'the true founder of our colonial empire,' and La Ronciere
adds: 'Madagascar, Senegal, Guiana' the Antilles, Acadia,
and Canada--this, to be exact, was the colonial empire
for which we were indebted to Richelieu.' Regarding his
breadth of outlook there can be no doubt, and in his
Memoirs he left the oft-quoted phrase: 'No realm is so
well situated as France to be mistress of the seas or so
rich in all things needful.' Desiring to strengthen
maritime commerce and to hold distant possessions, he
became convinced that the English and the Dutch had
adopted the right policy. Strong trading companies--not
weak ones--were what France needed.

Henry IV could have given the French a fair start, or
even a lead, in the race for colonies. He missed this
great opportunity; partly because he was preoccupied with
the reorganization of France, and partly because Sully,
his minister, had no enthusiasm for colonial ventures.
Twenty years later the situation had changed. Richelieu,
who was a man of wide outlook, was also compelled by the
activity of England and Holland to give attention to the
problem of a New France. The spirit of colonization was
in the air, and Richelieu, with his genius for ideas,
could not fail to see its importance or what would befall
the laggards. His misfortune was that he lacked certain
definite qualifications which a greater founder of colonies
needed to possess. Marvellous in his grasp of diplomatic
situations and in his handling of men, he had no talent
whatever for the details of commerce. His fiscal regime,
particularly after France engaged in her duel with the