321 



COLON V. 



pean nations from navigating the seas on which their 

 colonies were situated, and to maintain this assump- 

 tion by force. But neither Spain nor Portugal was 

 able to maintain, for a long time, their exaggerated 

 pretensions, against which England and Holland de- 

 clared themselves very early. No sooner, however, 

 had the two last come into possession of the colonial 

 trade, than they announced, if not the same, yet not 

 much nobler principles. Though it was acknowledg- 

 ed, in general, that the Indian seas were not the exclu- 

 sive property of any power, yet the new proprietors 

 endeavoured to secure the exclusive dominion of 

 some large branches of the sea, not only by treaties, 

 but also by acts of violence and oppression, even in 

 the midst of peace. The principle was adopted, in 

 general, that each European nation should be exclud- 

 ed from commerce with the colonies of every other, 

 and not unfrequently foreigners were forbidden even 

 to land. Great Britain first declared the colonial 

 trade free, in 1822, and the Netherlands seem inclin- 

 ed to follow this example. The colonial trade is 

 divided into three principal classes ; the mutual trade 

 between the different countries of those distant re- 

 gions ; the mutual commerce between Europe and 

 the colonies, and the trade in colonial articles in Eu- 

 rope. The mutual trade between those regions 

 where the colonies are situated, which, in the East 

 Indies, before the arrival of the Portuguese, was al- 

 most exclusively in the hands of the Arabians or 

 Moors, the Europeans early sought to appropriate ; 

 yet they did not succeed in making themselves so 

 entirely masters of it, as to exclude other nations, in 

 later times, chiefly the Chinese and Hindoos, from 

 taking a considerable share in it. As little did the 

 trade in colonial articles in Europe remain the exclu- 

 sive property of one nation, though the nation which 

 had brought the goods from the countries where they 

 were produced, had many advantages over others, 

 which were obliged to purchase from it. With the 

 exception of the Spaniards and the Portuguese, who 

 have mostly sold in their own ports the productions 

 which they had brought from their colonies, the na- 

 tions of Europe have endeavoured to be themselves 

 the exclusive carriers of the productions of their co- 

 lonies to the different ports of the European conti- 

 nent. But it was chiefly the intermediate trade be- 

 tween Europe and the colonies, which every nation 

 reserved to itself, to the exclusion of all foreigners. 

 This was the universal practice, even in time of 

 peace, and was retained also in time of war, as long 

 as no European power was master of the sea ; that 

 is, till the middle of the last century. At that time, 

 the British navy attained such a decided superiority, 

 that, during the wars between Britain and France, 

 the latter dared not continue the commerce with its 

 colonies. The French, therefore, adopted a pol'cy, 

 usually practised by them, and the other less power- 

 ful colonial powers, in their future wars with Bri- 

 tain, viz : to declare the trade of the colonies free to 

 all friendly and neutral vessels. By this means, they 

 secured not only their colonies, which could not well 

 do without their supplies, but saved at least a part of 

 the profits of the colonial trade; for the neutrals 

 were mere agents in the commerce between the 

 mother country and the colonies, and the former lost 

 only the freight of the merchandise transported. 

 This commerce being interrupted by Britain, which 

 has always refused to acknowledge the principle 

 " free ships made free goods," the neutrals began to 

 purchase the goods of the colonies, with which they 

 were allowed to trade, and to carry them off as their 

 own property. The British, on the other hand, 

 maintained that this was, in most cases, only a fictiti- 

 ous sale, and that the neutrals were, in one case as 

 well as in the other only the carriers for the belli- 



gerents. This was, no doubt, the fact in most cases, 

 when, for instance, great purchases were made for 

 places and countries where there could be no market 

 for such a quantity of colonial articles; or when 

 some commercial houses, entirely unknown before, 

 suddenly had immense dealings in colonial articles, 

 which they could not possibly pay for. As Britain 

 maintained, besides, that every precaution which 

 could be taken against this fraudulent trade was 

 made ineffectual by the artifices of the neutrals, she 

 laid down a principle, which, under the name of the 

 rule of war of 1756, has made one of the chief points 

 of contest between her and the neutrals. She 

 asserted that this trade, as it was not allowed to 

 neutrals in times of peace, must be considered as the 

 property of the enemy ; must be, like any other 

 thing which he possesses, the subject of contest, and 

 belong to the victor ; that the neutrals had not the 

 right to profit by the permission to carry on this 

 trade, which they had obtained from the enemy only 

 through his necessities, any more than they would be 

 entitled to take under their protection any establish- 

 ment of the enemy which was critically situated. 

 The neutrals, she said, had less reason to complain 

 of being injured, as the commerce with the colonies 

 of the enemy was not permitted in times of peace. 

 Among the neutrals, the United States, in particular, 

 have remonstrated vehemently against the rule of 

 war of 1756 ; while Britain, on the other hand, 

 complained not less bitterly of injuries received from 

 the North Americans. It was not enough that the 

 colonies should be cut off from all intercourse with 

 foreigners ; commercial jealousy and the mercantile 

 system have given rise to a number of other restric- 

 tions, very disadvantageous to their prosperity, and 

 by which their trade with the mother countries has 

 been greatly limited. The policy of the mother 

 countries was, to keep the colonies in the greatest 

 commercial, as well as political dependence. The 

 chief measure taken for this purpose was, the estab- 

 lishment of companies, to which the trade between 

 the mother countries and the colonies was committed 

 exclusively. The government of these companies 

 was politically as oppressive for the colonies as their 

 exclusive right to the colonial commerce was burden- 

 some to their trade. The productions of the mother 

 country, which they sent to the colonies, were usu- 

 ally of inferior quality, and charged at very high 

 prices, in consequence of which the colonies them- 

 selves purchased less. For the mother country, 

 the companies fixed arbitrary prices on the co- 

 lonial articles ; but the companies themselves, in 

 general, gained nothing. Their officers were the 

 only party benefited, as unavoidable frauds of every 

 kind rained the companies sooner or later. Though 

 our own East India company may seem to form 

 an exception, yet it is well known, that, more than 

 once, it has been saved from immediate ruin only by 

 extraordinary circumstances and support. Such com- 

 panies have been represented as necessary for carry- 

 ing on commerce to advantage in foreign countries 

 particularly in the East Indies. The general igno- 

 rance of the customs and manners of those parts, the 

 disadvantages of too great a competition, and, finally, 

 the dangers attending intercourse with princes and 

 nations of predatory habits, have been brought for- 

 ward as arguments to prove that such a trade cannot 

 be carried on by individuals. It was not considered 

 that ignorance of habits and customs, and the dan- 

 gers of interfering with each other's market, exist in 

 other branches of commerce, which nobody ever 

 thought of managing by companies ; and that the 

 hostility of the princes and tribes in such countries is 

 generally excited by the companies themselves ; as 

 the servant of a powerful corporation behaves, in 



