proclamation of 1835 denouncing Christian teaching, dispelled these
pleasing anticipations. A severe persecution of Christianity ensued,
which, however, utterly failed to prevent its progress, and only served
to show in a remarkable manner the faith and courage of the native
Christians, of whom at least two hundred were put to death. The
political state of the country was also very deplorable during the
queen's reign; almost all foreigners were excluded, and for some years
even foreign commerce was forbidden.
On the queen's death, in 1861, the island was reopened to trade and to
Christian teaching, both of which have greatly progressed since that
time, especially during the reign of the present sovereign, who made a
public profession of Christianity at her accession in 1868. By the
advice and with the co-operation of her able Prime Minister numerous
wise and enlightened measures have been passed for the better government
of the country; idolatry has entirely passed away from the central
provinces; education and civilization have been making rapid advances;
and all who hope for human progress have rejoiced to see how the
Malagasy have been gradually rising to the position of a civilized and
Christian people.
The present year has, however, brought a dark cloud over the bright
prospects which have been opening up for Madagascar. Foreign aggression
on the independence of the country is threatened on the part of France,
and a variety of so-called "claims" have been put forward to justify
interference with the Malagasy, and alleged "rights" are urged to large
portions of their territory.
It is not perfectly clear why the present time has been chosen for this
recent ebullition of French feeling, since, if any French rights ever
existed to any portion of Madagascar, they might have been as justly (or
unjustly) urged for the last forty years as now. Some three or four
minor matters have no doubt been made the ostensible pretext,[11] but
the real reason is doubtless the same as that which has led to French
attempts to obtain territory in Tongking, in the Congo Valley, in the
Gulf of Aden, and in Eastern Polynesia, viz., a desire to retrieve
abroad their loss of influence in Europe; and especially to heal the
French _amour propre_, sorely wounded by their having allowed England to
settle alone the Egyptian difficulty.
It is much to be wished that some definite and authoritative statement
could be obtained from French statesmen or writers as to the exact
claims now put forward and their justification, with some slight
concession to the request of outsiders for reason and argument. As it
is, almost every French newspaper seems to have a theory of its own, and
we read a good deal about "our ancient rights," and "our acknowledged
claims," together with similar vague and rather grandiose language. As
far as can be ascertained, four different theories seem to be held:--(1)
Some French writers speak of their "ancient rights," as if the various
utter failures of their nation to retain any military post in
Madagascar in the 17th and 18th centuries were to be urged as giving
rights of possession.
(2) Others talk about "the treaties of 1841" with two rebellious
Sàkalàva tribes as an ample justification of their present action.
(3) Others, again, refer to the repudiated and abandoned "Lambert
treaty" of 1862 as, somehow or other, still giving the French a hold
upon Madagascar. And (4) during the last few days we have been gravely
informed that "France will insist upon carrying out the treaty of 1868,"
which gives no right in Madagascar to France beyond that given to every
nation with whom a treaty has been made, and which says not one word
about any French protectorate.[12]
It will be necessary to examine these four points a little in detail.
1. Of what value are "ancient French rights" in Madagascar? These do not
rest upon _discovery_ of the country, or prior occupation of it, since
almost every writer, French, English, or German, agrees that the
Portuguese, in 1506, were the first Europeans to land on the island.
They retained some kind of connection with Madagascar for many years;
and so did the Dutch, for a shorter period, in the early part of the
seventeenth century; and the English also had a small colony on the
south-west side of the island before any French attempts were made at
colonization. Three European nations therefore preceded the French in
Madagascar.
During the seventeenth century, from 1643 to 1672, repeated efforts were
made by the French to maintain a hold on three or four points of the
east coast of the island. But these were not colonies, and were so
utterly mismanaged that eventually the French were driven out by the
exasperated inhabitants; and after less than thirty years' intermittent
occupation of these positions, the country was abandoned by them
altogether for more than seventy years.[13] In the latter part of the
eighteenth century fresh attempts were made (after 1745), but with
little better result; one post after another was relinquished; so that
towards the beginning of the present century the only use made of
Madagascar by the French was for the slave-trade, and the maintenance of
two or three trading stations for supplying oxen to the Mascarene
Islands.[14] In 1810 the capture of Mauritius and Bourbon by the British
gave a decisive blow to French predominance in the Southern Indian
Ocean; their two or three posts on the east coast were occupied by
English troops, and were by us given over to Radàma I., who had
succeeded in making himself supreme over the greater portion of the
island. The French eventually seized the little island of Ste. Marie's,
off the eastern coast, but retained not a foot of soil upon the
mainland; and so ended, it might have been supposed, their "ancient
rights" in Madagascar.[15]
It is, however, quite unnecessary to dwell further on this point, as the
recognition by the French, in their treaty with Radàma II., of that
prince as _King of Madagascar_ was a sufficient renunciation of their
ancient pretensions. This is indeed admitted by French writers. M.
Galos, writing in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_(Oct. 1863, p. 700), says,
speaking of the treaty of Sept. 2, 1861:--
"By that act, in which Radàma II. appears as King of Madagascar, we
have recognized without restriction his sovereignty over all the
island. In consequence of that recognition two consuls have been
accredited to him, the one at Tanànarìvo, the other at Tamatave,
who only exercise their functions by virtue of an _exequatur_ from
the real sovereign."
Again he remarks:--?
"We see that France would not gain much by resuming her position
anterior to 1861; also, we may add, without regret, that it is no
longer possible. We have recognized in the King of Madagascar the
necessary quality to enable him to treat with us on all the
interests of the island. It does not follow, because he or his
successors fail to observe the engagements that they have
contracted, that therefore the quality aforesaid is lost, _or that
we should have the right to refuse it to them for the future_."[16]
And the treaty of 1868 again, in which the present sovereign is
recognized as "Reine de Madagascar," fully confirms the view of the
French writer just cited.[17]
2. Let us now look for a moment at the Lambert treaty, or rather
charter, of 1862. On his accession to the throne in 1861, the young
king, Radàma II., soon fell into follies and vices which were not a
little encouraged by some Frenchmen who had ingratiated themselves with
him. A Monsieur Lambert, a planter from Réunion, managed to obtain the
king's consent to a charter conceding to a company to be formed by
Lambert very extensive rights over the whole of Madagascar. The king's
signature was obtained while he was in a state of intoxication, at a
banquet given at the house of the French Consul, and against the
remonstrances of all the leading people of the kingdom. But the
concession was one of the principal causes of the revolution of the
following year, in which the king lost both crown and life; and it was
promptly repudiated by the new Sovereign and her Government, as a
virtual abandonment of the country to France. Threats of bombardment,
&c., were freely used, but at length it was arranged that, on the
payment of an indemnity of a million francs by the native Government to
the company, its rights should be abandoned. It is said that this
pacific result was largely due to the good sense and kindly feeling of
the Emperor Napoleon, who, on being informed of the progress in
civilization and Christianity made by the Malagasy, refused to allow
this to be imperilled by aggressive war. There would seem, then, to be
no ground for present French action on the strength of the repudiated
Lambert treaty.
3. As already observed, several French public prints have been loudly
proclaiming that France is resolved "to uphold the treaty of 1868 in its
entirety."[18] It may with the same emphasis be announced that the
Malagasy Government is equally resolved to uphold it, so far at least as
they are concerned, especially its first article, which declares that
"in all time to come the subjects of each power shall be friends, and
shall preserve amity, and shall never fight." But it should be also
carefully noted that this 1868 treaty recognizes unreservedly the Queen
as Sovereign _of Madagascar_, makes no admission of, or allusion to, any
of these alleged French rights, much less any protectorate; and is
simply a treaty of friendship and commerce between two nations,
standing, as far as power to make treaties is concerned, on an equal
footing. If French statesmen, therefore, are sincere in saying that they
only require the maintenance of the treaty of 1868 in its integrity, the
difficulties between the two nations will soon be at an end.
But it is doubtful whether the foregoing is really a French "claim," as
far more stress has been laid, and will still doubtless be laid, upon
certain alleged treaties of 1841. What the value of these is we must now
consider.
4. The facts connected with the 1841 treaties are briefly these:--In the
year 1839 two of the numerous Sàkalàva tribes of the north-west of the
island, who had since the conquest in 1824 been in subjection to the
central government, broke into rebellion. It happened that a French war
vessel was then cruising in those waters, and as the French had for some
time previously lost all the positions they had ever occupied on the
east coast, it appeared a fine opportunity for recovering prestige in
the west. By presents and promises of protection they induced, it is
alleged, the chieftainess of the Ibòina people, and the chief of the
Tankàrana, further north, to cede to them their territories on the
mainland, as well as the island of Nòsibé, off the north-west coast.
These treaties are given by De Clercq, "Recueil de Traités," vol. iv.
pp. 594, 597; but whether these half-barbarous Sàkalàva, ignorant of
reading and writing, knew what they were doing, is very doubtful. Nòsibé
was, however, taken possession of by the French in 1841, and has ever
since then remained in their hands; but, curiously enough, until the
present year, no claim has ever been put forward to any portion of the
mainland, or any attempt made to take possession of it. But these
treaties have been lately advanced as justifying very large demands on
the part of the French, including (_a_) a protectorate over the portions
ceded; (_b_) a protectorate over all the northern part of the island,
from Mojangà across to Aritongil Bay; (_c_) a protectorate over all the
western side of the island; finally (_d_), "general rights" (whatever
these may mean) over all Madagascar! Most English papers have rightly
considered these treaties as affording no justification for such large
pretensions, although one or two[19] have argued that the London press
has unfairly depreciated the strength of French claims. Is this really
so?
The Malagasy Government and its envoys to Europe have strenuously denied
the right of a rebellious tribe to alienate any portion of the country
to a foreign power; a right which would never be recognized by any
civilized nation, and which they will resist to the last. The following
are amongst some of the reasons they urge as vitiating and nullifying
any French claim upon the mainland founded upon the 1841 treaties:--
i. The territory claimed had been fairly conquered in war in 1824 by the
Hova, and their sovereign rights had for many years never been disputed.
ii. The present queen and her predecessors had been acknowledged by the
French in their treaties of 1868 and 1862 as sovereigns of Madagascar,
without any reserve whatever. (See also _Revue des deux Mondes_, already
cited.)
iii. Military posts have been established there, and customs duties
collected by Hova officials ever since the country was conquered by
them, and these have been paid without any demur or reservation by
French as well as by all other foreign vessels. Some years ago
complaints were made by certain French traders of overcharges; these
were investigated, and money was refunded.
iv. All the Sàkalàva chiefs in that part of the island have at various
times rendered fealty to the sovereign at Antanànarìvo.
v. These same Sàkalàva, both princes and people, have paid a yearly
poll-tax to the Central Government.
vi. The French flag has never been hoisted on the mainland of
Madagascar, nor, for forty years, has any claim to this territory been
made by France, nothing whatever being said about any rights or
protectorate on their part in the treaties concluded during that period.
vii. The Hova governors have occasionally (after the fashion set now and
then by governors of more civilized peoples) oppressed the conquered
races. But the Sàkalàva have always looked to the Queen at Antanànarìvo
for redress (and have obtained it), and never has any reference been
made to France, nor has any jurisdiction been claimed by France or by
the colonial French authorities in the matter.
viii. British war-vessels have for many years past had the right
(conceded by our treaty of 1865) to cruise in these north-western bays,
creeks, and rivers, for the prevention of the slave trade. The British
Consul has landed on this territory, and in conducting inquiries has
dealt directly with the Hova authorities without the slightest reference
to France, or any claim from the latter that he should do so.
ix. The French representatives in Madagascar have repeatedly blamed the
Central Government for not asserting its authority more fully over the
north-west coast; and several years ago, in the reign of Ranavàlona I.,
a French subject, with the help of a few natives, landed on this coast
with the intention of working some of the mineral productions, and built
a fortified post. Refusing to desist, he was attacked by the Queen's
troops, and eventually killed. No complaint was ever made by the French
authorities on account of this occurrence, as it was admitted to be the
just punishment for an unlawful act. Yet it was done on what the French
now claim as their territory.
x. And, lastly, France has quite recently (in May of this year) extorted
a heavy money fine from the Malagasy Government for a so-called
"outrage" committed by the Sàkalàva upon some Arabs from Mayotta,
sailing under French colours. These latter were illegally attempting to
land arms and ammunition, and were killed in the fight which ensued. The
demand was grossly unjust, but the fact of its having been made would
seem to all impartial persons to vitiate utterly all French claims to
this territory, as an unmistakable acknowledgment of the Hova supremacy
there.
Such are, as far as can be ascertained, the most important reasons
recently put forth for French claims upon Madagascar, and the Malagasy
replies thereto; and it would really be a service to the native
Government and its envoys if some French writer of authority and
knowledge would endeavour to refute the arguments just advanced.
Another point of considerable importance is the demand of the French
that leases of ninety-nine years shall be allowed. This has been
resisted by the Malagasy Government as most undesirable in the present
condition of the country. It is, however, prepared to grant leases of
thirty-five years, renewable on complying with certain forms. It
argues, with considerable reason on its side, that unless all powers of
obtaining land by foreigners are strictly regulated, the more ignorant
coast people will still do as they are known to have done, and will make
over, while intoxicated, large tracts of land to foreign adventurers for
the most trifling consideration, such as a bottle of rum, or a similar
payment.
* * * * *
The question now arises, what have Englishmen to do in this matter, and
what justifies our taking part in the dispute?
Let us first frankly make two or three admissions. We have no right to
hinder, nor do we seek to prevent, the legitimate development of the
colonial power of France. So far as France can replace savagery by true
civilization, we shall rejoice in her advances in any part of the world.
And further, we have no right to, nor do we pretend to the exercise of,
the duty of police of the world. But at the same time, while we ought
not and cannot undertake such extensive responsibilities, we have, in
this part of the Indian Ocean, constituted ourselves for many years a
kind of international police for the suppression of the slave-trade, in
the interests of humanity and freedom; and this fact has been expressly
or tacitly recognized by other European Powers. The sacrifices we have
made to abolish slavery in our own colonies, and our commercial
supremacy and naval power, have justified and enabled us to take this
position. And, as we shall presently show, the supremacy of the French
in Madagascar would certainly involve a virtual revival of the
slave-trade.
It may also be objected by some that, as regards aggression upon foreign
nations, we do not ourselves come into court with clean hands. We must
with shame admit the accusation. But, on the other hand, we do not carry
on religious persecution in the countries we govern; and, further, we
have restored the Transvaal, we have retired from Afghanistan, and,
notwithstanding the advocates of an "Imperialist" policy in Egypt, we
are not going to retain the Nile Delta as a British province. And, as
was well remarked in the _Daily News_ lately, "such an argument proves a
great deal too much. It would be fatal to the progress of public opinion
as a moral agent altogether, and might fix the mistaken policy of a
particular epoch as the standard of national ethics for all time."
What claim, then, has England to intervene in this dispute, and to offer
mediation between France and Madagascar?
(_a_) England has greatly aided Madagascar to attain its present
position as a nation. Largely owing to the help she gave to the
enlightened Hova king, Radàma I., from 1817 to 1828, he was enabled to
establish his supremacy over most of the other tribes of the island,
and, in place of a number of petty turbulent chieftaincies, to form one
strong central government, desirous of progress, and able to put down
intestine wars, as well as the export slave-trade of the country. For
several years a British agent, Mr. Hastie, lived at the Court of Radàma,
exercising a powerful influence for good over the king, and doing very
much for the advancement of the people. In later times, through English
influence, and by the provisions of our treaty with Madagascar, the
import slave-trade has been stopped, and a large section of the slave
population--those of African birth, brought into the island by the Arab
slaving dhows--has been set free (in June,1877).
(_b_) England has done very much during the last sixty years to develop
civilization and enlightenment in Madagascar. The missionary workmen,
sent out by the London Missionary Society from 1820 to 1835, introduced
many of the useful arts--viz., improved methods of carpentry,
iron-working, and weaving, the processes of tanning, and several
manufactures of chemicals, soap, lime-burning, &c.; and they also
constructed canals and reservoirs for rice-culture.
From 1862 to 1882 the same Society's builders have introduced the use of
brick and stone construction, have taught the processes of brick and
tile manufacture and the preparation of slates, and have erected
numerous stone and brick churches, schools, and houses; and these arts
have been so readily learned by the people that the capital and other
towns have been almost entirely rebuilt within the last fifteen years
with dwellings of European fashion. England has also been the principal
agent in the intellectual advance of the Malagasy; for, as already
mentioned, English missionaries were the first to reduce the native
language to a grammatical system, and to give the people their own
tongue in a written form. They also prepared a considerable number of
books, and founded an extensive school system.[20] If we look at what
England has done for Madagascar, a far more plausible case might be made
out--were we so disposed--for "English claims" on the island, than any
that France can produce.
(_c_) England has considerable political interests in preserving
Madagascar free from French control. These should not be overlooked, as
the influence of the French in those seas is already sufficiently
strong. Not only are they established in the small islands of Ste. Marie
and Nòsibé, off Madagascar itself, but they have taken possession of two
of the Comoro group, Mayotta and Mohilla. Réunion is French; and
although Mauritius and the Seychelles are under English government, they
are largely French in speech and sympathy. And it must be remembered
that the first instalment of territory which is now coveted includes
five or six large gulfs, besides numerous inlets and river mouths, and
especially the Bay of Diego Suarez, one of the finest natural harbours,
and admirably adapted for a great naval station. The possession of
these, and eventually of the whole of the island, would seriously affect
the balance of power in the south-west Indian Ocean, making French
influence preponderant in these seas, and in certain very possible
political contingencies would be a formidable menace to our South
African colonies.
(_d_) We have also commercial interests in Madagascar which cannot be
disregarded, because, although the island does not yet contribute
largely to the commerce of the world, it is a country of great natural
resources, and its united export and import trade, chiefly in English
and American hands, is already worth about a million annually. Our own
share of this is fourfold that of the French, and British subjects in
Madagascar outnumber those of France in the proportion of five to one;
and our valuable colony of Mauritius derives a great part of its
food-supply from the great island.