was revived, in 1594, with the utmost severity, and a number of Dutch vessels in the harbor were seized. Excluded from all trade in the productions of India, they had no alternative left, but to resign this branch of commerce entirely, or to import directly from India the articles which were refused to them in Europe. Encouraged by Cornelius Houtmann, a wellinformed man, who had made several unsuccessful attempts to find a northern passage to the East Indies, the "company of remote parts," composed of merchants of Amsterdam and Antwerp, equipped four vessels, which set sail for the East Indies, April 2, 1595, under the command of Houtmann and Molenaer. Though the profits of the first expedition were not so great as had been expected, the weakness and unpopularity of the Portuguese, who were universally hated in India, were discovered, and similar companies were soon formed, which sent fleets to this rich region. The number of competitors in India was thus immoderately increased, and the continued hostility of the united Spanish and Portuguese power induced the states-general, not many years afterwards, to unite the separate societies into one, called the Dutch East India company, which, by a charter granted March 20, 1602, and renewed afterwards at different times, received not only the monopoly of the East India trade, but also sovereign powers over the conquests which they should make and the colonies which they should establish in India. The superintendence which the states-general retained for themselves was little more than nominal. The colonial system of the Dutch in the East Indies was rapidly developed, and early received the decided character which it has ever since retained. Their colonies in the East Indies became commercial colonies, and the Moluccas and the great Sunda isles, being more easily defended than the continent of India, which was then subjected to powerful rulers, became the principal seat of their power. This was undoubtedly the chief cause of their continuing so long in a flourishing condition, as they required only the dominion of the sea to maintain them. In 1618, the newly-built Batavia was made, by the governor-general Koen, the capital of the Dutch possessions. The Dutch now rapidly deprived the Portuguese of all their East Indian territories, not, indeed, without resistance, but with little difficulty; and, in 1611, they found means to become exclusive masters of the trade to Japan. Thus the Portuguese retained but a few insignificant possessions in Goa, the melancholy remains of their former grandeur. About the middle of the 17th century, the power of the Dutch reached its highest point; particularly after they had effected the establishment of a colony at the cape of Good Hope (which, in 1653, afforded an excellent bulwark for their East Indian possessions), and had taken Ceylon from the Portuguese in 1658. All the Dutch colonies in the East Indies were under the governor-general of Batavia, to whom were subordinate several governments, directories, commanderies and residences, the titles and number of which varied with the importance of the different colonies at different times. In Europe, the colonial administration was conducted by a council of ten Bewindhebbers, who were chosen from a body of 60 directors. In 1621, the Dutch established also a West India company which, at first, made extensive conquests in Brazil (1630—1640), but lost them again in 1642. Their settlements on some of the smaller West India islands, as San Eustatia, Curaçao, Saba and St. Martin (1632-49), were more permanent, and were particularly important on account of the smuggling trade there carried on. On the continent, only Surinam, Paramaribo, Essequibo and Berbice were in the hands of the Dutch in 1667. Nearly at the same time with the Dutch, the English made their appearance as a colonial power, at first with far inferior success. They first visited remote seas during the reign of queen Elizabeth. After many fruitless attempts to find a northeast or north-west passage to the East Indies, English vessels found their way round the cape of Good Hope to the East Indies in 1591. Dec. 31, 1600, Elizabeth granted a charter to a society instituted for the purpose of carrying on an exclusive trade beyond the cape and the straits of Magellan. Their commerce with India, however, was not, at first, important. They established only single factories on the continent. The island of St. Helena, which was taken possession of by them in 1601, was almost their only permanent possession in that quarter of the world. During the reign of Charles I, in 1623, the English East India company was driven from the Spice islands by the Dutch, and retained, besides fort St. George, built in 1620, at Madras, only some factories on the coasts of Malabar and Coromandel. From 1653 to 1658, the company seemed to be entirely dissolved, until it was revived and supported against the Dutch by Cromwell. But, during the reign of Charles II, it again fell into decay, chiefly by its own fault. A new East India company, with a charter from the crown, was formed in 1698, and the union of both in 1708, as it then seemed, alone saved the East Indian trade from total ruin. The possessions of the English in India were limited almost entirely to Madras, Calcutta and Bencoolen, and the vast British empire there dates only from the middle of the 18th century. The ruin of the Mogul empire in India, which commenced in internal disturbances after the death of Aureng-Zebe (1707), and was completed by the incursions of Nadir Shah (1739), afforded the opportunity for the growth of British power, as the English and French interfered in the contentions of the native princes and governors. The French, under Labourdonnaye and Dupleix, appeared, at first, to maintain the superiority; but the English succeeded, after driving both of them from India, in acquiring the ascendency in the Carnatic, and, in the middle of the last century, extended their dominion, under the command of Laurence and Clive. (q. v.) By the destruction of Pondicherry, they secured their superiority on the coast of Coromandel; and the victory of Clive at Plassey, June 26, 1756, laid the foundation of their exclusive sovereignty in India. By the treaty of Allahabad, Aug. 12, 1765, Bengal was surrendered to the English by the titular great Mogul, and the nabob of the country retained but a shadow of dominion. The fall of the empire of Mysore (the dominions of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saïb) may be considered as completely establishing the exclusive sovereignty of the British in India. The Mahrattas, with whom the English first waged war in 1774, remained the only formidable enemies of the company. The British territory in India was now of an extraordinary extent, including the whole eastern shore, the greater part of the western, and all the countries on the Ganges and Jumna to Delhi. (For the recent changes in the English and Dutch East Indies, see India and East India Companies.) Almost at the same time with the first attempts of the English to participate in the East Indian commerce, the London and Plymouth companies were established (1606) by James I; the former for the southern, the latter for the northern half of the North American coast; and, in the same year, Jamestown, on Chesapeake bay, was founded. The colonies in a country which possessed neither gold nor other productions of nature or art particularly adapted for commerce, necessarily became agricultural colonies. During the domestic disturbances in England, which caused much emigration, the North American colonies greatly increased; separate colonies were formed, and, after the dissolution of the London company in 1625, and of the Plymouth company in 1637, received constitutions containing many republican principles. In later times arose the English establishments in the West India islands, including Barbadoes, half of St. Christopher's (1625), and, soon after, many smaller islands. Yet the West India possessions did not become important as plantations until the sugar-cane was introduced into Barbadoes (1641) and into Jamaica in 1660. This island had been taken from the Spaniards in 1655. The British colonies in North America prospered_much more than those in the West Indies, even after the cultivation of coffee had been introduced into the latter in 1732. In the same year, Georgia, the youngest of the thirteen provinces, was founded. Newfoundland (in French, Terre-neuve) also became important for its cod-fisheries, and Canada was surrendered to England at the peace of Paris, in 1763. In 1764 began the dispute between England and its North American colonies, on the question, whether the former had the right to impose taxes on the colonies when they were not represented in the British parliament; and, April 19, 1775, commenced the war, in which the Americans were assisted by France, and which terminated with the acknowledgment of the independence of the thirteen provinces. By the peace of Paris (1783), the first independent state in the new world was recognised in Europe. The power of England was not broken by this event; its commerce with the new republic increased rapidly. Canada and Nova Scotia were now of the greatest importance to it; and the British West India islands rose in proportion as the restrictions on commerce diminished. But the free states of North America advanced with giant strides; their number has increased from 13 to 24, and their flag waves over every sea. The West India colonies, however, were unfavorably affected by the extension of the cultivation of productions previously peculiar to them. The slave-trade was also abolished (1806). France acquired colonies later than the Dutch and English. Her colonies, and what, at first, was thought indispensable for them, commercial companies, were the work of Colbert. He purchased, on several West Indian islands, as Martinique, Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, Grenada, and others, settlements already formed by private persons (1664), and, in the same year, sent colonists to Cayenne. But the settlements on a part of St. Domingo by the piratical state of the Buccaneers became the most important. The West India company, erected likewise in 1664, survived only 10 years. Sugar and cotton, and, since 1728, coffee (first introduced into Martinique), have been the most important productions of the West Indian colonies, which, by the great commercial privileges granted them in 1717, and by the smuggling trade with Spanish America, soon obtained the ascendency over the English. Though France, by the terms of the peace of Paris (1763), lost some of its smaller islands, it was indemnified by the riches of St. Domingo, which furnished, in the years preceding the revolution, an annual gross revenue of 170,000,000 livres-almost as much as all the rest of the West Indies together. In 1791 and the succeeding years, St. Domingo suffered terribly, but it has risen again under an entirely new form. (See Hayti.) In 1661, France possessed Canada, Acadia or Nova Scotia, on the continent, and the island of Newfoundland. These colonies, however, made but slow progress. The last was ceded to England by the treaty of Utrecht (1713); the two first, with Cape Breton, in 1763. Louisiana, declining in prosperity, was given up to Spain (1764), and Cayenne could ill atone for these losses. Louisiana was afterwards restored to France, but sold by her, in 1803, to the U. States of North America. The French did not meet with much better success in their attempts to establish themselves in the East Indies. In 1664, Colbert founded an East India company. After fruitless attempts to form a colony in Madagascar, Pondicherry was founded on the coast of Coromandel in 1670, and soon became the chief seat of the French East Indies. But the company fell into decay. In 1719, it was united with the Mississippi company, but still remained feeble. On the other hand, the French took possession of Isle de France and Bourbon, in 1720, which had been abandoned by the Dutch, and which attained a flourishing condition under the administration of Labourdonnaye (commencing in 1736), by the cultivation of coffee, whilst Dupleix, as governor-general of Pondicherry, had the direction of affairs in the East Indies. Here the arms of the French had been successful since 1751; but the peace of 1763 deprived them of their conquests, and the East India company was dissolved in 1769. The French now possess only Karical and the demolished town of Pondicherry. By the possession of the island of Bourbon alone, they have maintained a doubtful influence upon the commerce of the East Indies. The Danes and Swedes have likewise had colonies; and there was a time when even Austria endeavored to partake in the colonial commerce. An East India company was formed in Denmark, in 1618, in the reign of Christian IV, which acquired Tranquebar from the rajah of Tanjore, but was dissolved in 1634. The second company, formed in 1670, which survived till 1729, was not more fortunate. In 1671, the Danes also occupied the West India island of St. Thomas, to which were added, in the first half of the 18th century, St. John and Santa Cruz, which they purchased from France. In 1734, a West India company was established; but, on its dissolution (1764), the commerce with the West Indies was made free to every one, and the islands there improved rapidly. The East India commerce, for which a company had been instituted in 1732, was also very lucrative. But the company traded chiefly with China, and ceded their settlements in the East Indies to the crown in 1777.-Sweden, though it had no possessions in India, established an East India company, in 1731, in order to engage directly in the tea trade with China, which it carried on with much success. In 1784, by the acquisition of the small island of St. Bartholomew from France, it gained a firm footing in the West Indies.-Austria was less successful. Under the reign of Charles VI, she attempted to engage in the direct commerce with the East Indies by establishing the company of Ostend (1722), but was obliged, by the violent opposition of England and Holland, to dissolve the company in 1731. An attempted settlement, in the last quarter of the 18th century, on the Nicobar islands, in the Indian ocean, which were occupied, in earlier times, by the Danes, but abandoned on account of the unhealthiness of the situation, was equally unsuccessful. A company was first established in Russia, in 1787, for obtaining furs on the Kurile isles, the Aleutian isles, and the north-west coast of North America. An ukase, in favor of this company, forbidding other nations to trade and fish on the coasts of Asia and North America, from 51° N. lat. on the American side, and the S. cape of the island of Urup on the Asiatic, together with the intermediate islands, met with opposition from the U. States; but, by a treaty concluded at St. Petersburg, April 17, 1824, it was agreed that the people of both governments should be allowed to trade or fish unmolested in any part of the Pacific ocean or its coasts. It was also agreed that no establishment should be formed on the north-west coast to the north of 54° by citizens of the U. States, nor to the south of the same point by Russian subjects. While the slave-trade was unobstructed, Africa was of much importance in respect to the colonial interests of Europe. The African establishments are mostly single fortified factories along the coasts of Africa. Their chief object was the slavetrade, which was chiefly carried on by privileged companies. A free Negro colony was founded at Sierra Leone, by the English (1786), and the abolition of the slave-trade (q. v.), which originated with Denmark and England (1802 and 1806), must necessarily affect the African settlements.-The discovery of Australasia led, in 1788, to the settlement at Sydney cove, in New South Wales, and those in Van Diemen's land (q. v.), which soon became flourishing colonies. (See N. S. Wales.) The commerce of the world (see Commerce) received a powerful impulse from the colonies, and the nations soon perceived that these constituted one of the chief sources of their wealth. It is, however, not to be denied, that the illusions of the mercantile system, so called, and, still more, the great wealth which some colonial powers acquired, and which was attributed exclusively to their colonial trade, caused an exaggerated value to be affixed to this commerce, without sufficient regard to the particular character and genius of the different nations, their geographical and political situation, and the circumstances of the time. Under the influence of this misapprehension, each state endeavored to exclude all strangers from participating in it; and a law of nations was formed, with regard to the colonies, which was distinguished from the common European law of nations by its ungenerous principles. Thus the Portuguese and Spaniards endeavored to exclude all other European nations from navigating the seas on which their colonies were situated, and to maintain this assumption by force. But neither Spain nor Portugal was able to maintain, for a long time, their exaggerated pretensions, against which England and Holland declared 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 acknowledged, in general, that the Indian seas were not the exclusive property of any power, yet the new proprietors endeavored 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 excluded 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 inclined to follow this example. The colonial trade is divided into three principal classes; the mutual trade between the different countries of those distant regions; the mutual commerce between Europe and the colonies, and the trade in colonial articles in Europe. The mutual trade between those regions where the colonies are situated, which, in the East Indies, before the arrival of the Portuguese, was almost 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 exclusive 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 nations of Europe have endeavored to be themselves the exclusive carriers of the productions of their colonies to the different ports of the European continent. But it was chiefly the intermediate trade between 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 English navy attained such a decided superiority, that, during the wars between England and France, the latter dared not continue the commerce with its colonies. The French, therefore, adopted a policy, usually practised by them, and the other less powerful colonial powers, in their future wars with England, 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 England, which has always refused to acknowledge the principle "free ships make 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 English, on the other hand, maintained that this was, in most cases, only a fictitious sale, and that the neutrals were, in one case as well as in the other, only the carriers for the belligerents. 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 England 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. The English asserted that this trade, as it was not allowed to the 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 establishment of the enemy which was critically situated. The neutrals, they 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 U. States, in particular, have remonstrated vehemently against the rule of war of 1756; while England, 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 restrictions, 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 establishment 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 burdensome to their trade. The productions of the mother country, which they sent to the colonies, were usually of inferior quality, and charged at very high prices, in consequence of which the colonies themselves produced less. For the mother country, the companies fixed arbitrary prices on the colonial articles; but the companies themselves, in general, gained nothing. Their officers were the only party benefited, as unavoidable frauds of every kind ruined the companies sooner or later. Though the English 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 companies have been represented as necessary for carrying on commerce to advantage in foreign countries, particularly in the East Indies. The general ignorance 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 forward 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 dangers 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 general, with more violence and haughtiness than the single, defenceless merchant, who |