should be adequately compensated for any loss that they may suffer from the absorption of their territory—and ultimately of themselves-by the expanding civilised societies. It is therefore permissible to hope that in the future some closer approach may be made to the realisation of this ideal than has been made in the past; but we can hardly forecast this result with any confidence.

The question assumes different forms in what may be distinguished as (1) colonies of settlement where the manual labour can be and will be supplied by the civilised race; and (2) colonies-only called so in a looser sense-in which it can only supply capital and superior kinds of labour.1 In the first case the main difficulties of the problem are likely to be transient; the incoming tide of civilised immigration will gradually submerge the barbarism of the aborigines; so that ultimately the question how to deal with them even if they survive without becoming really fit for civilised work—will sink into a part of the general question of dealing with the incapable and recalcitrant elements found in all civilised communities. But in its early stages the collision of races is likely to be more intense in colonies of this class; since the process of settlement inevitably involves more disturbance of the economic conditions of the life of the aborigines.

On the other hand, in colonies where the superior race does not supply the manual labour, the difficulties of governing a community composed of elements very diverse in intellectual and moral characteristics must be expected to last indefinitely longer; but there is no stage at which the conflict of interests need be quite so acute as in the former

case.

Of the two cases just distinguished the former has been most important in our past history; but its importance is rapidly diminishing, and in most of the territories open to

1 I do not mean that a sharp line can be drawn between the two kinds of colonies. For instance, in our own empire, the South African colonies form, from this point of view, a series of links intermediate between Australia and New Zealand which are clearly colonies of settlement, and the West Indian islands which are clearly not.

the future expansion of civilised European States, manual labour is likely to be mainly performed by non-European races. I do not propose here to discuss in detail the method of dealing with either of the cases above distinguished; but only to indicate briefly the nature of the problems that arise and the principles prima facie applicable to them, in accordance with the general view of politics taken in the present treatise. And, in doing this, I shall not attempt to distinguish between the international duty and the interest of the civilised nation aiming at expansion. I believe that here, as elsewhere, duty and interest are mostly coincident, but I could not undertake to prove that this is so in all cases. In what follows, therefore, I must be understood to have in view, as the ultimate end, the aggregate happiness of all the human beings concerned, civilised and uncivilised—native or imported. It does not seem possible-even if it were desirable to check the expansion of civilised Europe: consequently, the problem of regulating and governing composite social aggregates, with a civilised minority superimposed on a semi-civilised majority, must be regarded as one of the most important proposed for European statesmanship in the proximate future.1

1. The first point demanding attention is the general claim of a civilised State to supreme control-whether as "Sovereign" or "Protector"-over territory inhabited by uncivilised tribes. This claim has to be considered in two aspects (1) as excluding the claims of other civilised States to expand into the same territory; and (2) as asserting rights of interference with the previous inhabitants of the territory. The conditions of its validity from the former point of view belong to an earlier part of the discussion: 2 here we are only concerned with the claim so far as it affects the aborigines. It would be going too far to say that no exercise of power over these latter is justifiable, unless the general consent of the persons subjected to it

1 On the structure of government in colonies of this kind I shall have something to say in a subsequent chapter (xxvi.).

2 See chap. xv. § 4.

may be presumed from agreements formally made by their chiefs or on some other adequate ground. But we may say that no serious interference of the civilised government with the aborigines should take place without such evidence of consent, except under circumstances which afford a special justification for it;-as (e.g.) when the civilised State has been victorious in a war provoked by the aggression of the inferior race, or when the interference is necessary for the security of its own subjects in the exercise of rights that they may fairly claim, or to protect the natives from the evils of intercourse with the most lawless and degraded elements of civilised society. Further, the claim of sovereignty should not be understood to carry with it any obligation to interfere with the laws or customs of the aborigines, even when opposed to civilised morality. Such interference should be regulated by an unprejudiced regard for the social wellbeing of the tribes subjected to it; which might be seriously impaired by the sudden abolition even of pernicious customs.

2. In regulating the relations between aborigines and settlers, the care of Government will be specially needed to prevent the interests of the former from being damaged through the occupation of land by the latter. We may lay down that the aborigines should never be deprived of any definite rights of property without full compensation; and that, so far as possible, such rights should be only ceded voluntarily. I cannot, indeed, hold that compulsory transfer is in principle inadmissible; since I cannot regard savages as having an absolute right to keep their hunting-grounds from agricultural use, any more than an agricultural occupant in a civilised State has a right to prevent a railway from being made through his grounds. Still, compulsory deprivation should be avoided as far as possible, even where it may seem justifiable, on account of the violent resentment that it is likely to cause. Further, the civilised government should supervise carefully the sale of lands by natives to private settlers; it may even be expedient, in the earlier stages of colonisation, that Government alone should have the right

of purchasing such lands; in order that undue advantage may not be taken of the ignorance of the aborigines, and that difficulties arising from complicated and vaguely defined rights of joint-ownership may be properly dealt with. Further, even where the aborigines have not been accustomed to claim or recognise any definite rights of property in the lands occupied by the settlers, I conceive that adequate compensation for the loss of the utilities in the way of hunting, fishing, etc., which they have been accustomed to derive from such lands, is none the less due to them. The necessity of making such compensation may be partly avoided by the reservation of certain portions of territory as hunting-grounds for the natives; but as the game in such reserves tends to be diminished by the progress of settlement around, and as the demand of the settlers for the reserved land will become increasingly intense, this can only be regarded as a temporary expedient. Nor is it desirable that it should be permanent in the interests of the natives; an indispensable part of the compensation due to them is education in civilised industry, especially agricultural industry: and where it is found difficult to persuade them to habits of steady labour, I conceive that so much coercion as is involved in refusing to provide sustenance except in return for work, may be legitimately applied to them.

3. Further restrictions on the freedom of intercourse and exchange between aborigines and settlers may be temporarily necessary; the extent of which experience only can determine, as the need for them will vary with the degree of intellectual and social development reached by the inferior race. Familiar instances of such restriction are the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the prohibition of the sale of firearms: but in some cases a more complete separation of races, and a more thorough tutelage of the inferior race, would seem to be temporarily desirable. It is, indeed, hardly likely that this kind of artificial isolation can ever be more than partially successful. I think, therefore, that such measures should generally be

regarded as essentially transitional, and only adopted— if at all-in order better to prepare the aborigines for complete social amalgamation with the colonising race.1

4. In any case the protection of the lives and property of the settlers will require effective prosecution and exemplary punishment of crimes against them: at the same time, it will be the imperative duty of Government to keep such punishment within the limits of strict justice. The difficult task of fulfilling this double obligation is likely to be better performed if those charged with it are not hampered by pedantic adhesion to the forms of civilised judicial procedure: what is important is that substantial justice should be done in such a manner as to impress the intellect of the aborigines with the relation between offence and punishment.

5. I have spoken of industrial education as an indispensable part of the compensation due from the civilised intruders. But their educational task should not be limited to this it should include all kinds of instruction required to fit the inferior race to share the life of civilised mankind. In particular, though the religion of the settlers should not be compulsorily imposed on the natives, every encouragement should be given to the efforts of missionaries to teach it. Experience seems to show that the potency of such teaching as an instrument of civilisation varies very much in different cases, but few will doubt the desirability of allowing full scope to its application.

6. Among the restrictions on freedom of contract that are likely to be required between natives and settlers, the case of contracts of service deserves special attention; since, if such contracts are left unrestricted, there is a serious risk that the inferior race may be brought too completely into the power of private employers. This point is of course peculiarly important in the case of colonies in which

1 Of course if it should become clear that the social amalgamation of two races would be debasing to the superior race, or otherwise demonstrably opposed to the interests of humanity at large, every effort ought to be made to carry into effect some drastic and permanent measures of separation. But I do not think that any proof has yet been brought adequate to support such a conclusion.