Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T07:38:32.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who were the French Colonialists? A Reassessment of the PartI Colonial, 1890–1914*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

L. Abrams  and
D. J. Miller
L. Abrams
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
D. J. Miller
Affiliation:
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 23 December 1910, Jean Victor Augagneur, deputy for the Rhône, directed this attack in the French Chamber on the influence and the methods of the parti colonial. Augagneur was not an opponent of French imperialist expansion, who would have been inclined to exaggerate the importance of the parti colonial for political or ideological purposes. On the contrary, he was a professional colonial administrator who had recently been governor general of Madagascar (1905–10). As such, he was deeply sympathetic to a policy of imperialist expansion and critical only of the process by which this policy was formulated and executed. His contention that a powerful pressure group existed which was capable of influencing decisively the making of French foreign policy has to a large extent been confirmed by subsequent historical research.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 685 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Abbreviations used in the notes: B.C.Af.F., Bulletin du Comité de VAfrique francaise; B.C.Af. et M., Bulletin du Comité de l'Afrique francaise et du Maroc; B.C.As.F, Bulletin du Comité de l'Asie francaise; B.C.F-A., Bulletin du Comité France-Amérique; J.O. D.P.C., Journal Officiel, Débats Parlementaires, Chambre; F.O., Foreign Office Archives, London.

1 For Augagneur's speech to the French Chamber, see J.O. D.P.C., 23 Dec. 1910. Augagneur was a member of the groupe colonial of the Chamber, 1910–12, and in 1919 was named governor-general of French Equatorial Africa.

2 Andrew, C. M. and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘The French “Colonial Party”: Its Composition, Aims and Influence, 1885–1914’, Historical Journal, xiv, 1 (1971), 106, 111–15, 123–5, 126.Google Scholar

3 See below, pp. 698–712. Also, ibid. pp. 99–108, especially p. 103. Andrew and Kanya-Forstner do not discuss the Comité France-Amérique. Nor do they think that the Union CoUmiale Francaise, founded in 1895, played an important role in affecting policy.

4 Ibid. pp. 103, 113–15, 117. See also the statements of aims by the different comités: B.C.Af.F., vol. 1 (1891)Google Scholar; B.C.As.F. vol. 1 (1901)Google Scholar; B.C.Af.F. et M. vol. 1 (1904)Google Scholar; B.C.F.-A. vol. 1 (1910). The statement of aims is usually reprinted in each monthly issue of the bulletins.Google Scholar

5 The comités also jointly published the monthly review Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales.

6 The aim of the missions sponsored by the Afrique française in the early 1890s was primarily political: to establish an active French presence in West Africa. Similarly, the Comité du Maroc sponsored missions to explore Morocco in order to facilitate its eventual occupation by Lyautey's forces on the Algerian frontier (Andrew, and Kanya-Forstner, , op. cit. pp. 106, 116Google Scholar). The aim of other missions, however, seems to have been more narrowly economic. The Comité du Maroc aimed to send missions into the region of Morocco subject to the Sultan's authority in order to‘ …rapporter des données géologiques, minérologiques, botaniques, hydrographiques qui seront coordonnées à Paris et tenu à la disposition de nos négotiants et industriels désireux de tenter des entreprises au Maroc’. B.C.Af. et M., vol. 1 (1904).Google Scholar

7 Ibid.

8 Brunschwig, H., French Colonialism, 1871–1914: Myths and Realities, translated by Brown, W. (London, 1960), pp. 111–16.Google Scholar

9 Andrew, and Kanya-Forstner, , pp. 104–5, 116.Google Scholar

10 On the sources that he employs, see Brunschwig, , p. 207, footnotes 17 and 19.Google Scholar

11 For an example of the virulent attacks levelled by the French Left against the parti colonial, see ‘Le Comité du Maroc’, by André Morizet, in L'Humanité, 16June 1911, in which he condemned the Comité du Maroc as ‘…(une) bande des trafiquants, politiciens d'affaires et mercantins de la politique, qu'on a coutume de rencontrer chaque fois qu'il y a des commandes à recueillir ou des concessions à accaparer’.

12 Andrew, and Kanya-Forstner, , pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

13 They were Heurteau, vice-president of the France-Amérique, the managing director of the Cie du Chemin de fer de Paris à Orléans, and R. Fouret, treasurer of the Afrique française, the director of Maison Hachette el Cie.

14 See Appendix 1 A for a detailed prosopographical analysis of the officers of the four colonialist comités.

15 They were the Baron de Conteson, A. Jouannin, the Colonel de la Panouse, A. Terrier and E. Vincent. On the other hand, as far as we have been able to ascertain, the Comte de Labry, J. L. de Lacharriere, G. Louis-Jaray, de la Martinière and R. Trousselle did not have business interests. See Appendix 1 A.

16 For example, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, vice-president of the France-Amérique, and Paul and Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu were of the same prominent family, with large business interests, both in France and abroad.

17 Other notable conseiUers du commerce extérieur were J. Charles-Roux, J. Siegfried and A. Terrier. See Annuaire du Ministere du Commerce et de I'Industrie (1908), p. 51. See also Appendix 1 A for further examples.

18 See Appendix 1 A, particularly E. Roume, J. Siegfried, E.-M. and R. de Vogüé, and the Marquis de Moustier.

19 One of the rare indications of the basis on which members were selected is provided by the Comité de l'Asie, which stated in its bulletin in August 1901: ’…(L’)appui des Chambres de Commerce nous est particulièrement précieux. Ainsi avons-nous décidé… d'inscrire de droit parmi les membres du Comité de l'Asie les presidents des Chambres de Commerce qui voudraient s'intéresser à nos efforts’. B.C.As.F. Aug. 1901, p. 182.

20 The total of 271 follows our careful analysis of the membership lists published usually in each issue of the bulletins. However, in some cases, notably the B.C.Af.F. for the years 1893–9. and the B.C.As.F. for the years 1903–5, membership lists have been omitted from the bulletins. Consequently, in order to ascertain the number of new members who joined the comités during these periods, we have consulted the short ‘Comité’ notices printed at the beginning of each monthly issue, which recount the activities of the comites, and include the co-option of new members.

21 See Appendix 1 B for a detailed prosopographical analysis of 192 of the 271 members of the comités. [For reasons of space, Appendix 1 B has had to be omitted from this article. Copies of it are, however, obtainable from the authors on request.] In 1914, for example, of the 126 members of the Asie, 74 had identifiable business interests; for the Afrique the ratio was 33 out of 73; for the Maroc 10 out of 21; and for the Amérique 34 out of 73. In 1914, there was considerable duplication of membership among the comites; hence, while the total membership of the four comités was 293, the number of different individuals was 271.

22 For example, Philippe Berthelot, a member of the Asie from 1910, was the brother of André, president of four companies and a member of the board of ten others, including many colonial companies active in Asia. Jean Darcy, a member of the Asie from 1904 was son of Henri, president of the Comite Centrale des Houilleres de France and of the Forges de Chatillon-Commentry et Neuves Maisons and member of the board of a half-dozen com-panies, including several colonial companies. Henri Pereite, a founder-member of the Afrique who had business interests of his own, was a member of the same family as Eugéne, Gustave and Emile, who together sat, as officers or members, on the boards of two dozen companies located throughout the world. Other significant examples, among many, can be cited from the Adam, Charmes, Dupuy, Koechlin, Lebaudy, Reinach and Schneider families.

23 See Appendix 1 B, obtainable from the authors. Of the large number of businessals men who were members of the comités, the most significant were: A. Adam, E. Aynard, L. Berger, E. Anthoine, A. Bénac, Benoit-Oriol, F. Bohn, J. Chailley-Bert, A. Chaumier, A. Lefévre-Pontalis, R-G. Lévy, L. Mellier, D. Pérouse, G. Rolland and S. Simon.

24 See Appendixes 1 A and 1 B. The officers and members of the comités were officers was or members of the boards of well over 400 identifiable financial, commercial and industrial establishments, both in France and abroad, in the years before 1914.

25 The Comite France-Amerique, alone among the four comités, consisted not only of officers the and members but also of a large Comite de Patronage, which in 1910 comprised 63 members, including numerous important personalities: the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Commerce, and Colonies; also R. Poincaré, P. Deschanel, A. Ribot, Auguste Rodin, Ernest Lavisse and Saint-Saens. By 1913, even Georges Clemenceau was a patron. It is necessary to emphasize, however, that businessmen constituted the largest bloc within the Comité de Patronage. Of the 63 patrons, 33 had business interests. The most outstanding were the Barons Edouard and Edmond de Rothschild; the Comte d'Haussonville, president of 2 companies and a member of the board of 4 others; C. Gomel, president of the Chemins de fer de l'Est and on the board of at least 7 other large companies; L. Aucoc, president of the Chemins de fer du Midi and of the Cie des Salins du Midi, as well as on the board of 3 other companies; and G. Teissier, who succeeded Aucoc as president of the Chemin de fer du Midi. The presidents of the Chambers of Commerce of Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux and Le Havre were automatically patrons. See B.C.F-A. Jan. 1910; Jan. 1913.

26 These lists may or may not have accounted for all the funds employed by the comités. The Treasurer of the Asie, C. G. Picot, stated in his Annual Report of 28 Mar. 1906 that the funds of the comité‘…proviennent exclusivement…’ (our emphasis) from the published contributions. At its Annual Meeting of 5 Feb. 1908, however, the comités president, E. Senart, stated that the action of the comité depended ‘…essentiellement…’ on these resources. B.C.As.F. Apr. 1906, Feb. 1908.

27 Some explanation of these categories is necessary. It has only been possible to categorize those individuals who either identified themselves in the subscription lists, or whom we have been able to identify through our research. Civil Servants (column B) and Members of the Armed Forces (col. A) identified themselves. On the other hand, the extent to which contributors from the Middle Class (col. C) and Individuals with Economic Interests (col. O) identified themselves varied greatly. The figures in both these categories would be considerably higher if more individual contributors had given their occupations. A high percentage of individuals did not identify themselves at all, and these have been included in Other Individuals (col. D). The large figures in this category constitute an unavoidable problem for analysis.

28 Military organizations include cercles militaires, bureaux militaires, écoles militaires, military libraries, garrisons, and military units. For a discussion of military imperialism, see Kanya-Forstner, A. K., The Conquest of the Western Sudan: A Study in French Military Imperialism (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

29 On bureaucratic imperialism see, for example, Girardet, R., L'Idée Coloniale en France (Paris, 1972), pp. 75–6.Google Scholar

30 For a discussion of the appeal of imperialist expansion to the middle classes, see Brunschwig, , op. cit. ch. 1.Google Scholar

31 Among the 45 major banks contributing to the comites were the: B(anque) de Paris et des Pays-Bas(*), B. de France, B. de l'Union Parisienne, B. Imperiale Ottomane, B. de l'Indochine, B. Russo-Chinoise, B. d'Athènes, B. Francaise pour le Commerce et PIndustrie, Société Générale(*), Sté Générate de Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Crédit Lyonnais(*), Crédit Mobilier, Crédit Algérien(*), Comptoir National d'Escompte(*), Cie Algérienne and Rothschild Frères. Among the 14 railway companies were the: Cie du Chemin de fer Nord, Chemin de fer de Paris à Orléans, Chemins de fer du Midi, Chemin de fer de l'Est, Chemins de fer de P-L-M, Chemins de fer de l'Ouest, Chemins de fer de l'Etat and Chemins de fer Indochinois. Among the 20 major industrial and mining companies its, were the: Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt, Forges de Chatillon-Commentry et Neuves Maisons, Manufacture des Glaces de Saint-Gobain, Schneider et Cie, Sté de la Vielle Montagne, Sté Denain et d'Anzin, Hauts Fourneaux de Pont-A-Mousson and Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire. Among the 10 major shipping and insurance companies were the: Cie Généraíe Transatlantique Messageries Maritimes, Chargeurs-Réunis and La Foncière-Transports. Six major commercial firms, 2 major publishers (Hachette and Larousse), and 3 major department stores (e.g. Bon Marché) contributed to the comités. Finally, among the 14 major colonial companies were the: Cie Universelle du Canal de Suez, Cie du Port de Beyrough, Cie des Minerals de fer Mokta El Hadid, Cie de l'Afrique Occidentale and Cie Marocaine.

32 Five of the major banks (marked (*) in footnote 31) contributed regularly to all four comités and to the Beirut Hospital fund; ten others contributed to two or three comités. Five major industrial concerns, 6 major shipping and insurance firms, and 6 major railway ance companies contributed to two or more comités. The Cie Universelle du Canal de Suez was the only major colonial company contributing to more than one comite. The total number of major companies contributing to all four comités was 114.

33 Among the important Chambers of Commerce contributing to the comités were those of Paris, Marseille, Le Havre, Lyon, Dunkirk, Bordeaux, Cambrai, Oran.

34 118 of the contributors of the Asie in this category were officers, members of the board, and stockholders of major corporations; 20 of the Maroc; 77 of the Afrique; and 110 of the Amerique. A systematic study of the extent to which individual contributors had business interests would require access to lists of stockholders of all companies involved directly and indirectly in imperialist expansion. This is beyond the scope of the present study.

35 For the Afrique the following major individual contributors were also members of its Comité, and are identified in Appendixes 1 A and 1 B: d'Arenberg, G. Berger, Crouan, Pereire, Pérouse, Siegfried, Templier (and wife), R. de Vogüé, Greffulhe (and wife), Guichard, Guillain, Kerjégu, P. Leroy-Beaulieu, Loreau, Marinoni, Mercet, Moustier, Bonaparte. Other major contributors to the Afrique were: Berstene (of the Comptoir National d'Escompte), Marquis de Chasseloup-Laubet (of Schneider et Cie), Devès and Chaumet (commercial house of Bordeaux), Comte Foy (Chemin de fer de l'Etat), V. Popp (electrical engineer), Alphonse, Edouard and Gustave de Rothschild (bankers), H. Schneider (Schneider et Cie), E. Siegfried (Cie Francaise d'Etudes et d'Entreprises Coloniales, etc.), L. Stern (banker), J. de Vilmorin (Cie Coloniale de Peche et de Commerce, etc.). Baron Gérard (Chemin de fer de l'Ouest), H. Germain (president, Credit Lyonnais), F., E., P., and Ed. Mallet (bankers), A. Leclerc (industrial), L. Morillot (Mines de Roche La Molière et Firminy). The two major contributors in this category to the Maroc were Bleischoffsheim (Cie des Glaces et Verres Spéciaux du Nord) and H. Deutsch (Docks et Entrepôts de Rouen). The seven major contributors in this category to the Asie were all members of the Comité: six of them are identified in Appendixes 1 A and 1 B (de Moustier, L. Berger, E. de Billy, R-G. Lévy, A. Rozet, Schneider, Senart); the seventh member, Robert Lebaudy, belonged to the Lebaudy family, which dominated the French sugar industry. Of the ten major contributors in this category to the Amérique, three were Comité members and are identified in Appendix 1 B (Bénac, Créqui-Monfort, Fabre-Luce); the others were: Coetilo (Banco Espagnol de Rio de la Plata), Harjes (Morgan-Harjes et Cie), G. Hersent (entrepreneur of public works), Pallain (Governor, Banque de France), E. Pugibet (president, El Bueu Tono, Mexico), Rochet (Syndic des Agents de Changes), L. J. Superveille (president, Banque d'Assurances d'Etat, Montevideo).

36 Bouvier, J., ‘Les Traits majeurs de l'Impérialisme Francais avant 1914’, Mouvement Social, LXXXVI (1974), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The capital at the disposal of the eight largest banks increased, on average, by 77 million francs per year from 1875 to 1895, the same as during the period 1865 to 1875. From 1895 to 1913, however, their capital increased, on average, by 334 million francs per year - that is, almost 5 times faster than during the preceding period. Ibid. pp. 17–18.

37 53 Per cent of the funds contributed to the Afrique, for the entire period 1891–1914, were contributed during the nine years 1891–9; 47 per cent during the subsequent 15 years.

38 We have discussed the archival problem with Monsieur G. Joseph, last secretary-general of the Comité de I'Afrique française. We have been unable, however, to trace materials other than the A. Terrier MSS, conserved in the bibliothèque of the Institut de France.

39 As early as 1885, Delcassé stressed France's need for overseas markets, even before it was stressed publicly by Ferry himself, and he declared that French expansion fulfilled above all an economic need. Andrew, C. M., Theophile Delcasse and the Making of the Entente Cordiale (London, 1968), pp. 26–7, 53.Google Scholar

40 The Comité de I'Orient was originally called the Association des ‘Amis de I'Orient’ at its founding in 1908. Its aim was the development and safeguarding of French interests in the Balkans, Ottoman Empire, Persia and North Africa. By 1912, the Comité comprised a Conseil de Direction of 30, presided over by Pichon, with Vice-presidents A. Briand, P. Deschanel, A. Gervais, and L. Hubert; and a Conseil de Patronage of 50, including d'Arenberg, Caillaux, J. Cruppi, Etienne, A. Millerand, R. Millerand, R. Poincare and Georges Louis. See the Comité's review, Correspondance d'Orient (1908–14).

41 Between the Ferry ministry of Sept. 1880 and the outbreak of war in 1914, excluding the lengthy periods in office of Delcassé (1898–1905) and Pichon (1906–11), the office of foreign minister was filled 37 times, with an average life of only 7½ months.

42 The major departments of the Quai d'Orsay before the reforms of 1907 were: Direction des Consulats et des Affaires Commerciales, Direction des Affaires Politiques, Sous-direction du Nord, Sous-direction du Midi, Sous-direction des Protectorats et des Colonies, and Sous-direction des Affaires Commerciales.

43 In his Annual Report to the Foreign Office in London, the British Ambassador in Paris, Sir Francis Bertie, wrote: ‘…M. Pichon…depends too much for enlightenment and direction on the department…Occasionally the staff of the Quai d'Orsay are not of the same opinion as the Minister…and in such cases they sometimes inspire the press with views not in consonance with those of the Minister…’ Bertie to Grey, 12 Mar. 1910, F.O. 425/335. For an example of the unusual importance assumed by M. Herbette, E. Bapst and A. Conty, departmental heads, during the Franco-German crisis of 1911, see Williamson, S., The Politics of Grand Strategy: Britain and France prepare for War, 1004–14 (Harvard, 1969), p. 144.Google Scholar

44 Three recent studies examine the extent of this phenomenon: Poidevin, R., Les Relations Economiques et Financieres entre la France et l'Allemagne de 1898 à 1914 (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar; Girault, R., Emprunts Russes et Investissements Francais en Russie, 1887–1914 (Paris, 1973)Google Scholar; and the cyclostyled thèse d'etat, by Thobie, J., Les Intérêts Economiques, Financiers et Politiques français dans la partie asiatique de I'Etnpire Ottoman 1895 à 1914(Lille, 1973).Google Scholar

45 The key post of rapporteur on this reorganization was held by P. Berthelot, one of the Asie's most important members after 1910. In his report he stated that pressure applied by commercial and industrial interests was one of the main reasons for the reforms, and the Reform Commission agreed that ‘political and commercial questions have been fused’. Quoted in Institutional Responses to Twentieth Century Diplomacy, ch. 5, as yet unpublished, by P. Lauren, of the Hoover Institution, to whom we are grateful for permission to see part of this manuscript.

46 At all levels the basis of the reforms was the union of political and economic affairs. Co-operation between the Quai d'Orsay and the Ministry of Commerce was greatly increased, particularly in the development of the Office National du Commerce Extérieur, and of an extensive network of attachés commerciaux, and commerciaux, and conseillers du commerce extérieur. Ibid.

47 Domination of the departments by the parti cotonial came primarily after Clemenceau's resignation in July 1909. In November, the Asie française constituted its Section du Levant, under the Presidency of the Marquis de Reverseaux, to protect French interests in the Near East, following upheavals in the Balkans and the Turkish Empire. Elected to form this Section were 17 persons, including Bapst, Gout, Henry, Descos (French minister to Serbia), and the Comte d'Ormesson, all active diplomats. Of the 17, 13 had considerable business interests. While the Asie française only increased from 93 to 98 members during the 3 years of Clemenceau's ministry, it jumped from 98 to 115 by December 1909. See Appendix 1 B; and B.C.As.F., June, Nov., Dec. 1909.

48 Minute by Crowe, , on Bertie, to Grey, , 24 Oct. 1908, F.O. 371/456. The French Socialists often bitterly attacked this growing practice within the diplomatic corps, and believed it contrary to French national interests. See, for example, L'Humanite, 14 Dec. 1907: ‘L'Aventure du Maroc: Diplomates d'Affaires’.Google Scholar

49 His brother, Paul, a regular contributor to the Asie française, joined the boards of the Cie des Chemins de fer de P-L-M and the Cie Universelle du Canal de Suez soon after he left the London Embassy in 1920. Other notable examples include the Comte d'Ormesson, Baron d'Anthouard, F. Harmand, A. Lagarde, Le Myre de Vilers, F. Nisard, H. Lozé, Saint-René-Taillandier and R. Millet. See Appendix 1 B.

50 Thomson, D., Democracy in France since 1870 (5th edn, London, 1969), p. 111.Google Scholar

51 Many deputies believed the new system displaced the balance of constitutional power in favour of the Chamber. Notable colonialists who voted in favour of the system included Etienne, Berteaux, Cruppi, Deloncle, Gervais, Guieysse, Henrique, Hubert, de Lanessan, Leygues, Messimy, Siegfried, Thomson. J.O. D.P.C. 17 Nov. 1902.

52 To such an extent was this true that a member of the Commission du Budget and Conseiller d'Etat, Maurice-Bloch, asserted in 1913: ‘…it would be opportune to indicate clearly that the Committee of the Budget does not possess more powers than the whole Chamber…’. Quoted, in Gooch, R. K., The French Parliamentary Committee System (reprint lst edn (1935), Hamden, 1969), pp. 184, 187.Google Scholar

53 Ibid. pp. 245–6.

54 DrAndrew, C. M. and DrKanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘The Groupe Colonial in the French Chamber of Deputies, 1892–1932’, Historical Journal, XVII, 4 (1974), 837–66. There was extensive interconnection between the officers of the groupe colonial and the four colonialist comités, and 13 founder members of the former were members of the Afrique française, notably Etienne and Prince d'Arenberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 For the membership of the groupe colonial in 1902, see Politique Coloniale, 19 June 1902, and B.C.Af.F. July 1902. In 1910, the groupe's membership was probably more than 100. Among these 100, 11 had already held major government and parliamentary office, and Tier 13 - including Thomson, Etienne, and de Mun - had been deputies for more than 20 years. Andrew, and Kanya-Forstner, , ‘The Groupe Colonial in the French Chamber of Deputies, 1892–1932’, op. cit. p. 841.Google Scholar

56 Andrew, , Théophile Delcassé…, op. cit. p. 53. In 1898Google Scholar, the groupe colonial du Sénal was founded by Jules Siegfried. Its original membership was 28, and it increased to 31 by 1907 and to 91 by 1910–11. Marcel Saint-Germain was its president by 1910, and d'Aunay, Baudin and Ciceron were vice-presidents. The Senate groupe was dominated politically by Republican ‘opportunists’ like de Freycinet and Waddington, socially by businessmen, politicians and journalists. See Girardet, R., op. cit. p. 70; Annuaire du Parlement 1907, 1910–11; and Appendixes 1 A and 1 B.Google Scholar

57 Andrew, and Kanya-Forstner, , ‘The French “Colonial Party”…’, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

58 Thomson, D., op. cit. p. 96.Google Scholar

59 There were 15 ministries between 1900 and 1914. Of the 186 different ministers holding portfolios in this period, 85 were members of the parti colonial. The average ministerial bloc of members of the parti was over 5, ranging from 2 to 10. (The 2nd and 3rd Rouvier cabinets of 1905–6 contained 10 members of the parti.) Certain portfolios - colonies, foreign affairs, finance, war, marine - were the regular preserve of members of the parti colonial.

60 Gooch, , op. cit. pp. 188, 191, 220, 223, 227. The action of the Commission du Budget was called ‘tentacle-like and encroaching’, and the Commission ‘a wrecker of ministries’, ‘a committee of successors’, ‘a counter government‘, ‘an occult government’.Google Scholar

61 They counted, for example: in 1903, 2 vice-presidents out of 3 and 1 secretary out of 4; in 1905, 3 vice-presidents out of 5; in 1907, 1 vice-president out of 5; in 1909, 2 secretaries out of 6; in 1911, 3 vice-presidents out of 5 and 2 secretaries out of 6, etc. It is again striking how the years of Clemenceau's ministry see a check in the influence of the parti colonial. See footnote 47.

62 Among the rapporteurs-généravx: Berteaux, 1903; Merlou, 1904/5; Doumer, 1909. Among the rapporteurs du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères: Hubert, 1905; Gervais, 1906; Deschanel, 1907/8/9/10/11; Thierry, 1912.

63 Hubert, Denys Cochin, Chailley, Rozet and Metin, all members of the parti colonial, were the five vice-presidents of the commision named on 12 July 1910.

64 Its presidents, who were members of the groupe colonial, included: Gerville-Reache, 1902–5; Armeż, 1906–7; Delcassé, 1907–11; Thomson, 1912. The power of this commission was demonstrated when, in July 1909, its president, Delcassé, was directly responsible for the overthrow of Clemenceau's Ministry in a Chamber debate on the French Navy.

65 For example: P. Deschanel, 1902; and H. Brisson, 1904, 1907 to 1914, close colleague and friend of Delcassé and supporter, as Premier in 1898, of the latter's colonial policy, as well as a contributor to the France-Amérique, and P. Doumer, 1905–6.

66 The most notable examples are Etienne, F. Guillain, M. Berteaux and J. Cruppi.

67 The Annuaire du Parlement does not list the members of these groupes, and its listing of their officers is not regular. The dates we give here of their periods in office are therefore incomplete.

68 See Appendixes 1 A and 1 B, particularly: Prince d'Arenberg, Etienne, Guillain, Jonnart, de Moustier, Siegfired, Aynard, G. Berger, Chailley-Bert, Clementel, Schneider, and Waddington.

69 Ganiage, J., L'Expansion Coloniale de la France sous La Troisiéme République (Paris, 1968), p. 167.Google Scholar

70 Histoire Générate de la Presse Française, published under the direction of C. Bellanger, J. Godechot, P. Guiral and F. Terrou. See vol. III; Albert, Pierre, La Presse Française de 1871 à 1940 (Paris, 1972), pp. 252–75.Google Scholar

71 Le Petit Journal sold 80 per cent of its copies outside Paris; Le Petit Parisien, 65 per cent; Le Journal, and Le Matin, 60 per cent each. Ibid. pp. 298–9.

72 Ibid.

73 In 1912, Le Figaro had a circulation of 37,000; Le Journal des Débats, 26,000; and Le Temps, 36,000. Ibid. p. 296.

74 Ibid. pp. 347–56.

75 According to Albert, Hébrard was ‘…one of the éminences grises of parliament, who played in person in the corridors and more openly with his newspaper a very important role in the life of the Republic before 1914’ Ibid. 356.

76 Ibid. pp. 312, 347–56.

77 see Appendixes 1 A and 1 B for details.

78 ‘There are six Great Powers in Europe and the seventh is M. Tardieu’, von Bulow is reported to have said at the Conference of Algesiras. Albert, , p. 335.Google Scholar

79 Ibid. pp. 390–1.

80 See Appendixes 1 A and 1 B, particularly: Baudin, Hanotaux, H. Cordier, J. Le Page, A. Meziéres, R. Millet, E. de Naléche, G. Patinot, C. Prevet, A. Tardieu.

81 Albert, , p. 126.Google Scholar

82 There can be little doubt, too, that the organization of the parti colonial was far more sophisticated than has hitherto been recognized. The Asie française constituted its own Commission Technique (president: F. Guillain); a Commission d'Extreme Orient (president: Paul Doumer); as well as the Section du Levant (see footnote 47). The France-Amérique, besides its Bureau, Conseil de Direction and Comité de Patronage, organised a Section des Etats-Unis, a Section du Canada (with its own review, the France-Canada), as well as a large Ligue Française de Propagande, which comprised a Commission de l'Enseignement, Commission des Beaux-Arts, Commission Industrie et Commerce, and Commission du Tourisme. The ligue contained representatives from over 60 of France's major industrial, financial, commercial, academic and artistic establishments. See B.C.As.F. Nov. 1901, Feb. 1903, June 1909; B.C.F-A. Aug. 1911, Jan. 1913; and Andrew and Kanya-Forstner, ‘The French “Colonial Party”…’, p. 127.

83 For reasons of space, it has not been possible to examine here other important institutions in France where the parti colonial exerted powerful influence in policy-making, in particular the ministries of colonies, finance, commerce and industry, war, and marine; as well as France's most prestigious academic institutions: the Academie Franchise, Institut de France, Ecole des Sciences Politiques, Ecole Coloniale, Société de Géographic, etc. See, however, Appendixes 1 A and 1 B for some indications of this.

* The authors would like to reiterate that copies of Appendix 1 B are available from them on request.