From The National Review. SOME ANGLO-FRENCH PROBLEMS.

IT will be found upon examination that the more important questions between the French government and our own have arisen in connection with the delimitation of frontiers in Africa and in Asia, and that the difficulties with which the two governments have to contend are in great measure due to the absence of reliable knowledge of the geographical conditions prevailing in the remote regions in which the two empires meet. The map of Africa, in fact, requires re-editing month by month. The geographical and ethnographical knowledge which we possess of that continent is amplified, where it is not contradicted, by the stores of information which each returning traveller brings, and nowadays their name is legion. Since the times of Cameron and of Stanley, of Monteil and of Binger, our information of Africa has increased by leaps and bounds. The consequence is, that as fast as our governments draw imaginary lines upon the blank spaces of our maps, fresh knowledge reaches them materially altering or qualifying the information which they thought they possessed, and compelling a reconsideration of many points, which were thought to have been disposed of.

When this stage has been concluded, the unfortunate Warina incident, when Captain Lendy and Lieutenant Maritz were killed, will be ripe for solution.

It is not the intention of this article to recall all the points of dispute within the scope of the review which is now proceeding. It will be sufficient to indicate in outline the most important of them.

THE NILE VALLEY.

THE debate in the House of Com mons on the 28th March respecting the position of Great Britain and of France in Central Africa, and the speech which was delivered on that occasion by Sir Edward Grey, have attracted a good deal of attention both in this country and in France, an attention which the subject matter fully deserves, not only by reason of its immediate interest, but also by reason of the serious consequences which, in certain eventualities, might ensue in the relations existing between the French nation and ourselves. The immediate cause of the debate was an uneasy feeling on the part of a portion of the public that an attempt was being made by France to establish herself upon the banks of the Upper Nile by means of a secret expedition, which was supposed to be marching in that direction with the In the summer of 1894, the British assent and encouragement of the and French governments entered upon French government, but the exact a review of all African questions at whereabouts of which has not been that time pending between the two hitherto definitely ascertained. Exgovernments, for the purpose of arriv-pression was first given to this feeling ing at a satisfactory adjustment. That by an article which appeared in the review comprised about a dozen ques- Times of 5th March, entitled "France, tions of more or less importance; it has been continued up to the present moment; it still continues; and some time must yet elapse before it can be finally disposed of. The only tangible result which has at present been reached, is to be found in the agreement recently effected, defining the precise boundaries to the north and to the east of Sierra Leone, and even this matter cannot be considered to have been satisfactorily settled until a joint delimitation commission has gone over the ground and fixed the boundaries.

England, and the Upper Nile." For some years a large armed force has been collected on the Mobanghi River, prepared originally for the purpose of taking action in support of French claims against the Congo Free State, should the dispute between the two powers relating to the frontiers of the latter in that region reach an acute stage. The well-known Colonel Mon、 teil was to have taken command of the force, and had actually started for the purpose when he was ordered to proceed to the western Soudan upon other

It is somewhat remarkable that M. Hanotaux, speaking in the Senate on 5th April, did not say a word with regard to this expedition, when a word from him would have relieved the anxieties of many people in this country.

What, then, are our rights, if any, in the region towards which this expedition is thought to be directing itself?

Egyptian rights over the said territories, which were in suspense. The western sphere was, however, still further delimited by the first article of the Agreement of 12th May, 1894, between Great Britain and the Congo Free State, wherein the frontier was defined as following the 30th meridian east of Greenwich up to its intersection by the watershed between the Nile and the Congo, and thence following this watershed in a northerly and northwesterly direction. This was the western limit of the territory of which Great Britain granted a lease to King Leopold and his successors under the second article of said Agreement. It

The advance of a French expedition, under secret instructions right through is true that at a subsequent period the from the other side of Africa into a terri- king renounced his rights under the tory over which our claims have been lease to a considerable portion of the known for so long, would be not merely an leased territories. But, so far as Great inconsistent and unexpected act, but it Britain is concerned, a recognition by must be perfectly well known to the French the king of the right of Great Britain to government that it would be an unfriendly lease these territories still remains act, and would be so viewed by England. valid, notwithstanding the surrender This declaration received the general of his own rights at the instance of a approval of the House of Commons. third party. It is true that up to the present we have not sought effectively to occupy a territory, the right to which has been acknowledged by Germany, Italy, and the Congo Free State. We have, however, proclaimed a protecto rate over Uganda. We have also advanced to the Albert Nyanza, and reached Wadelai. It would be a comparatively easy task to send a small The British sphere of influence is expedition down the Nile to Lado, or defined by the Agreement between even farther north, and it is one which Great Britain and Germany of the 1st her Majesty's government ought seJuly, 1890, and is stated therein to be riously to contemplate in the view of bounded "to the west by the Congo possible eventualities in that region. Free State, and by the Western Water- Public opinion in England would never shed of the basin of the Upper Nile." permit a foreign power to intervene By the Agreements of 24th March and establish herself upon the Nile in and 15th April, 1891, between Great such a way as to cut off our access to Britain and Italy, the western fron- Egypt down the river. So long as we tier of the British sphere was not are responsible for the good governspecifically referred to, although the ment of Egypt, the control of the head existence of that sphere was recog-waters of the Nile must remain in our nized. The Agreements dealt more hands. particularly with the eastern boundary of that sphere, and a line from Ras Kasar on the Red Sea to the Blue Nile, and from the Blue Nile to the river Juba, was agreed upon, subject to

Sir Edward Grey, therefore, did not go too far when he said that we should consider as an unfriendly act the mission of an expedition by France to the Upper Nile water, and indeed it is not

improbable that even stronger language | at a modern map of Africa will reveal has been used, in Downing Street or at vast tracts colored as French and as the Quai d'Orsay, of which the British yet unoccupied by French officials, for public has not been made aware.

which it would puzzle French statesmen to produce any better title-deeds than an occasional convention or agreement. In asking France to accept as binding the international agreements upon which we rely, we are only doing what she herself expects us to do in her own case; we are only asking her to do unto us what she expects others to do unto her.

THE NIGER.

The speech of M. Hanotaux on the 5th of April upon this point is of a reasonable and moderate character. He points out that the sphere of British influence has never been defined towards the north, and that the regions in question, if they belong to anybody, belong properly to the khedive of Egypt. The former proposition we are prepared to admit, but if we admit the latter, the admission would debar France as well as our- A DIFFICULTY involving questions of selves from establishing a position considerable importance, has arisen within these territories. Our object, between Great Britain and France, after all, is to safeguard the valley of the Nile in the interests of Egypt, and in our own, as trustees for Egypt, as long as we remain there, and provided that France will recognize and accept this position in any engagement which may be come to, we shall not be likely to quarrel over a few miles more or less upon the summit of the Nile and of the Congo water-shed. But we

upon the banks of the Middle Niger. The telegraphic despatch received in England on the 26th March informed the public that two French expeditions had suddenly appeared upon the banks of the river. One was stated to have reached Bagibo, in Nupe, and to be eucamped on the left or the east bank Niger; the other to have cannot reached Boussa, a town of some imsubmit to the French sphere being car-portance on the banks of the Middle ried across from Senegal on the Atlan-Niger, and the capital of the kingdom tic to Obok on the Indian Ocean. Such of that name. The territory of Nupe a stretch of country would be useless has been considered to be within the to France except as a spoke in our sphere of British influence ever since Egyptian wheel. If, as appears from March, 1885, when the emir of Nupe M. Hanotaux's speech, exception is signed a treaty with the National taken to the western frontier of the African Company, which subsequently British sphere of influence, the views became the Royal Niger Company. of France could and would be met in a The same year also witnessed the sigfriendly spirit, provided that no at- nature of a treaty between the emir tempt be made to drive in a wedge of Borgu or Boussa, and the Niger between the southern limit of the Company; whilst five years later, in Egyptian sphere and the northern limit January, 1890, a fuller treaty of our own. As for the taunt that signed between the emir and chiefs of after all our rights are only paper Borgu or Boussa, with the Niger Comrights, and that France may jump pany, which confirmed the treaty of through them, as a columbine jumps 1885, and granted to the Niger Comthrough the paper hoops at a circus, it pany "complete jurisdiction over all does not lie in the mouth of France, or persons within the territories, who are of any of the great powers which have not our native-born subjects." The competed in the scramble for Africa, treaty also contained a clause to the to utter such reproaches. Are none of effect that the native chiefs would not the rights which France undoubtedly enter into any agreement or treaty with has in Africa " "" paper rights? Are any foreign governments, except with all her rights due to, and based solely the consent of the company, or of her upon, effective occupation? A glance Majesty the queen of Great Britain.

was

cern in the shape of the Niger Company. If, however, these expeditions have in the course of their wanderings

These treaties have all been submitted | mercial results very successful, seeing to the Foreign Office, and have re- that they will have to compete with a ceived the assent of the secretary of large and old-established trading constate. These regions are also included in the proclamation of the British Protectorate over the Niger districts, which was made on the 18th October, been making a series of treaties with 1887, and which included "all territories in the basin of the Niger and its affluents, which are, or may be subject to the government of the Royal Niger Company, in accordance with the provisions of the charter." It is difficult to understand upon what ground given by France.

the chiefs, whose territories they have traversed, the matter becomes more serious, and some further explanation beyond that vouchsafed by M. Hanotaux may fairly be demanded by Great Britain, and ought in justice to be

France can base any claims to acquire The statement of M. Hanotaux, that influence or possessions in this portion several questions relating to the rights of the Middle Niger. It may be true of the Niger Company are at present that the exact frontiers of such king- the subject of discussion between Great doms as Boussa and Nupe are not ac- Britain and France, is not sufficient, curately ascertained or delimited, but, and is no excuse for sending expehowever that may be, it is perfectly ditions into the British Protectorate, clear that no expedition has a right to pending the completion of the negotiapenetrate as far as the Niger without tions in question. the assent of the Niger Company, which is charged with the administration of these countries. These expeditions, presumably, must have come from Dahomey, a country which did not fall into the possession of France until 1893, eight years subsequent to the dates of the treaties with Nupe and Boussa.

In the interpellation of the 5th April in the French Senate, M. Hanotaux gave no explanation as to the origin or the object of these expeditions, but contented himself with challenging the supposed claim of the Niger Company to monopolize trade within the districts more or less effectively occupied by it, and to forbid all transit contrary to the Act of Berlin. Upon this point there can be no difference of opinion between the British and French governments. The Act of Berlin laid down a series of propositions relating to the navigation of the Niger, which Great Britain is prepared to carry out, and to enforce upon the Niger Company. If these expeditions are purely of a commercial and trading character their advent within the British Protectorate of the Niger districts need not cause us much alarm. Their stay is not likely to be very prolonged, nor their com

SIAM.

THE difficulties which have arisen between Great Britain and France in Siam relate to two matters differing in character and of unequal importance. The one is concerned with a delimitation of boundaries, intended to be permanent; the other with the cessation of the occupation of a port, originally of a temporary character.

By the Franco-Siamese Treaty of the 3rd October, 1893, Siam undertook to renounce all claim to the whole of the territories on the left bank of the Mekong, and thereupon the portion of the province of Luang-Prabang, situated on the left bank of the river, passed under the dominion of France. But, in addition to Luang-Prabang, Siam was exercising exclusive jurisdiction over the province of Chieng-Kheng, which lies astride of the Upper Mekong, under an arrangement entered into between Siam and Great Britain. This arrangement included a provision for the retrocession of this province to Great Britain in the event of Siam contemplating its abandonment.

The Franco-Siamese Treaty has now brought France, by virtue of her possession of a portion of Luang-Prabang,