Bonaparte appeared, at first, to be the man who would favor colonization on a large scale. On this subject, Mr. Paul Gaffarel* has writ ten: "The ephemeral conquest of Egypt and Syria, the taking of the Ionian Islands, the occupation of Louisiana, and the Saint Do minica campaign, indicate that one of France's great ambitions was to increase and develop its maritime and colonial policy. However, during the last years of the Consulate and particularly when he became emperor, Napoleon had only disgust for the fleet; for him colonies were a negligible quantity and he lost several oppor tunities of re-establishing our over-sea prestige." The dogma founded on assimilation was brought to nought: article 91 of the Constitu tion of Year VII decreed that the colonial regime shall be determined by special laws." Decrees of the 19 April and 16 June 1902 re organized the old regime as regards Guade loupe and it is expressly stated "the colonies shall be governed by the laws in force before the Revolution." This erroneous colonial con ception had its repercussion throughout the country: "Paralyzed and rivetted to the Conti nent by its very victories, France no longer has any interest in her Colonies." With the Res toration, it was seriously thought of abandon ing them. In 1817, the Budget Commission, through its official Count Roy, requested a reduction to 44,000,000 francs in the Marine and Colonial Budget, which in 1786 had amounted to 66,000,000, and, moreover, he was successful in his petition.
In 1822 and 1828 General Foy and General Sebastiani once more attacked the colonial situation. In 1829, Deputy Bessieres again states that "for what the colonies are worth and cost us, we should be much better off if we did not possess them. A colonial system, even if advantageous, is no longer practicable. I maintain that it has ceased to be necessary." However, the Restoration government did not abandon all its colonies: the famous aOrdon nanc,e0 are proof of this and the Algiers campaign was the signal for French Colonial Renaissance (1830). But, under Louis-Philippe, as with Napoleon III and the Third Republic each time that, activated by a sort of instinctive fatalism, France proceeded to new colonial con quests, the same opposition was encountered, supported by the same weak arguments which had prevailed in Colbert's Colonial Pact. After more than 100 years had elapsed, the excessive conceptions of the Revolution were found again in the minds of certain militant socialists who persisted in seeing in the colonial policy merely an occasion for the exploitation of distant peoples, and refused to recognize the indis pensable role which colonies play in the economical evolution of a great country like France. The few facts we have indicated—to which could be added many more of no less a significative character — sufficiently prove that France's colonial policy has always encountered difficulties and that, at all times in its history, it has had to overcome the strongest hostility. But the war which is scourging Europe and which has caused so many bereavements and so much ruin will at least result in making all Frenchmen perceive the necessity for closely following all colonial matters and reaping that harvest from their over-sea possessions which they should legitimately expect. As a matter of fact, while not pretending to be versed in witchcraft, it would truly seem that France, much more so than ferocious Germany, had received a high mission from Civilization to fulfil, which it had always carried out to its honor despite every difficulty encountered.
Fortunately men of energy have always been found in France at the critical moment ready to defend and maintain those principles which a weak-kneed government failed, or seemed disinclined, to uphold. Looked at from this point of view, French colonization appears as a kind of mission above the level of French people's desires,.and beyond the hesitating will of its leaders; it is undoubtedly an admirable mission which, even during its most sombre history, has always found a champion to fight for its cause, either among the professional politicians or from among the people in distant lands, ever ready to set the example, to tate) and to sacrifice himself. In the 18th century, it was Montcalm who wished to keep Canada, despite Louis XV. In the 19th century it was, as regards Africa, the Bingers and the Marchands, the Gentils and the de Brazzas who, supported in the mother country by noble minded and intelligent men, enriched France by assuring it vast territories and large spheres of influence. As compensation for the action of governments who have not always drawn up with sufficient care the principles of a colonial policy based on practical observation and solid doctrines, we find disinterested and noble indi viduals whose one desire is to make France richer and greater, and to renovate it continu ally by fresh additions of lands and peoples. The events of the World War, the precious and generous aid given by the colonies to the mother country prove in a striking manner the debt which every Frenchman owes his colonies. This individual character of colonial work does, moreover, great honor to the French race. Certain people discussing the episodes of the battle of the Marne and the heroic resistance at Verdun have dared to speak of a miracle. It is sheer blasphemy to pretend that the re sults obtained are to be attributed to some vague occult, and more or less divine protec tion. The truth is that throughout their his tory the French of to-day, as in the past, owe their success to their magnificent and sublime individual qualities which makes up for absence of direction just as it does for lack of preparation and the incoherence of methods.
In an excellent work entitled (1.1n demi siecle de civilization franqaise 1870-1915,) Mr. Raphael Georges Levy rightly states that *France has founded a colonial empire which is second only to that of Great Britain. Over the entire length of its African and Asiatic possessions, Justice reigns: France has civilised in the noblest sense of the weird?) M. Marcel Dubois, a Sorbonne professor, in his book (Systemes coloniaux et peuples colonisateurs,> protests with vehemence against the common belief that the French do not possess a genius for colonizing and that France has no need of colonies. "These opinions,* he says, *which until quite recently have paralyzed our colonial activities, are the sequence of dis cussions commenced in the 18th century, fol lowing the general tendencies of that period, on the questions of deciding, in abstract°, whether or not we should colonize and how we should colonize.* He concludes: *The lessons taught by our colonial history should be par ticularly borne in mind, for, of all the great colonizing countries, France is the one whose temperament has been least changed and whose traditions are, therefore, the most instructive. Our example has served as a guide to other nations; our experience has generously served humanity at large.* This conclusion merits our unreserved approval as it constitutes the finest eulogy of France's colonial effort.