a company of people transplanted into a remote province in order to cultivate and inhabit it.

We may distinguish three kinds of colonies. First, those those serving to ease or discharge the inhabitants of a country, where the people are become too numerous, so that they cannot any longer conveniently subsist.

The second are those established by victorious princes and people, in the middle of vanquished nations, to keep them in awe and obedience.

The third may be called colonies of commerce; because, in effect, it is trade that is the sole occasion and object thereof.

It was by means of the first kind of colonies that, some ages after the deluge, the east first, and successively all the other parts of the earth, became inhabited; and without mentioning anything of the Phoenician and Grecian colonies, so famous in ancient history, it is notorious that it was for the establishment of such colonies, that, during the declension of the empire, those torrents of barbarous nations, issuing from the north, overran the Gauls, Italy, and the other southern parts of Europe; and, after several bloody battles, divided it with the ancient inhabitants.

For the second kind of colonies, the Romans used them more than any other people; and that to secure the conquests they had made from the west to the east. It is well known how many cities in Gaul, Germany, Spain, and even England, value themselves on their having been of the number of Roman colonies.

There were two kinds of colonies among the Romans: those sent by the senate; and the military ones, consisting of old soldiers, broken and disabled with the fatigues of war, who were thus provided with lands as the reward of their services. See BENEFICE. The colonies sent by the senate were either Roman or Latin, i.e., composed either of Roman citizens or Latins. The colonies Latines were such as enjoyed the jus Latii; said to consist in those two things; one, that whoever was edile or praetor in a town of Latium, became for that reason a Roman citizen; the other, that the Latins were subject to the edicts of their own and not to those of the Roman magistrates: in the year of the city five hundred and sixty-two, after the Social war, the city was granted to all Latium, by the lex Julia. The coloniae Romanae were such as had the jus Romanum, but not in its full extent; namely, in the right of suffrage, putting up for honours, magistracies, command in the army, &c.; but the jus Quiritum only, or private right; as right of liberty, of gentility, or dignity of family, sacrifice, marriage, &c. For it was long a rule, never to grant the liberty of the city in full to colonies; nor is there any instance to the contrary, till after the Social war, in the year of the city five hundred and sixty-two. According to Ulpian (I. r. D. de Cenf.), there were other colonies, which had little more than the name, only enjoying what they called jus Italicum, i.e., they were free from the tributes and taxes paid by the provinces. Such were the colonies of Tyre, Berytus, Heliopolis, Palmyra, &c. M. Vaillant has filled a volume in folio with medals struck by the several colonies, in honour of the emperors who founded them. The ordinary symbol they engraved on their medals, was either an eagle; as when the veteran legions were distributed in the colonies: or a labourer, holding a plough drawn by a pair of oxen; as when the colony consisted of ordinary inhabitants. On all the medals are seen the names of the decemviri, who held the same rank and had the same authority there as the consuls had at Rome.

Lastly, the colonies of commerce are those established by the English, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, and other nations, within these two last centuries, and which they continue still to establish, in several parts of Asia, Africa, and America: either to keep up a regular commerce with the natives, or to cultivate the ground, by planting sugar-canes, indigo, tobacco, and other commodities. The principal of this kind of colonies are in the one and the other America, northern and southern; particularly Peru, Mexico, Canada, (lately Virginia, New England, Carolina), la Louisiane, l'Acadie, Hudson's Bay, the Antilles islands, Jamaica, Domingo, and the other islands.—In Africa, Madagascar, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Verd, and its islands, and all those vast coasts extending thence as far as to the Red sea. Lastly, in Asia, the famous Batavia of the Dutch; Goa, Diu, of the Portuguese; and some other less considerable places of the English, French, and Danes.

The practice of settling commercial colonies in distant countries hath been adopted by the wisest nations of antiquity, who acted systematically upon maxims of sound policy. This appears to have been the case with the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese, the Phoenicians, the commercial states of Greece, the Carthaginians, and even the Romans; for though the colonies of the latter were chiefly military, it could easily be shown that they were likewise made use of for the purposes of trade. The savage nations who ruined the Roman empire, fought nothing but to extirpate or hold in vassalage those whom they overcame; and therefore, whenever princes enlarged their dominions at the expense of their neighbours, they had recourse to strong forts and garrisons to keep the conquered in awe. For this they have been blamed by the famous Machiavel, who labours to show, that the settling of colonies would have been a cheaper and better method of bridling conquered countries, than building fortresses in them. John de Witt, who was one of the ablest and best statesmen that ever appeared, strongly recommended colonies; as affording a refuge to such as had been unfortunate in trade; as opening a field for such men to exert their abilities, as through want of interest could not raise themselves in their own country; and as a supplement to hospitals and other charitable foundations, which he thought in time might come to be overcharged. Some, however, have ridiculed the supposed advantages of colonies, and asserted that they must always do mischief by depopulating the mother-country.

The history of the British colonies undoubtedly shows, that when colonists become numerous and opulent, it is very difficult to retain them in proper subjection to the parent state. It becomes then a question not very easily answered, how far they are entitled to the rights they had as inhabitants of the mother-country, or how far they are bound by its laws? On this subject Mr Blackstone hath the following observations.

"Plantations, or colonies in distant countries, are either..." either such where the lands are claimed by right of occupancy only, by finding them deserted and uncultivated, and peopling them from the mother-country; or where, when already cultivated, they have either been gained by conquest, or ceded to us by treaties. And both the rights are founded upon the law of nature, or at least on that of nations. But there is a difference between these two species of colonies with respect to the laws by which they are bound. For it hath been held, that if an uninhabited country be discovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject, are immediately there in force. But this must be understood with many and very great restrictions. Such colonists carry with them only so much of the English law as is applicable to their own situation, and the condition of an infant colony; such, for instance, as the general rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries. The artificial refinements and distinctions incident to the property of a great and commercial people, the laws of policy and revenue (such especially as are enforced by penalties), the mode of maintenance for the established clergy, the jurisdiction of spiritual courts, and a multitude of other provisions, are neither necessary nor convenient for them, and therefore are not in force. What shall be admitted, and what rejected, at what times, and under what restrictions, must, in cases of dispute, be decided in the first instance by their own provincial judicature, subject to the revision and control of the king in council; the whole of their constitution being also liable to be new-modelled and reformed by the general superintending power of the legislature in the mother-country. But in conquered or ceded countries that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change those laws; but, till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the law of God, as in an infidel country. Our American plantations are principally of this latter sort, being obtained in the last century, either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire), or by treaties. And therefore, the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there; they being no part of the mother-country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions. They are subject, however, to the control of the parliament; though (like Ireland, Man, and the rest) not bound by any acts of parliament, unless particularly named.

With respect to their interior polity, our colonies, whether those we formerly possessed or still possess, may be distinguished into three sorts. 1. Provincial establishments, the constitutions of which depend on the respective commissions issued by the crown to the governors, and the instructions which usually accompany those commissions; under the authority of which provincial assemblies are constituted, with the power of making local ordinances not repugnant to the laws of Britain. 2. Proprietary governments, granted out by the crown to individuals, in the nature of feudatory principalities, with all their inferior regalities, and subordinate powers of legislation, which formerly belonged to the owners of counties palatine; yet still with these express conditions, that the ends for which the grant was made be substantially pursued, and that nothing be attempted which may derogate from the sovereignty of the mother-country. 3. Charter governments, in the nature of civil corporations; with the power of making bye-laws for their own interior regulation, not contrary to the laws of Britain; and with such rights and authorities as are specially given them in their several charters of incorporation. The form of government, in most of them, is borrowed from that of England. They have a governor named by the king (or, in some proprietary colonies, by the proprietor), who is representative or deputy. They have courts of justice of their own, from whose decisions an appeal lies to the king in council here in England. Their general assemblies, which are their house of commons, together with their council of state, being their upper house, with the concurrence of the king, or his representative the governor, make laws suited to their own emergencies. But it is particularly declared, by stat. 7 and 8 W. III. c. 22. that all laws, bye-laws, usages, and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the plantations, repugnant to any law made or to be made in this kingdom relative to the said plantations, shall be utterly void and of none effect. And, because several of the colonies had claimed the sole and exclusive right of imposing taxes upon themselves, the statute 6 Geo. III. c. 12. expressly declares, that all his majesty's colonies in America, have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate to and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain, who have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects to the crown of Great Britain in all cases whatsoever. And the attempting to enforce this by other acts of parliament, penalties, and at last by military power, gave rise, as is well known, to the late revolt and final separation of thirteen colonies. See the article AMERICA. This country is now detached from Britain, and consists of 13 independent states, sometimes denominated the UNITED PROVINCES.