Art. 5. No Power which exercises or shall exercise sovereign rights in the above-mentioned regions shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade. [Sidenote: Freedom of Commerce Defined.] The five Powers occupying and governing the Congo Basin have here assumed certain obligations in reference to the commercial _régime_ which should prevail in their territory. There shall be freedom to trade, and to navigate in pursuit of commerce; there shall be no differential duties imposed; there shall be no monopoly _in matters of trade_. In the fourth protocol of the Berlin Conference, Baron Lambermont’s report includes a definition of what the Conference meant by monopoly “in matters of trade.” This statesman declared that: No doubt whatever exists as to the _strict and literal sense_ which should be assigned to the term _in commercial matters_. It refers _exclusively to traffic_, to the unlimited power of every one to sell and to buy, to import and to export, products and manufactured articles. No privileged situation can be created under this head, the way remains open without any restrictions to free competition _in the domain of commerce_, but the obligations of local Governments do not go beyond that point. [Sidenote: The Theory of Congo Government.] Notwithstanding the explicit nature of this definition, those who, for reasons which it is not the purpose of this volume to expose in detail, condemn the governmental _system_ of the Congo Free State, and declare that the General Act of the Berlin Conference aimed at much more than insuring the common right (freedom) of all nations to pursue _legitimate_ trade in the Basin of the Congo. How much more, and precisely what the Act aims at, according to hostile commentators, varies with the capacity for exaggeration, or the speciousness in argument, of the critic. Some declare that freedom in matters of trade means that anybody may invade the Congo Basin and barter with natives for the produce of the soil and the chase, laws respecting private property and providing regulations to govern traffic notwithstanding. In his essay on _Principles of Government in the Congo Free State_[8] the author briefly indicates the _motif_ of King Leopold’s rule in Central Africa and the cogent reasons for the system which has made that rule the envy of persons whose faculty of perception is not as dormant to-day as it was in 1885, when it was lazily assumed that the salvation of a territory, not worth much materially, was being imposed upon an enthusiastic and impractical kingly philanthropist. Amongst other things, this essay contains the following exposition of the system of internal government by which the Congo Free State and its people have morally and materially prospered. It is, in substance, the definition of Congolese policy stated by his Majesty, King Leopold: [Sidenote: Respect for Property.]