while England made a like undertaking as to French influence in Morocco. France conceded certain of its fishing rights in Newfoundland which had been a perpetual source of irritation between the two countries for nearly two hundred years since the treaty of Utrecht of 1713. In return England made several concessions to France in Africa, including that of the Los Islands off Sierra Leone and some rectifications of frontier on the Gambia and between the Niger and Lake Chad. Other points of difference were arranged as to Siam, the New Hebrides and Madagascar. The convention of 1904 was on the whole more advantageous for England than for France. The free hand which England conceded to France in dealing with Morocco was a somewhat burdensome gift owing to German interference; but the incidents which arose from the Franco-German conflict in that country are as yet too recent for any estimate of their possible consequences.
One result was the retirement of M. Delcassé from the foreign
office on the 6th of June 1905. He had been foreign minister
for seven years, a consecutive period of rare length,
only once exceeded in England since the creation of
the office, when Castlereagh held it for ten years,
The work of
M. Delcassé.
and one of prodigious duration in the history of the
Third Republic. He first went to the Quai d’Orsay in the Brisson
ministry of June 1898, remained there during the Dupuy ministry
of the same year, was reappointed by M. Waldeck-Rousseau
in his cabinet which lasted from June 1899 to June 1902, was
retained in the post by M. Combes till his ministry fell in January
1905, and again by his successor M. Rouvier till his own resignation
in June of that year. M. Delcassé had thus an uninterrupted reign
at the foreign office during a long critical period of transition
both in the interior politics of France and in its exterior relations.
He went to the Quai d’Orsay when the Dreyfus agitation was
most acute, and left it when parliament was absorbed in discussing
the separation of church and state. He saw the Franco-Russian
alliance lose its popularity in the country even before the
Russian defeat by the Japanese in the last days of his ministry.
Although in the course of his official duties at the colonial office
he had been partly responsible for some of the expeditions sent
to Africa for the purpose of checking British influence, he was
fully disposed to pursue a policy which might lead to a friendly
understanding with England. In this he differed from M.
Hanotaux, who was essentially the man of the Franco-Russian
alliance, owing to it much of his prestige, including his election
to the French Academy, and Russia, to which he gave exclusive
allegiance, was then deemed to be primarily the enemy of
England. M. Delcassé on the contrary, from the first, desired to
assist a rapprochement between England and Russia as preliminary
to the arrangement he proposed between England
and France. He was foreign minister when the tsar paid his
second visit to France, but there was no longer the national
unanimity which welcomed him in 1896, M. Delcassé also accompanied
President Loubet to Russia when he returned the tsar’s
second visit in 1902. But exchange of compliments between
France and Russia were no longer to be the sole international
ceremonials within the attributes of the French foreign office;
M. Delcassé was minister when the procession of European
sovereigns headed by the kings of England and of Italy in 1903
came officially to Paris, and he went with M. Loubet to London
and to Rome on the president’s return visits to those capitals—the
latter being the immediate cause of the rupture of the concordat
with the Vatican, though M. Delcassé was essentially a
concordatory minister. His retirement from the Rouvier
ministry in June 1905 was due to pressure from Germany in
consequence of his opposition to German interference in Morocco.
His resignation took place just a week after the news had arrived
of the destruction of the Russian fleet by the Japanese, which
completed the disablement of the one ally of France. The
impression was current in France that Germany wished to give
the French nation a fright before the understanding with England
had reached an effective stage, and it was actually believed
that the resignation of M. Delcassé averted a declaration of war.
Although that belief revived to some extent the fading enmity
of the French towards the conquerors of Alsace-Lorraine, the
fear which accompanied it moved a considerable section of the
nation to favour an understanding with Germany in preference
to, or even at the expense of, friendly relations with England.
M. Clémenceau, who only late in life came into office, and
attained it at the moment when a better understanding with
England was progressing, had been throughout his long career,
of all French public men in all political groups, the most consistent
friend of England. His presence at the head of affairs
was a guarantee of amicable Anglo-French relations, so far as
they could be protected by statesmanship.
By reason of the increased duration and stability of ministries, the personal influence of ministers in directing the foreign policy of France has in one sense become greater in the 20th century than in those earlier periods when France had first to recuperate its strength after the war and then to take its exterior policy from Germany. Moreover, not only have cabinets lasted longer, but the foreign minister has often been retained in a succession of them. Of the thirty years which in 1909 had elapsed since Marshal MacMahon retired and the republic was governed by republicans, in the first fifteen years from 1879 to 1894 fourteen different persons held the office of minister of foreign affairs, while six sufficed for the fifteen years succeeding the latter date. One must not, however, exaggerate the effect of this greater stability in office-holding upon continuity of policy, which was well maintained even in the days when there was on an average a new foreign minister every year. Indeed the most marked breach in the continuity of the foreign policy of France has been made in that later period of long terms of office, which, with the repudiation of the Concordat, has seen the withdrawal of the French protectorate over Roman Catholic missions in the East—though it is too soon to estimate the result. In another respect France has under the republic departed a long way from a tradition of the Quai d’Orsay. It no longer troubles itself on the subject of nationalities. Napoleon III., who had more French temperament than French blood in his constitution, was an idealist on this question, and one of the causes of his own downfall and the defeat of France was his sympathy in this direction with German unity. Since Sedan little has been done in France to further the doctrine of nationalities. A faint echo of it was heard during the Boer war, but French sympathy with the struggling Dutch republics of South Africa was based rather on anti-English sentiment than on any abstract theory. (J. E. C. B.)
Bibliography of French History.—The scientific study of the history of France only begins with the 16th century. It was hampered at first by the traditions of the middle ages and by a servile imitation of antiquity. Paulus Aemilius of Verona (De rebus gestis Francorum, 1517), who may be called the first of modern historians, merely applies the oratorical methods of the Latin historiographers. It is not till the second half of the century that history emancipates itself; Catholics and Protestants alike turn to it for arguments in their religious and political controversies. François Hotman published (1574) his Franco-Gallia; Claude Fauchet his Antiquités gauloises et françoises (1579); Étienne Pasquier his Recherches de la France (1611), “the only work of erudition of the 16th century which one can read through without being bored.” Amateurs like Petau, A. de Thou, Bongars and Peiresc collected libraries to which men of learning went to draw their knowledge of the past; Pierre Pithou, one of the authors of the Satire Ménippée, published the earliest annals of France (Annales Francorum, 1588, and Historiae Francorum scriptores coetanei XI., 1596), Jacques Bongars collected in his Gesta Dei per Francos (1611–1617) the principal chroniclers of the Crusades. Others made a study of chronology like J. J. Scaliger (De emendatione temporum, 1583; Thesaurus temporum, 1606), sketched the history of literature, like François Grudé, sieur of La Croix in Maine (Bibliothèque françoise, 1584), and Antoine du Verdier (Catalogue de tous les auteurs qui ont écrit ou traduit en français, 1585), or discussed the actual principles of historical research, like Jean Bodin (Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, 1566) and Henri Lancelot Voisin de La Popelinière (Histoire des histoires, 1599).
But the writers of history are as yet very inexpert; the Histoire générale des rois de France of Bernard de Girard, seigneur de Haillan (1576), the Grandes Annales de France of François de Belleforest (1579), the Inventaire général de l’histoire de France of Jean de Serres (1597), the Histoire générale de France depuis Pharamond of Scipion Dupleix (1621–1645), the Histoire de France (1643–1651) of François Eudes de Mézeray, and above all his Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire
