who carry on so much of the imperial work of Great Britain. It is therefore remarked by all, that in French colonies very few Frenchmen, outside of the official hierarchy, are to be found. Indeed, during the present century there has been very little true colonization by Frenchmen in foreign lands. The French colonies in Canada, Louisiana, and South America have not been reënforced by accessions from the home country. Even in Algeria, which by its geographical situation is almost a province of France itself, there are only 318,000 Frenchmen against 446,300 subjects of other states. . . On account of the rigid and illiberal colonial system introduced by the French bureaucracy, French colonies have very little attraction for foreigners, who wish to be free from constant irritation and interference by the administration. The French colonies, therefore, have been an expensive luxury, and they have not become a field for investment and industrial exploration to the same extent as have the colonies of other nations. By discouraging her colonies from entering into commercial and industrial relations with any but the mother country, France is really excluding from them the capital and men that alone could make them profitable. 450. Criticism of the French colonial system. Some of the merits and defects of the French colonial system are indicated in the following: One important feature which marked the administration of the French colonies before the Revolution was the vigorous endeavor to secure absolute uniformity in the governance of all the dependencies, with little provision for differences in local conditions. . . . On the contrary, the present system exhibits entire flexibility both in the methods of supervising colonial affairs from home, and in the organizations of the colonies themselves. . . . There is now, therefore, a decentralization of control which contrasts very strongly with the excessive centralization of the old dominion, and even with the very symmetrical policy which characterizes other branches of French administration at the present day. This division of control has, on the whole, been advantageous; for it has helped to give French colonial policy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries an elasticity which it utterly lacked in the eighteenth, and it has likewise served to mitigate that pernicious faith in administrative shibboleths which has too often been the curse of French politics both at home and abroad. One feature which serves to distinguish the present colonial system of France from that of Great Britain, Germany, or the United States, is the practice of giving to dependent territories a certain representation in the official councils of the mother state. Algeria, being regarded as part of France, has of course its quota of representatives. . . . The protectorates, including Tunis, have no representation at all in the French parliament although the degree of control exercised over them is fully as great as in several other territorial dependencies. Of the score or more of "colonies proper," only seven have the right to send representatives .; to others not less important no rights of representation are given. Among the seven colonies now holding the privilege, no rational basis of representation is established, senators and deputies being allotted without any due regard for differences in population, in area, in wealth, or in contributions to the national exchequer. . . The methods by which the various dependencies select their representatives afford further illustrations of the elasticity of the system. In Algeria, the natives do not vote at all. In Martinique, Guadaloupe, and Réunion they hold the franchise on equal terms with Frenchmen, and the same is substantially true of Senegal. In French India and in French Guiana they have a right to vote, but not on equal terms with the French inhabitants; yet even with the handicap they hold a dominant hand in the elections. In Cochin China they are almost entirely shut out, and the French residents are in control. Although the system of colonial representation has not been without its very distinct advantages, particularly in affording the colonies a recognized official channel through which their grievances might be effectively set forth, it has, without doubt, fallen far short of expectations. In a senate of three hundred and a chamber of six hundred members, the colonial representatives form so insignificant an element that their voting strength is scarcely sufficient to make their support worth the interest of any of the leading political factions. Not infrequently the colonies select as their representatives men who have already taken an active part in French politics at home; but in the main this practice is not followed. In either case, the objection is often made that the colonial deputies interest themselves too prominently in the purely domestic politics of the republic, and too frequently lose sight of the special colonial interests which they are supposed to guard. . . . The methods by which senators and deputies are selected in the colonies have also been rather harshly criticized. There are those, indeed, who urge vigorously and with a good deal of circumstantial evidence to support them, that the colonial representatives do not in many cases faithfully reflect the public opinion of the colonies from which they are accredited. In view of the small percentage of native votes polled, and especially in view of the notorious activity of French officials in connection with the colonial elections, it is indeed questionable whether the colonial deputies sometimes represent much more than the official class in the colonies. In all the represented colonies except Cochin China the native element has a decisive numerical preponderance; and even where it has not equal weight with the French it is nevertheless strong enough to control the elections. This the French inhabitants regard as a substantial grievance; for the natives contribute only insignificant sums to the exchequer, and, with a few unimportant exceptions, furnish no recruits to the military establishment; whereas the colonial Frenchmen bear the brunt of financial and military burdens, and yet are allotted only a minor share in the choice of those who assume to represent the wishes of the colony in the councils of the nation. . One aspect of the question which has elicited discussion in recent years relates to the bearing which the system of colonial representation has upon the question of political development within the colonies. themselves. In the colonies of France the march to colonial autonomy, or toward anything approaching autonomy, has been extremely slow; in none of them is there yet the faintest recognition of this principle. The French government of the present day, therefore, aware that a half century of experience has not served to stamp with marked success its ventures along the path of political assimilation, finds itself in the somewhat awkward predicament of not being ready to carry the principle of colonial representation to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, it cannot easily withdraw the representative privilege from those colonies to which it has been accorded; for the system has come to be regarded, both in France and in the colonies, as an incident of republicanism, since it was established by the first republic, revived by the second, and made a constitutional fixture by the third. For sentimental reasons, then, if for nothing more, the elimination of the colonial representatives need hardly be looked for in the very near future. The French have halted, accordingly, between the Spanish and Portuguese systems, which accord representation to all dependent territories, and the British system, which grants representation to none. 451. German colonial policy. At present German colonial ambition is awakening and German commercial interests are widespread.1 1 Copyright, 1900, by The Macmillan Company. Germany, though a great colonizer, has not thus far been prominent in the establishment of political dependencies, as up to the present decade most of her colonists have been lost to the nation. Going chiefly to North America, they have rapidly become Americanized, and even though they may continue to cherish German culture and literature, they have changed their political allegiance completely. Like the Russians, the Germans have been very successful as agricultural colonists. In many portions of the United States, they have replaced the Anglo-Americans and the Irish in the farming industry. Like the Dutch colonists in South Africa, the Germans are content to settle in a wilderness in the hope of turning it into an inviting abode and making it their permanent home. They shun no hardships; their regularity of work and their endurance assure them permanent success as agriculturists. In our day, Germany is making great efforts to retain the political allegiance of the many colonists who leave her borders; she now endeavors to direct immigration to her own colonies and to Asia Minor, parts of which she hopes by ultimate political occupation to save for the German Empire. German agricultural and industrial colonies are also common in Brazil, in the Argentine Republic, and in Chile. In this connection, too, our attention may well be turned for a moment to the fact that the Germans have within the last decades developed remarkable ability as traders. The highly trained German clerks are to-day the admiration of the commercial world, and the German merchant colonies in places like Hongkong and Rio de Janeiro are rapidly gaining on the supremacy so long held by British commerce. In the political colonies and protectorates which Germany has established in East Africa and in the Cameroons, as well as in the Pacific Islands, real colonization has been slow to take root, because, in addition to the disadvantageous climate, the German administrative restrictions are unfavorable. The governmental bureaucracy of Germany, not being so flexible and adaptive in its modes of procedure as are the commercial classes, tries to apply to new settlements in the wilderness the methods of the Prussian police sergeant, with the result of so hampering the movements and activities of colonists that many prefer to settle in non-German territory. 452. The Dutch in Java. The Dutch colony of Java has often been considered a model of colonial administration. It may be well in this place to call attention to the remarkable success achieved by the Dutch in their government of Java. In the present period of great territorial expansion, we are likely to overlook the more modest colonial establishments of a country from which its mightier neighbors might learn many a lesson in colonial administration. The Dutch are free, on the one hand, from the rigid officialism and the formal routine which embarrasses their continental neighbors; and on the other, from the overbearing behavior that characterizes the English in their intercourse with other nations. The Dutch, therefore, win the affection of their subject races, although by no means indiscriminately fraternizing with them. Their flexible methods enable them to take account and make use of all the local native social institutions for the purposes of good government. By allowing the tribes to observe their traditional customs and by maintaining native dignitaries, the Dutch govern with very little friction, retain the confidence and love of their subjects, and are enabled to exert far greater influence than the use of harsher methods would permit. For the judicious management of native populations, and for the molding of native institutions to the ends of a more enlightened policy, the Dutch colonial administration may serve as a model. 453. Russia as a colonizer. Russia's gradual expansion eastward has been made easy by her ability to deal successfully with Oriental peoples. Russian colonization has been almost entirely agricultural. In past centuries, spreading gradually from Little Russia over the plains and steppes to the north and east, Russian population advanced with an avalanche-like motion which continued even when the boundary of Asia was reached. And to-day, though the political methods of Russia have become more consciously systematic, agricultural colonization is still the keystone of her expansion. In its latest phases, the character of Russian colonization has undergone significant changes. The original occupation of Central Asia by Russia was largely military in method, a fact due to the initiative and ambition of military officers stationed in that country. Thus, under the veil of punitive expeditions, tribe after tribe of the natives was conquered and subdued, and a firm military administration introduced. The methods pursued by the Russian in these regions were at first harsh and relentless. By striking memorable blows, they terrified the population and deprived the people of their leaders. After these first steps, however, they adopted more suave methods. The surviving leaders they endowed with official appointments, and took them to the West to admire the power and splendor of the Czar. Russian industry and commerce were gradually introduced and tracts of land hitherto unoccupied were settled by Russian colonists. There was no attempt to introduce religious uniformity by state action; in Asia the empire has shown itself tolerant toward all beliefs. The natural affability of Russian character was given an opportunity to |