foreigners not under Roman dominion were precisely on the same footing as to the privileges of Roman citizens; but their condition differed in this, that foreigners (aliens, properly so called) were not Roman subjects, but the members of Latin colonies were. This view is perhaps on the whole right, yet the inhabitants of Latin colonies were in a sense Cives, as contrasted with foreigners not subject to Rome, though they were not Roman citizens, in the sense of those who had all the capacities of Roman citizenship. The result of the Social War was, that the Roman citizenship (civitas) was given to all the inhabitants of Italy south of the Po: all became Romani Cives; and the Latini-the inhabitants of Coloniæ Latina and the Socii were all merged in the class of Cives. The distinction of Romani Cives and Peregrini still subsisted; but the class of Roman citizens had become enlarged. A new class of persons was now established, and distinguished by the name of Latini. This term now did not denote a particular people, but a political status-an imperfect citizenship, by virtue of which this new class had the right of acquiring property (commercium) just like Roman citizens; but they had not the connubium, or civic right of contracting such a marriage as would be a Roman marriage; in other words, a Roman citizen who married a woman in the condition of a Latina, was not according to Roman law the father of his children, and the children consequently were not Roman citizens. But in certain cases, a Latinus might acquire the Roman citizenship, for instance, by holding the high offices in his city. This rule was first established for the people north of the Po, and then given to many towns, and to large tracts out of Italy. The privilege of thus acquiring the Roman citizenship was the Jus Latii (Appian, Civil Wars, ii. 26), or Latinitas (Cicero, Ad Atticum, xiv. 12); and it was given to some towns founded after the Social War, as NovumComum, which was founded in Italy north of the Po. by C. Julius Cæsar, B.C. 59. The privilege which the Romans sometimes conferred on a town or district, under the name of Jus Italicum, was a different thing from the Jus Latii. "It had no reference to the status of individuals, but to the condition of many communities. When a Provincial town received as a special favour by a Privilegium those rights which were the peculiar privileges of the Italian towns, this favour was called Jus Italicum. It consisted of three things: a free constitution, with the choice of their own magistrates, such as are mentioned in the Italian Municipia and Colonies (Duumviri, Quatuorviri); exemption from land-tax and poll-tax; the capacity of the land within the limits of the community to be held in Roman ownership (ex jure Quiritium), and the consequent application to such land of the Roman rules of law, as to Mancipation and Usucapion." (Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c., xi.) The correctness of this view of the nature of the Coloniæ Latinæ, the Latinitas, and the Jus Italicum, will hardly be disputed now. The Roman Agrarian Laws, or the laws for the distribution of public land, were often passed with the view of founding a colony and this became a usual mode of providing for veteran soldiers. Perhaps one of the earliest instances is mentioned by Livy (xxxi. 4). The senate passed a decree for the measurement and distribution of public land in Samnium and Apulia among those veteran soldiers who had served in Africa under P. Scipio. But after Sulla had defeated his opponents, the grants of lands to soldiers became more common, and they were made to gratify the demands of the army, at the cost of former settlers, who were ejected to make way for the soldiers. Julius Cæsar and Octavianus Augustus added to the number of these military colonies, and the practice of establishing them ia parts beyond Italy existed under the Empire. These colonies are distinguished by having military ensigns on their coins, while the Coloniæ Togatæ, or citizen colonies, have a plough on theirs. The coins of some colonies have both marks, which means that the original colony consisted of citizens, after which a second was sent, composed of soldiers. In Tacitus (Annal, i. 17), the veterans complain that, after their long service, they were rewarded only with lands situated in swampy tracts or on barren mountains. The early system of colonies adopted by Rome had a double political object; to secure the conquered parts of Italy, and to satisfy the claims of its own poorer citizens by a division of lands among them. The importance of the Roman colonies is well expressed by Cicero, who calls them "propugnacula imperii et speculæ populi Romani." Such they doubtless were, and at the same time, by their ex- | tension beyond Italy, they were the germ of the civilization of Northern and Western Europe. A nation of civilized conquerors, whatever evils it may inflict, confers on the conquered people greater benefits. By their colonies in Spain, Gaul, on the banks of the Rhine, and in Britain, the Romans established their language and their system of administration. The imprint of their Empire is indelibly fixed on all the most civilized nations of Europe. The difference between a Roman Colonia and an Italian Municipium is, that the latter was a town of which the inhabitants, being friendly to Rome, were left in undisturbed possession of their property and their local laws and political rights, and obtained moreover the Roman citizenship, either with or without the right of suffrage; for there were several descriptions of Municipia. The Roman colonies, on the contrary, were governed according to the Roman law. The Municipia were foreign limbs engrafted on the Roman stock, while the colonies were branches of that stock transported to a foreign soil. There is, however, some difficulty as to the precise character of an Italian Municipium in the republican period of Rome; and the opinions of modern writers are not quite agreed. The Roman Provincial system must not be confounded with their Colonial system. A Roman province, in the later sense of that term, meant a country which was subjected to the dominion of Rome, and governed by a praetor, propraetor, or proconsul sent from Rome, who generally held office for a year, but sometimes for a longer period. Thus Spain, after the Roman conquest, was a Roman province, and was divided into several administrative divisions. The earliest foreign possession that the Romans formed into a province was Sicily (B.c. 241). Sardinia (B.c. 235) became a Roman province, and the system was extended with the extension of the Roman power to all those parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa which were subjected to Roman dominion. A province was originally a foreign dependency on Rome; after all Italy became Roman, at the close of the Republican period, we may view all the provinces of Rome as foreign dependencies on Italy, of which Rome was the capital. The condition of the provinces, viewed as a whole, with respect to Rome was uniform: they were subject countries, subject to the ruling country, Italy. But the condition of the towns in the provinces varied very greatly: some had the Jus Italicum, or privilege of Italian towns, in the sense already explained, and these were probably in most cases settlements of Roman citizens; some towns retained most or perhaps all of their old privileges; and others were more directly under the Roman governor. Thus while the whole country was a dependency on Rome, particular cities might have all the privileges of Italian cities; and others would be in a less favoured condition. Both under the Republic and the Empire, but still more under the Empire, the Romans established colonies both of Roman citizens and Latin colonies, in their provinces; and in this way they introduced their language and their law. Tracts of land were doubtless seized as public land and distributed from time to time, but there does not appear to have been any claim on all the lands in any province, as lands that the Roman state might distribute, though undoubtedly the theory under the Empire was that all land in the provinces belonged to the Cæsar or the Roman state (Gaius, ii. 7). And this theory would have a practical effect in all cases where an owner of land died and left no next of kin, or anybody who could claim his land. The maxim also implied the duty of obedience to the Roman state, and that rebellion or resistance to the Romans would at once be a forfeiture of that land which was held by provincials, according to this theory, as a precarious possession. But the Romans | tem resembled that of Rome; by means never gave the name of Colony to any of of their colonies and garrisons they gotheir Provinces. There were Roman verned the people of those islands, whom colonies in Britain, but Britain itself was they left in possession of their municipal not a Colony; it was a Province. In mo- laws and franchises. These were not like dern usage, whenever the word colony is the settlements of the Genoese, merely applied to a country, it includes all the commercial establishments-they were territory of such country. for conquest and dominion; in fact, Candia and Cyprus were styled kingdoms subject to the Republic. The Venetians had also at one time factories and garrisons on various points of the coasts of the Levant, but they lost them in the Morea, Euboea, Syria, and the Euxine, either through the Genoese, or afterwards by the arms of the Ottomans. We can hardly number among their colonies the few strongholds which they had until lately on the coast of Albania, such as Butrinto, Prevesa, and Parga, any more than those once possessed by the Spaniards and Portuguese on the coast of Barbary, Oran, Melilla, Ceuta, and others. They were merely forts with small garrisons, with no land attached to them. name used in the Mediterranean for such places is presidii; and they are often used as prisons for criminals. The Northern tribes who overthrew the Western Empire did not found colonies; they overran or conquered whole provinces, and established new states and kingdoms. The same may be said of the Saracen conquests in Asia and Africa. But, after a lapse of several centuries, when Europe had resumed a more settled form, the system of colonization was revived by three maritime Italian republics. Pisa, Genoa, and Venice. Their first settlements on the coasts of the Levant and Egypt were mercantile factories; which the insecurity of the country soon induced them to convert into forts with garrisons, in short into real colonies. The Genoese established colonies at Famagosta in Cyprus, at Pera and Galata, opposite to Constantinople, and at Caffa in the Crimea, in 1266; they also acquired possession of a considerable extent of coast in that peninsula, which was formed into a district subject to Genoa under the name of Gazaria. Another tract, on the coast of Little Tartary, called Gozia, was also subject to the Genoese, who had there the colony of Cembalo. In the Palus Mæotis they had the colony of La Tana, now Azof. On the south coast of the Euxine they possessed Amastri; they had also a factory with franchises and their own magistrates at Trebizond, as well as at Sebastopolis. These colonies were governed by consuls sent from Genoa, and the order and justice of their administration have been much extolled. In the archives of St. George, at Genoa, there is a valuable unpublished MS. containing the whole colonial legislation of the Genoese in the middle ages. The Pisans, having taken Sardinia from the Moors, sent colonies to Cagliari and other places. Their settlements in the Levant were mere commercial factories. The Venetians established colonies in what are now called the Ionian Islands, and in Candia and Cyprus. Their sys The An essential qualification of a Colony in the Roman sense, and in the present sense of the word is, that it should have land, and contain a body of settlers who are cultivators. The question agitated in France, with regard to Algiers, turned upon this,-whether the French were merely to occupy the towns on the coast as military and in some degree commercial colonies, or to establish an agricultural colony in the interior, by taking possession of and cultivating the land. This question touches several points both of justice and policy. When a colony is sent to a country occupied by a few hunting tribes, as was the case in North America when the English settled there, and as is now the case in New Holland, the taking possession of part of the land for the purpose of cultivation is attended with the least possible injury to the aborigines, while, at the same, it has in its favour the extension of civilization. [CIVILIZA TION.] The savages generally recede before civilized man; a few of them adopt his habits, or at least the worst part of his habits, and the rest become gradually ex tinct. When the limits are confined, the | the religion which he carries with him, European colonies in Asia and America have been formed partly on the Roman or Venetian and partly on the Genoese or old Phoenician principle. When the Portuguese first began their voyages of discovery in the fifteenth century, they took possession of some islands or points on the coasts of Africa and of India, and left there a few soldiers or sailors under a military commander, who built a fort to protect the trade with the natives, and afterwards also to keep those natives under a sort of subjection. No great emigrating colonies were sent out by them, except in after times to Goa and the Brazils, which latter is really a colony of Portuguese settlers. The Spaniards, on the contrary, when they discovered America, took possession of the soil, and formed real colonies kept up by successive emigrations from the mother country. In the West India Islands the natives were made slaves, and by degrees became extinct under an intolerable servitude. On the mainland they were exterminated in some places, and in others reduced to the condition of serfs or tributaries. The Spaniards colonized a great part of the countries which they invaded. The Spanish American colonies had for their objects both agriculture and mining. The English North American colonies were the consequence of emigration, either voluntary or produced by religious persecution and civil war at home. The Puritans went to New England, the Quakers to Pennsylvania, and the Cavaliers to Virginia. They formed communities under charters from the crown, and local legislatures, but were still subject to the sovereignty of the mother country. The mother country sent its governors, and named, either directly or indirectly, the civil functionaries. The precise amount o obedience that the colonies then owed to the mother country cannot be exactly defined. The American revolution only showed that it did not extend to a certain point, without showing how far it did extend. A new feature has appeared in modern European colonization, that of penal colonies, which was an extension of the principle of the presidii on the coast of Barbary, already mentioned. Convicts were sent by England first to North America, and afterwards to New Holland, by France to Guiana, by Portugal to the coast of Angola, and by the Dutch to Batavia. They were either employed at the public works, or hired to settlers as servants, or were established in various places to cultivate a piece of land, for which they paid rent to the government. The policy of penal colonies has been much discussed. They may afford a temporary relief, but at a great cost to the mother country, by clearing it of a number of troublesome and dangerous persons, especially so long as criminal legislation and the system of prison discipline continue as imperfect as they are at present in most countries of Europe; but with regard to the convicts themselves, and the prospect of their reformation, everything must depend upon the regulations enforced in the colony by the local authorities. If we look, however, at the horrid places of confinement to which convicts are sent by most continental governments, and which are sinks of every kind of corruption, and wretchedness, we cannot help feeling disposed to think more favourably of such colonies, under proper management, and to prefer the penal colonies of Great Britain to such ill-regulated places of punishment, which do not even affect to be places of reformation. [TRANSPORTATION.] The advantages which may result from colonies to the mother country appear to be, the extension of the manufactures and the trade of the mother country by the demand for home products which arises in the colonies, the consequent impulse given to industry in the mother country, and the opportunities which industrious labourers and small capitalists have of mending their condition by emigrating to a country where labour is wanted, and where land can be had at a moderate price. The establishment of a colony draws capital from the mother country, which is a disadvantage to the parent state, unless the colony also draws off superabundant labourers; and without a due supply of labour the exportation of capital to a colony is unproductive in the colony, while it diminishes the wealth and the productive power of the parent state. If a colony is to be a matter of expense to the state, if the adminis tration of it is to be maintained entirely or in part at the expense of the mother country, that is a direct loss to the parent state. And if, in order to support such colony, or the interests of any body of persons that are connected with it, the trade of the mother country is encum bered by regulations which diminish the free interchange of commodities with other countries, and render foreign products dearer to the citizen of the parent state, that is another manifest loss to the parent state. The history of modern colonization, on the whole, shows that the parent states have sustained great loss by the system of colonization that has been adopted; but it cannot therefore be inferred that colonization may not be placed on such a footing as will make it both advantageous to the parent state, and to those who live in the colony under its protection. Much has been written upon this subject by political and economical writers, and the advantages of colonies have been exaggerated by some, and too much underrated by others. In a general point of view, as connected with the progress of mankind, a busy prosperous colony on a land formerly desert is undoubtedly a cheering sight. Commercial colonies or factories are likewise useful for protecting traders in remote and half-barbarous countries. The Colonies of England are mentioned subsequently. France has the French West India Islands, and French Guiana in America; Senegal, on the coast of Africa; the island of Bourbon; Pondicherry, in the East Indies; and Algeria, on the north coast of Africa. Spain has lost her vast dominions in Mexico and South America, but has retained the fine islands of Cuba and |