recognition of a mutual obligation growing out of an established relationship. The expression, "the colonial pact," implied that the mutual restrictions and obligations were such as arose from the definition of the terms of the relationship, and grew out of the balancing of the respective interests of the parties-the Constitution, laws, and customs of the Imperial State on the one side against the local circumstances and conditions of the dependencies on the other.

The principle of "the colonial pact was evolved by France after a long and extensive experience in the administration of dependencies. The French Colonial Empire of the seventeenth century was as wonderful for its day as is the British Empire for the present time. Between 1603 and 1664, privileged companies were organized for the colonization of Canada, Acadia, Sumatra, Java, Molucca, the East Indies, Madagasca uinea, and Africa. Between 1664 and 1718, similar companies were organized on expiration of the former charters, for colonizing and exploiting the East and West Indies, Senegal, Guinea, Acadia, San Domingo, the Hudson's Bay region, China, and Canada. Many of these ventures came to nothing, but, on the other hand, some succeeded. - In 1750, the Colonial Empire of France included Canada, Acadia, Louisiana, several islands in the West Indies, Guiana, Senegal, and a number of islands near Africa and Australia. The French Colonial Empire of 1750 is said to have included a region four million five hundred square miles in extent.

A theory developed out of this enormous and diversified experience by a State having so just and moderate a conception of the character and extent of governmental power is certainly deserving of serious and careful consideration. When closely examined, it is to be noticed that by the use of the word "pact" to describe the bond between France and its dependencies, it was necessarily

implied that the dependencies were legal and political persons-that is, States-distinct from the State of France, since a pact, like every other form of contract, necessarily implies two persons, as parties to the contract, each of whom is capable of contracting. It was implied in the whole expression, "the colonial pact," that the terms of the relationship were such that the stronger party recognized itself as under a moral obligation to the weaker party to see that the relationship was on the same terms as if they had been equal in strength, though it was to judge what such terms ought to be. The conception of the relationship between France and its dependencies as one arising out of a "pact" was therefore a conception of the dependencies as States in a federal union with the State of France.

According to this theory, there existed an implied. contract een the Imperial State and its dependencies, which determined the relations between them, and according to which the Imperial State agreed to render services for the dependencies in the way of physical protection and political guidance, and they agreed to pay for those services by means of restrictions on their trade and commerce for the benefit of the Imperial State. Just what services were to be rendered, and just what payment was to be made for the services, the Imperial State determined, but in making such determinations or dispositions, it consulted the wish of the dependencies and regarded their interests.

It has often been claimed that the theory of "the colonial pact" was invented as a means of covering upoppression of the dependencies by France. It seems, however, that it was rather the conception of a wise statesmanship, which foresaw that remote and scattered dependencies could not in the long run be held by force, and that they must be regarded as being to some extent political persons, or States, in a relationship with France

ト

resembling a federal union.

As the French Colonies developed to a point where their populations were capable of expressing their will in an organized manner, they were given the right to have Local Councils, of the same kind as those of the Provinces of France itself, whose advice was carefully considered by the King and his Council before any acts of the King became final.

The same author from whom we have quoted above, M. Émilien Petit, in his Droit Public ou Gouvernement des Colonies Françoises, published in 1771, gives many examples of French colonial charters and commissions in which the duty of the colonists to observe the ordinances and regulations of the King and the judgments of the courts in accordance with the custom (common law) of Paris is stated, but in which it is recognized that the local circumstances and conditions of the colonists are entitled to be considered. He shows that where colonies were given the right to have Local Councils, these Councils had the right of remonstrance against ordinances or regulations proposed by the King, of substantially the same kind as the Local Councils or Parlements of the Provinces of the Realm, one of the grounds of remonstrance permitted being "that the proposed law would cause inconvenience."

The great part of the French Colonial Empire was lost in the war with England between 1756 and 1763. French India became British India and French Canada became British Canada in 1756 and 1757, and the conquests were secured to Great Britain by the Treaty of 1763-Louisiana passing by cession, at the same time, to Spain. The loss of the Colonial Empire was due to the weakness of France itself caused by the denial to the people of the expression of the popular will which had been allowed under the traditional Constitution, and was not in the least degree due to the theory or practice in the adminis

T

tration of its dependencies. French colonists were loyal to France and French methods in India were adopted by the British. The underlying principles of "the colonial pact" were sound. Colonies connected with France by "pact" occupied a dignified position in the political world. As to them, France was a State to some extent foreign, which was their Sovereign, under obligation to protect and guide them by its ordinances and dispositions, but at the same time under obligation not to act except as might be necessary for these purposes.

CHAPTER II

ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION, 1584-1606

WILL

WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, in 1066, brought with him into England the French theory of governmental power. In his coronation oath, he promised among other things:

To rule over the whole people subject to him justly and with royal providence: to enact and to preserve right law, and strictly to forbid violence and unjust judgments.

By this oath, he recognized that the power which he exercised was conditioned and limited, and that it was exercised under a supreme law which it was his duty to adjudicate and execute.

In the course of a century and a half, Anglo-Saxon influence had predominated, and King John claimed that the power which he exercised was unconditional and unlimited, and that there was no law except his will. Magna Charta, granted by him in 1215, purported to be a gift of privileges from him to the people of England. The enumeration of the privileges granted was preceded by the following words of gift and conveyance :

We have granted moreover to all free men of our Kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.

There was contained in this a repudiation of the theory that the governmental power, which the King then