ANSOM Missions 50, Borgnis-Desbordes 1881–2;Google ScholarMichaux, , Rapport au Ministre, 20 08 1881;Google ScholarCloué, to Desbordes, , Instructions, 3 09 1881; Michaux, Note, 25 12 1881, ANSOM Sénégal IV 75/a.Google Scholar

62 Canard, [Governor of Senegal] to Desbordes, , 28 01 1882; Desbordes to Canard, 11 02, 6 03 1882; Desbordes, Rapport, 20 03 1882, ANSOM Sénégal IV 75/b.Google Scholar

63 Canard, to Desbordes, , 15 03 1882, ANSOM Sénégal IV 75/b; Canard to M.M.C., 21 03 1882, with minute by Berlet (Under-Secretary for Colonies), ANSOM Sénégal I 66/b; same to same, 1 06 1882, ANSOM Sénégal I 99/a, Correspondance du Gouverneur.Google Scholar

64 BriÈre's views emerge from confidential notes attached to his draft treaty with Ahmadu, encl, in BriÈre to Gallieni, , 1 02 1880, ANSOM Missions 16, Gallieni 1880.Google Scholar

65 Gallieni, , Rapport, 12 10 1881, ANSOM Missions 16, Gallieni 1880; ‘La traité de Nango ne devra vivre que quelques années; il disparaîtra naturellement le jour où nous serons effectivement établis sur le Niger et où nous serons maîtres du cours du fleuve. En attendant, il nous permet de parer aux entreprises des Anglais et ' endormir les méfiances du Sultan de Ségou.’Google Scholar

66 Michaux, , Note pour le Ministre, 31 10 1881, ANSOM Sénégal III 10 bis/b.Google Scholar

67 Desbordes, to BriÈre, , 25 01 1881, ANSOM Sénégal IV 73/b; Desbordes, Rapport… 1880–1, pp. 50727, ANSOM Sénégal IV 73 bis; Desbordes to Canard, 18 01 1882; Desbordes, Rapport, 20 03 1882, ANSOM Sénégal IV 75/b.Google Scholar

68 Jauréguiberry, to Canard, , 4 04 1882, ANSOM Dossier Administratif, Canard.Google Scholar

69 Jauréguiberry, to Vallon, , Instructions, 12 05 1882, ANSOM Sénégal I 67/a.Google Scholar

70 Legros, , Note pour la direction des colonies, 17 08 1882, ANSOM Sénégal IV 77/a; DislÈre, Note pour le Ministre, 30 08 1882, ANSOM Sénégal I 99/a, Correspondance Générale; décision ministérielle, 21 08 1882, ANSOM Séégal IV 77/a. See also: Desbordes, , Rapport… 1882–1883, Cap. I, 16 02 1883, ANSOM Missions 50, Borgais-Desbordes 1882–1883.Google Scholar

71 Dislàre, , Rapport au Ministre, 30 09 1882 (approuvé), ANSOM Sénégal IV 77/a.Google Scholar

72 M.M.C. to M.A.E., 9 04, 26 04, 13 08, 4 11 1879, 17 04, 1 07 1880, AEMD Afrique 56; same to same, 4 09 1879 (copy), Public Record Office, London, CO 879/17; M.M.C. to Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, 11 11 1879, AN F12 6460.Google Scholar See also Newbury, C. W., ‘The tariff factor in Anglo–French West African partition’, to be published in Louis, W. R. and Gifford, P. (eds.), Britain and France in Africa: Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule.Google Scholar

73 M.M.C. to M.A.E., 9 02, 30 03, 17 04, 1 05 1880, AEMD Afrique 56.Google Scholar

74 J.O. Déb. Parl. Sénat, séance du 17 février 1881, p. 107.Google Scholar

75 Bayol, to Bareste, (French consul, freetown), 17 07 1881, AEMD Afrique 50.Google Scholar

76 Jauréguiberry, to M.A.E., 2 09 1880, AEMD Afrique 56: ‘Je n'ai pas besoin 'ajouter que le Gouvernement français devra toujours rester maître de repousser les propositions adoptées par la Conference s'il les juge contraire à sa dignité et à ses intérêts.’Google Scholar

77 The minutes of the Boundary Commission and relevant correspondence are to be found in AEMD Afrique 57 and CO 879/18.

78 For the influence of the West Coast traders and the role of Rouvier, see Hargreaves, J. D., ‘Towards a history of the partition of Africa’, J. Afr. Hist. I (1960), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Rouvier, to M.A.E., 2 01 1882, ANSOM Afrique VI 30/b.Google Scholar

80 Jauréguiberry, to M.A.E., 17, 22, 26 04 1882, AEMD Afrique 57;Google ScholarHargreaves, , Prelude, 287–8.Google Scholar

81 Jauréguiberry, to M.A.E., 4 03, 1882; M.A.E. to Jauréguiberry, 10 03, 5 04 1882, AEMD Afrique 77; Jauréguiberry to M.A.E., 11 04 1882, AEMD Afrique 57.Google Scholar

82 Jauréguiberry, to M.A.E., 1 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 78.Google Scholar

88 Same to same, 25 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 86; Jauréguiberry, to Commandant, South Atlantic Division, 30 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 78. Jauréguiberry's politique des pro tectorats is discussed in Stengers, ‘L'impérialisme colonial’, 477–9.Google Scholar

84 For the Brazza episode, see Brunschwig, H., L'avÈnement de l'Afrique noire (Paris, 1963), 133–68.Google Scholar

85 M.A.E. to Mattei, , 6 03 1883; Bones to M.M.C., 05 1883; Cavalié, Rapport, 9 08 1883, AEMD Afrique 86; Colonna di Lecca to M.A.E., 7 04 1883, AEMD Afrique 78.Google Scholar

86 Cf. Brunschwig, , ‘Les origines du partage de l'Afrique occidentale’, 121–5.Google Scholar

87 Brunschwig, , L'avÈnement de l'Afrique noire, 149–53.Google Scholar

88 M.A.E., to de Brazza, , 02 1883,Google Scholar cited in Coquery-Vidrovitch, C., ‘Les idées économiques de Brazza et les premiers tentatives de compagnies de colonisation au Congo Français, 1885–1898’, Cahiers 'études africaines, no. 17 (1965), 57.Google ScholarCf. M.M.C. to Cordier, , 1 01 1883,Google Scholar cited ibid. 57, n. 2.

89 Cf. Stengers, , ‘L'impérialisme colonial’, 483.Google Scholar

90 Blanc, Xavier, Rapport, J.O. Déb. Parl. Sénat, séance du 28 11 1882, pp. 1089–91: ‘Mieux placée qu'aucune autre nation pour pénétrer dana ces immenses et fertiles régions, la France s'est déjà acheminée vera le Soudan par lea deux grandes voies de l'Algérie et du Sénégal. Les découvertes récentes de M. Savorgnan de Brazza lui ouvrent une nouvelle voie par le Bassin du Congo.’Google Scholar

91 Rouvier, , Rapport, 21 11 1882, J.O. Doc. Parl. Chambre, no. 1406, pp. 2447–8. Cf. above, note 36.Google Scholar

92 Jauréguiberry, to M.A.E., 25 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 86: ‘Je crois…qu'il y a intérêt 'affirmer notre politique, et que pour le bien de notre commerce, il convient de développer notre influence à côté de celle des Anglais.’ The decision to place gunboats on the Niger was also taken in response to rumours that the British were advancing up-river towards Timbuktu.Google Scholar Cf. Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa and the Victorians, 163ff.Google Scholar

93 The progress of the crisis and its effects upon Jauré guiberry's position can be followed in J.O. Déb. Parl. Chambre, séances du, 16,27, 29, 3001 1883, pp. 52–6, 79–81, 159–60, 163–4, 183.Google Scholar

94 See esp. Newbury, C. W., ‘Victorians, republicans and the partition of Africa’ J. Afr. Hist. III (1962), 493–501; Hargreaves, Prelude, cap. VI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 Jauréguiberry to M.A.E., , 25 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 86; Jauréguiberry to Commandant, South Atlantic Naval Division, 30 01 1883, AEMD Afrique 78.Google Scholar

96 Soleillet, , Speech, 3 01. 1876 (newspaper clipping), ANSOM Missions 15, Soleillet 1876–1879: ‘Par ses possessions de l'Algérie et du Sénégal, la France devrait voir toute l'Afrique occidentale, de Tripoli au lac Tschad, du lac Tschad au Bénin, du Bénin au Cap Vert, du Cap Vert au Sénégal, du Sénégal á Tombouctou, de Tombouctou au Maroc, ouverte á son commerce, á ses mæurs et á sa civilisation.’Google Scholar

97 Robinson, Cf. R. E. and Gallagher, J., ‘The partition of Africa’, The New Cambridge Modern History, XI, 609p–22.Google Scholar Tokolor reactions to French expansion are discussed more fully in Kanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘The Conquest of the Western Sudan: A Study in French Military Imperialism’ (Cambridge, Ph.D. thesis, 1960).Google Scholar

98 Even the most influential anti-colonialist in the Chamber, Clemenceau, felt obliged to declare his support for the government's policies in principle (J.O. Dáeb. Parl. Chambre, sáance du 3 juillet 1883, p. 1572).Google Scholar

99 Petition, , 8 12 1851Google Scholar (signed by Maurel, , Teysseire, Grange, Hárissá, Bancal, Derdeville,) cited in Jean Maurel, Bordeaux et la pacification du Sánágal (Bordeaux, 1953), 5–6.Google Scholar

100 ANSOM XII 76/bis. Maurel et Prom ran the Richelieu and the Tamesi; Devés et Chaumet of Bordeaux also had a steamer–the Soudan–on the river. See too Maurel, Marc to Bourdiaux, Lt.-Col., 8 05 1881 (supporting the Niger railway, project), Bulletin de la Sociétéde Géographie Commerciale de Bordeaux, no. 4 (1881), 409–14.Google Scholar

101 Verminck, et al. to Briére, 25 01 1877, ANSOM Sénégal VI 10/b; Jauréguiberry to M.A.E., 17 04 1881, AEMD Afrique 56; Bareste to M.A.E., 20 12 1880, AE Angle- terre (Freetown) Bones to M.M.C., 05 1883, AEMD Afrique 86.Google Scholar

102 The evidence for this point is clear enough in the minutes of the Bordeaux and Marseille chambers of commerce for the late 1870s, and in commercial correspondence in ANSOM Sénégal IX 22 and 27–29 (1875–1883).Google Scholar

103 Contracts for transporting material are to be found in ANSOM Sénégal XIII 60, 174. For commercial opposition to the railway, see Jauréguiberry, to Briére, , 3 05 1879, 4 02 1880, ANSOM Sénégal I 63/b; Briére to Jauréguiberry, 7 02 i1880, ANSOMS énégal I, 63sol;a; Jauréguiberry to Vallon, 27 09 1882, ANSOM Sénégal I 67/c.Google Scholar

104 For example Gallieni, J. S., Instructions to Caron and the Beledugu mission, 30 Nov. 1886, Bulletin de la Socidé de Géographie Commerciale de Paris, X (1887–1888), 291, 295: ‘Il faut… que ces etats [du Haut-Niger] soient placés sous notre protectorat et que leurs chefs s'engagent á laisser passer lea caravanes venant á Bammako. D'une maniáre générale, résultat á poursuivre consiste á diriger sur Eanunako le courant commercial établi entre Tombouctou et le Maroc et Tripoli.’.Google Scholar

105 Cf. Brunschwig, ‘Les origines du partage’, 124–5, which argues that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs took the most important decisions, and Stengers, ‘L'impérialisme colonial’, 479, which speculates about the role of the permanent officials.

106 J.O. Déb. Parl. Chambre, séance du 13 juillet 1880, p. 8143; Freycinet, , Rapport au Président de la République, 12 07 1879, J.O. 14 07 1879, p. 6633;Google ScholarRouvier, , Rapport, so 06 1879, J.O. Doe. Parl. Chambre, no. 1497, p. 6328.Google Scholar

107 Cf. Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa and the Victo1rians, 395–409.Google Scholar