Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:44:44.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concession Policy in the French Congo and the British Reaction, 1898–1906

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

S. J. S. Cookey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1899 the French Colonial Ministry parcelled out the greater part of the French Congo among various concession companies in imitation of a similar policy adopted earlier by the Congo Free State. British companies which had pioneered the trade found themselves being treated as squatters and interlopers subject to legal prosecutions. They claimed that the French government had infringed the provisions of the Berlin Act and called for the diplomatic support of the Foreign Office. Their call was backed by the British Chambers of Commerce.

For long British humanitarians had been decrying the treatment of Africans in the Congo basin whose lands were being expropriated, and they had repeatedly appealed to the British government to ensure that the provisions of the Berlin Act were enforced. Consequently, the British merchants and the humanitarians found common ground for agitation.

In the face of such a powerful combination the Foreign Office had to act and protracted Anglo-French negotiations ensued. They were brought to an end in 1906 when the French government, while maintaining the principle of concessions, agreed to compensate the British firms for their losses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 1966 , pp. 263 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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 For example see Roberts, S. H., The History of French Colonial Policy, 1870–1925 (London, 1963), 350–1;Google ScholarJeaugeon, R., ‘Les sociétés d'exploitation au Congo et l'opinion francaise de 1890 à 1906’, Revue Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre-Mer (1961), XLVIII, 353–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The Foreign Office documents are listed under F.O. 27, France, and marked ‘Trade in French Congo’. There are also the Morel Papers (M.P.) at the London School of Economics and Political Science; the John Holt Papers (J.H.P.) in the archives of John Holt and Company, Liverpool; and the Papers of the Aborigines Protection Society (A.P.S.) at Rhodes House, Oxford.Google Scholar

3 Morel, E. D., The Position of British Merchants in French Congo (London, 1902), 39.Google Scholar

4 Holt to Pickersgill, 12 July 1898, F.O. 27/3756;Google Scholar Holt to Salisbury, 21 Feb. 1899, ibid. See also The Globe, 15 Feb. 1898; Pall Mall Gazette, 3 Mar. 1898; Daily Chronicle, 30 Sept. 1898; M.P., section A.Google Scholar

5 The Times, 19 May 1899. See also 20 May 1899.Google Scholar

6 Holt to Salisbury, 21 June 1899, F.O. 27/3756.Google Scholar

7 Holt to Gosselin, 3 Jan. 1900, ibid.

8 Holt to Salisbury, 17 May 1900, ibid.

9 Hatton and Cookson to Salisbury, 26 June 1900, ibid.

10 Herbert to Gosselin, 7 July 1899, F.O. 27/3756 (private).Google Scholar

11 Holt to Salisbury, 21 June 1899, ibid.

12 On 24 August 1900 the Manchester Guardian asserted that there was a strong case against the French government and wondered what action the British government was taking. The following day the Daily Chronicle carried a leading article headed ‘Autocracy in French Congo. Outrageous Treatment of British Traders’ and called for ‘prompt representations to the French Government’. The Pall Mall Gazette also opened its columns for the defence of British interests in the Congo.Google Scholar

13 Encl, in Monson to Salisbury, 19 Oct. 1900, F.O. 27/3756.Google Scholar

14 Farnall, H., 17 Nov. 1900,Google Scholaribid., memorandum.

15 Holt to Landsowne, 15 Jan. 1901, F.O. 27/3757.Google Scholar

16 Ibid. See also Holt to Morel, 12 Nov. 1900, M.P., f. 8.

17 Law officers of the Crown to Lansdowne, 25 May 1901, F.O. 27/3757.Google Scholar

18 Farnall, H., 1 June 1901,Google Scholaribid., memorandum.

19 Morel to Holt, 23 May 1899, J.H.P. 18/1.Google Scholar

20 Cookey, S. J. S., ‘Great Britain and the Congo question, 1892–1913’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1964), 70–1.Google Scholar

21 Morel, E. D., Affairs of West Africa (London, 2903), 304.Google ScholarCf. Morel, E. D., ‘Trading monopolies in West Africa’, Dec. 1901, M.P., section A. Again Morel stateth ‘The British merchant, in fighting primarily for himself, is indirectly fighting the new form of slavery which has been introduced into Africa with such fatal results by the sovereign of the Congo state, and in taking the stand he has done the British merchant is rendering a great service to humanity’ (Liverpool Daily Post, 4 Apr. 1902).Google Scholar See also Morel, E. D., The British Case in French Congo: The Story of a Great Injustice, its Causes and its Lessons (London, 1903), 2–4.Google Scholar

22 Fox Bourne to Morel, 24 Apr., 7 May, and 24 July 1901, M.P., f. 8; Duke to Morel, 1 May 1901,Google Scholaribid. (copy).

23 Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to Lansdowne, 1 Oct. 1902, F.O. 27/3757.Google Scholar

24 Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to Lansdowne, 30 Oct. 1901,Google Scholaribid. A deputation of thirteen led by Sir Alfred Jones was received by Lansdowne on 13 Novmber.

25 Monson to Delcassé, 13 Dec. 1901, encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 13 Dec., F.O. 27/3757, no. 239, Africa.Google Scholar

26 Jeaugeon, 400.Google Scholar

27 Jeaugeon, 367–71, 406–7; Hugh O'Brien, 29 Nov. 1901, memorandum, encl, in Monson to Landsowne, 29 Nov., F.O. 27/3757, no. 130, Africa.Google Scholar

28 Copy of circular dated 22 Apr. 1901, encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 29 Nov., F.O. 27/3757, no. 130, Africa.Google Scholar See also Holt to Lansdowne, 15 June, ibid.

29 Holt to Morel, 5 Jan. 1902, M.P., f. 8.Google Scholar

30 Holt to Lansdowne, 11 Oct. 1901, F.O. 27/3757.Google Scholar

31 ‘I am not in a position’, commented the British ambassador in Paris, Sir Edward Monson, ‘to say whether this article, appearing as it does in a paper passing for semiofficial, is to be considered as inspired … but in any case it marks a new departure in the comments of the French press on the Congo concessions question…’ (Monson to Lansdowne, 29 Dec. 1901, F.O. 27/3757, no. 149, Africa).Google Scholar

32 Monson to Lansdowne, 27 Jan. 1902, F.O. 27/3758, paraphrase of tel. no. 2, Africa.Google Scholar

33 Memorandum dated 8 Feb. 1902, encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 9 Feb.,Google Scholaribid., no. 22, Africa.

34 Herbert, 5 May. 1902, memorandum, encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 7 Mar.,Google Scholaribid., no. 30, Africa.

35 See above, p. 267. See also Holt to Lansdowne, 18 Feb. 1902, F.O. 27/3758.Google Scholar

36 Holt to Lansdowne, 1 May 1902, F.O. 27/3759.Google Scholar

37 Memorandum encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 17 May 1902,Google Scholaribid.

38 Minutes by Lansdowne, n.d., and C. J. B. Hurst, 29 May 1902,Google Scholaribid.

39 Holt and Cookson to Lansdowne, 27 May 1902,Google Scholaribid.

40 Lansdowne to Lister (Paris), 1 July 1902,Google Scholaribid., no. 50, Africa.

41 As the German firm of Woermann had done with Gazengel in the Ogowe district. Holt to Morel, 12 Dec. 1902, M.P., f. 8. According to Holt his firm was facing actions in court ‘from every quarter, subjecting us to claims which our agent states amount to some £40,000 in respect of damages which the various concessionaire companies state they have sustained by reason of our past trading on their concessions’. Holt to Lansdowne, 20 Oct. 1902, F.O. 27/3760.Google Scholar

42 Monson to Lansdowne, 14 Nov. 1902, F.O. 27/3760, no. 133, Africa.Google Scholar

43 Memorandum ecl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 25 Nov. 1902,Google Scholaribid., no. 136, Africa.

44 Delcassé to Cambon, 11 Feb. 1903, F.O. 27/3761.Google Scholar

45 Ibid.

46 For example, African Trade Section of Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to Lanadowne, 31 Oct. 1902, F.O. 27/3760.Google Scholar

47 Lansdowne to Monson, 19 Nov. 1902,Google Scholaribid., no. 254, Africa.

48 Hansard, 19 Nov. 1902, 4th ser., CXIV, 1357; 15 Dec. 1902, CXVII, 1143–5.Google Scholar

49 See M.P., Section A.Google Scholar

50 Hurst, C. J. B., 11 Mar. 1903, memo. on ‘Trade in French Congo’, F.O. 27/3761. The government, he said, should rest their case on the view that article v of the Berlin Act implied that the state should not so dispose of the land as to constitute monopolies and exclude all rivals from trading in the only existing subjects of trade. Farnall's standpoint was summed up as follows: ‘The grant of such an exclusive privilege as that now under consideration is not properly a grant of an exclusive privilege in a matter of trade, but the actual gift to one man of that which belongs to another–it is concrete robbery and it would be a mistake to try to look upon the transaction as one of “exclusive privilege” or “mottopoly”.’ H. Farnall, 12 Mar. 1903,Google Scholaribid., memo.

51 Foreign Office to the law officers of the Crown, 13 Mar. 1903,Google Scholaribid.

52 Law officers of the Crown to Foreign Office, 14 May 1903, F.O. 27/3762.Google Scholar

53 Ibid.

54 Sir Charles Duke, who had taken up the case of the British firms in the French Congo by May 1903, believed that the Foreign Office was ‘of opinion that a concessionaire regime is no violation of the articles in the Act and treaty. They have repeatedly consulted the Law Officers and tried to get them to say so: the Law Officers… [are] rather sitting on the fence. They [the Foreign Oflice] will write a despatch, but I don't think it will be otherwise than what we should think somewhat treacherous to our interests and to the House of Commons’. Duke to Morel, 30 May 1903, M.P., f. 8.Google Scholar

55 For the background to the House of Commons resolution, see Cookey, 96–102.Google Scholar

56 Hurst, C. J. B., 29 May 1903, F.O. 27/3762, memo.Google Scholar

57 Memorandum on conversation between Baron G. de Reuter and Sir T. Sanderson (unsigned), 14 Mar. 1903, F.O. 27/3761.Google Scholar

58 Lansdowne, nd., ibid., minute.

59 Holt to Villiers, 17 Mar. 1903,Google Scholaribid.

60 Ibid.

61 This was communicated privately by Binger. Monson to Lansdowne, 18 May 1903, F.O. 27/3762, tel. no. 5, Africa, confidential. The head of the Legal Department hastily asked that they ‘neither print it nor in any way preserve “official” evidence that we were aware of the private arrangement…’ because it was ‘repugnant to English ideas of judicial independence and proper procedure’. W. E. Davidson, 19 May 1903,Google Scholaribid., minute.

62 Monson to Lansdowne, 28 May 1903,Google Scholaribid., no. 45, Africa, confidential. For fuller details of the negotiations, see Holt to Villiers, 24 Sept. 1903, ibid.

63 Ibid. It was proposed that in the new company the British firms would hold a two-thirds controlling interest and the French companies the remaining one-third. As compensation, the French government would be asked to give 50 % rebate on duties on their imported or exported goods.

64 F.O. to Holt, 1 Oct., and F.O. to Monson, 2 Oct. 1903, F.O. 27/3762, no. 169, Africa.Google Scholar

65 Hatton and Cookson to Lansdowne, 15 Oct. 1903,Google Scholaribid.

66 Lansdowne, n.d., ibid., minute.

67 Campbell, F. A., 24 Oct. 1903,Google Scholaribid., minute.

68 Monson to Lansdowne, 26 Oct. 1903,Google Scholaribid., no. 87, Africa.

69 Memorandum encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 18 Dec. 1903,Google Scholaribid., no. 112, Africa.

70 Farnall, H., 19 Dec. 1903, and Lansdowne, n.d.,Google Scholaribid., minutes.

71 Lansdowne to Monson, 21 Jan. 1904,Google Scholaribid., no. 13, Africa, embodied in a note delivered by Monson to Delcassé on 26 January. Encl, in Monson to Lansdowne, 26 Jan., ibid., no. 10, Africa.

72 Correspondence and Report from His Majesty's Consul at Boma respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo (Accounts and Papers, 2904 (Cd. 1933), XII, 357).Google Scholar

73 Encl. in Nightingale to Lansdowne, 20 Feb. 1904, F.O. 27/3763, no. 10, Africa.Google Scholar

74 It was evident that the decision had been influenced by the Colonial Ministry in order to exert pressure on the concession companies. According to Binger, the judgements ‘would discourage the bringing of further actions, and would make it clear to the claimants that they can no longer rely on fines inflicted on their rivals as a means of raising a revenue’. Monson to Lansdowne, 26 Feb. 1904, ibid., no. 25, Africa. See also Nightingale to Lansdowne, 20 Feb. 1904, ibid., no. 10, Africa; Monson to Lansdowne, 4 Mar. 1904, ibid., no. 28, Africa, confidential.

75 Hatton and Cookson to Lansdowne, 16 Mar. 1904,Google Scholaribid.; Holt to Lansdowne, 25 Mar. 1904, ibid.

76 Lansdowne, n.d., ibid., minute; Louis Mallet, 24 Mar. 1904, ibid., minute.

77 Lansdowne n.d., ibid., minute.

78 Monson to Lansdowne, 22 Apr. 1904,Google Scholaribid., no. 40, Africa.

79 Hansard 1 June 1904, 4th ser., Cxxxv, cols. 542–3.Google Scholar

80 Ibid., col. 571.

81 Ibid., col. 576–7.

82 Percy, 4 June 1904, F.O. 27/3763, memo.Google Scholar

83 Lansdowne to Cambon, 17 June 1904,Google Scholaribid.

84 Cambon to Lansdowne, 20 Jan. 1905, F.O. 27/3764.Google Scholar

85 Jeaugeon, 411.Google Scholar

86 Le Matin, 16 Feb. 1905.Google Scholar

87 Some idea of its content was given in Le Teinps, 24 and 25 Sept. It is preserved in the Archives Nationales, Section Outre-Mer, Carton Mission Brazza. The report was referred to a Commission d'Etudes du Congo which met from 6 Oct. to 19 Dec. 1905, and the recommendations of the commission formed the basis of the reforms embodied in the instructions of the Minister of Colonies to Gentil, commissaire-general of the French Congo. See Journal Officiel de Ia Republique Francaise, 1 Feb. 1906. Copy in F.O. 367/7.Google Scholar

88 Lansdowne to Bertie, 24 May 1905, F.O. 27/3764, no. 67, Africa.Google Scholar

89 The company operated the Central South African Railways with a concession granted by the South African Republic. During the Anglo-Boer War, shares in the company were acquired by the French firm of Messrs Schneider and Company. When the Republic was annexed, the British government also took over the railway, refusing French demands for compensation on the ground that the railway was theirs by right of conquest.Google Scholar

90 Grey to Cambon, 21 Mar. 1906, F.O. 367/6.Google Scholar

91 Grey to Bertie, 30 Apr. 1906,Google Scholaribid., no. 16, Africa, confidential.

92 Holt to F.O., 9 May 1906,Google Scholaribid.

93 F.O. to Holt, 17 May 1906,Google Scholaribid.

94 Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to F.O., 16 Aug. 1906,Google Scholaribid.

95 F.O. to Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 6 Sept. 1906,Google Scholaribid.

96 Cookey, 295 ff.Google Scholar