FRANCE AND HER COLONIES. T HE French Government have determined to
annex Madagascar, and to declare it a French colony with all the consequences, and a Bill to carry this into effect has been introduced into the Chamber. That France is wise in taking possession of Madagascar in the fullest and most complete way possible we do not doubt for a moment. We have always regarded it as wise for France to do her work thoroughly on the island continent, and not to adopt a policy of half-measures. But between annexation of this kind and the making of Madagascar into a regular colony as is now proposed there is a very great deal of difference. Madagascar may be profitably annexed to France, but to make her into a colony in the strict sense of the term is for France to strangle her new-born possession almost before it has begun to breathe. To turn a possession like Madagascar into a regular colony means to include it within the suffocating circle of the general French tariff —virtually to close the island to all traders but French- men, and to force her colonists and other inhabitants to buy all their goods from France instead of from wherever they can get them best and cheapest. Colonies, of all places in the world, need to buy in the cheapest market, for their economic foundations are always slight and precarious. A colony wants, in order to expand, a vast number of things, and wants them cheap, or rather can only have them if they are really cheap. But if high tariffs are put on against all goods except those of France, it means that the colonies have to satisfy their needs in France. France, however, is a very bad market for the things needed in new countries, for cheap machinery, and cheap and strong clothes and boots, and guns and iron and hardware and tinned meats. if colonists could open up a country with fancy goods, bronze clocks, and gold watches, the tariff keeping out goods other than those produced in France would not perhaps be a grievance. But, unfortunately, articles de Paris are no good in the jungle, and the virtual prohibition of foreign imports is most disastrous. France herself is so rich and strong that her people can bear the iron chains of the tariff with comparative ease, but the new and tender commerce of the colonies is crushed by their weight. That is why the able French statesmen have up till now been against making Madagascar a colony. They want to keep her from being prematurely throttled. Another and kindred evil of the plan of applying the general tariff to the French colonies is worth noting. What the French colonies covet above all things are colonists. The need is for more men. But in colonising, as in all other things, the factor of competition appears. Only a definite number of colonists leave Europe every year, and for them the colonies of the world informally compete, offering this or that advantage to the intending settler. But one of the first things the colonist wants to know is whether living will be fairly cheap in the place of which he is thinking. " Can I get the things I want to build my house and work my farm reasonably cheap, and will the comforts I shall want for myself and my family be procurable at moderate prices ? " These are the sort of questions that occur to the " balancing " colonist. But as regards the French colonies a close investigation can only prove one thing—namely, that settlers in them are handicapped by high tariffs and the dear prices that follow high tariffs. Hence the French colonies find it extremely difficult to attract colonists. Italians, Germans, and Englishmen who are going to leave Europe all find the French colonies too dear, and even the few Frenchmen who voluntarily " exile themselves " prefer places where they will not be pursued by the general tariff. The result is that the French colonies remain without colonists.
But disagreeable as are these facts, there are worse things connected with the French colonies. France might endure her colonies if they merely remained unpeoplcd. The terrible fact about the French colonies—we use the word "terrible" in no perfunctory or conventional sense —is that they are a constant drain upon the resources of France. The full record of what France spends upon her colonies has never been made out. It is nobody's interest to frighten the nation on the subject, since the alarmist would be certain to be overwhelmed with reproaches and accusations of want of patriotism, and hence a great deal of the yearly cost of the French colonies is concealed. The acknowledged facts are, however, had enough. It is obvious that every year Algeria costs some £3,000,000, and the other colonies as much more. That is, over £6,000,000 is spent every year by France on her colonial possessions. This, too, is ordinary annual expenditure, and does not include money spent upon warlike expeditions. For example, it does not include the cost of the conquest of the HovaF. Thus France is spending every year on her caonies an amount equal to the interest on some £200,000,000. If it could be said that this expenditure was only temporary, and that ultimately the colonies would be able to manage for themselves, the prospect would not be nearly so depressing. But how can this be Laid with any show of reason in view of the fact that the oldest colony is the worst offender ? Algeria has been a colony for sixty years, and yet she drains the national Treasury of £3,000,000 every year.
Were we asked to give the reason for the curious fact that the moment a place becomes a French colony the trade dwindles, colonists will not settle, and huge sums are required to be paid in Paris to keep the new posses- sion going, we should unhesitatingly reply, "Protection." It is the general tariff which strangles the French colonies and prevents them from becoming self-supporting. The French notion of a colony is a place compelled to take the goods of the mother-country. But if this policy is pressed as it is in the case of France it is quite im- possible for a colony to be self-supporting. The colonists, tied down to purchase only from France, soon make it clear that France must pay for the privilege of a private market, and very often pay very dearly. Not long ago it was pointed out in the French Press that in one colony France was spending a million to get a trade of only three-quarters of a million. These were not perhaps the exact figures, but they accurately represent what is very often the result of the French colonial system. But it will be said that all this is a Free-trader's prejudice, and that there must be some other explanation of the French failure to make colonies pay or even support themselves, or at any rate that some visible proof will be asked for our contention that exaggerated Protection is at the bottom of the French failure. Well, curiously enough, there is a proof at hand. There is only one French colony which is not a drain on the mother-country, and that colony, owing to certain external circumstances, has not had the general tariff applied to it. That colony is Tunis. Owing to Tunis being nominally not a colony but a Protectorate, the tariff does not apply there, and a fiscal regime approaching Free-trade is in existence,—a fact ultimately due to the commercial treaties between the Bey and England and Italy. The result is that Tunis flourishes far more than Algiers, that it attracts a con- siderable number of foreign immigrants, and that it does not cost the mother-country anything. Yet strangely enough the cry of France is not to make more Tunises, but to abrogate the treaties and force Tunis into the general tariff. M. Meline's newspaper openly advocated that course last year, and no doubt an attempt will soon be made in that direction. M. Maine is an honest man and a convinced Protectionist, and sincerely believes that a country cannot have too strict a tariff. He probably believes, indeed, that the want of success met with by France in her colonies is due to the few ventilating holes still left in the tariff wall. Build these up, he thinks, and all will be well. Hence it is to be feared that, instead of Tunis being used as a model for the colonial policy of France, we shall see Tunis deprived of her present position and thrown as an extra burden upon the back of the French peasant.
Previous page
