Racial supremacy : being studies in imperialism

f t. > »

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Crown Svo, Cloth, 242 pp. Price 2s. 6d.

GEORGE BIRKBECK

THE PIONEER OF POPULAR EDUCATION.

A Memoir and a Review. With a Portrait reproduced in
facsimile from a beautiful mezzotint engraving.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

" This book supplies a real want, and Mr Godard deserves praise for having
done his work well. What we have here is not merely a life, but a review of
the growth of popular education from the time when Dr Birkbeck commenced
his labours in that direction." — NORTH BRITISH DAILY MAIL.

' An excellent book, well written, and most interesting." — PUBLIC OPINION.

' Puts in a succinct form the claims which Birkbeck has upon the gratitude
of his countrymen." — THE TIMES.

'An excellent biography."— PROFESSOR TYNDAL in NEW FRAGMENTS,

1 The author has produced a work of permanent value and erected a worthy
ca rn to the memory of a noble man." — LIVERPOOL MERCURY.

' Cannot fail to be duly appreciated. In every sense of the word most
readable." — WEEKLY TIMES.

" A life of such usefulness deserved, as it has now obtained, that crowning
honour of a book. The author of the present one has done his work faithfully,
and produced a record of no small interest." — LITERARY WORLD.

" We welcome the well-informed and well-written volume Mr Godard has
prepared. ' ' — E CH o.

"It is the history of a noble and self-sacrificing life, devoted to the accom-
plishment of one grand idea, and it is faithfully and admirably told." — GLASGOW
HERALD.

London : BEMBROSE & SONS, Ltd., 4 Snow Hill.

THE CASE FOR THE DISESTAB-
LISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT
OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

BEING THE "REEVE" PRIZE ESSAY.

Paper Covers, 16 pp. Price zd.

" A brief and forcible presentation of the case for liberty in religion and for
the justification of disendowment." — THE STAR.

" No sane person, after a perusal of this pamphlet and a thoughtful consider-
ation of the contents, will constitute himself a defender of the Established
State Church."— REYNOLDS' NEWSPAPER.

London : WILLIAM REEVES, 83 Charing Cross Road.

WORKS BY THE

Crown 8vo, Red Cloth (Social Science Series). Price 2s. 6d.

POVERTY

ITS GENESIS AND EXODUS

An Inquiry into Causes, and the Method of
their Removal

OPINIONS OF THE PXESS.

" A carefully reasoned and courageous essay. Lucid, compre-
hensive, and serviceable in a high degree." — SCOTTISH LEADER.

"States the problem with great force and clearness." — NORTH
BRITISH ECONOMIST.

" A remarkably interesting and valuable work. All who seek a
clear, concise treatment of the problem in its fundamental aspects
will find this a delightful essay to read and ponder." — CHICAGO
TRIBUNE.

" Mr Godard's contribution to the subject is sincere and straight-
forward. Many of the temporary palliatives will undoubtedly have
real efficacy and usefulness."— DAILY CHRONICLE.

" Makes a great many just and useful criticisms on the present
condition of the British Nation." — WESTMINSTER REVIEW.

" A thoroughly well-reasoned work, expressed in popular style,
and full of material for earnest and active thought." — THE CRITIC.

" Vigorous and trenchant : goes to the root of the many evils of
our social system." — SOUTH LONDON PRESS.

"The statement of the causes of poverty is useful and suggestive. "
— GLASGOW HERALD.

" Has the merit of putting clearly the practical measures of
reform." — NATIONAL REFORMER.

"A careful and well - reasoned study." — PUBLIC LEDGER

(America).

"The author has thorough scholarship . . . The volume is
a thoroughly encouraging one." — CHRISTIAN UNION.

London : SWAN, 80NNEN3CHEIN & CO., Paternoster Sq.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR— continued.

Crown 8vo, Cloth, Pages 373. Reduced to 2s. 6d. net.

PATRIOTISM AND ETHICS

CONTENTS :— I. What is Patriotism? II. The Negative
Appraisement of Patriotism. III. Patriotism and the
Down-Grade. IV. Patriotism and War. V. Patriotism and
Christianity. VI. Patriotism and Liberty. VII. Patriotism
and "Patria." VIII. The Subversion of Ethics. IX.
The Apologia of Patriotism. X. The Positive Appraise-
ment of Patriotism. XI. The Higher Ideal.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

" A serious and painstaking contribution to the discussion of a profound ethical
problem. . . . Interesting and well written. Mr Godard is to be congratulated
on the vigorous and exhaustive manner in which he marshals his facts." — THE
DAILY CHRONICLE.

" Admirably adapted for reforming public opinion." — THE WESTMINSTER
REVIEW.

" The bill which Mr Godard counts up against modern Jingoism is long and
heavy."— THE SPEAKER.

" This is a calm and ably reasoned out examination of an ethical problem. . . .
This book examines reasonably into the nature of the sentiment of patriotism,
and successfully refutes some of the opinions which the Secretary for the
Colonies has expressed himself as entertaining upon this interesting topic.
But it goes further, and rises well above personal considerations. It compares
patriotism with Christianity, investigates the relation between patriotism and
liberty, inquires into the effect of patriotism upon morals, and nicely weighs a
number of kindred considerations that have been urged in various quarters,
such as (for instance) these — that patriotism creates and consolidates empire;
that patriotism promotes culture ; that in the past history of mankind patriotism
has made for peace, civilization and the happiness of the world. . . . Whatever
be their ultimate authority, such ideas are not so widely canvassed at the
present moment as they ought to be ; and a book which states them so intelli-
gently and so forcibly cannot but do good." — THE SCOTSMAN.

" Our book of the week. — A timely contribution to one of the most burning
questions of the moment. . . . Mr Godard states his case fairly, dispassionately,
and with convincing force. " — THE NEW AGE.

"An admirably clear, well-reasoned investigation. . . . Instructive and
stimulating." — IRISH DAILY INDEPENDENT.

" The author gives reasons for the faith that is in him, and much that he
states is unpalatably true. . . . The writer states the case against the war from
the point of view of ethics very clearly, and . . . his book will undoubtedly
influence the future conduct of the controversy." — DUNDEE ADVERTISER.

Continued over.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR— continued.

PATRIOTISM AND ETHICS

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS— continued.

"A powerful picture of the excesses committed in the name of patriotism.
. . . Courageous and trenchant. . . . A particularly valuable piece of work." —
THE DAILY NEWS.

" Mr Godard has the majority against him, but he has given us a book for
thoughtful men which deserves a wide circulation. . . . The force of the
author's reasoning is undeniable." — BLACK AND WHITE.

" I commend to the reading of those rowdy Rhodesian Imperialists, whose
ideal of freedom for themselves involves the enslavement of others. Mr J.
Godard's admirable protest against national ' reflex egoism.' . . . Mr Godard
protests eloquently . . . contending that humanity and patriotism are mutually
incompatible . . . and preaches logically, if somewhat rhetorically, a counsel of
perfection, which, I have no doubt at all, will constitute international morality in
the far future." — TRUTH.

" Our first words must be in appreciation of Mr Godard's clear, rich and
telling use of the mother-tongue. No intelligent person will find this a dull
book. . . . For once we have been really interested in an argument about
sentiment. . . . We confidently recommend the volume, not for any single
thesis it contains, but for the intellectual pleasure of following an ethical
analysis when conducted by a mind at once broad and acute." — CONCORD.

" Solid and sincere. Not all good men and true will be able to agree with the
writer, but all will sympathise and all will admire. Mr Godard has greatly
dared, and has given some sound reasons for his daring. . . . The candid
reader, who is quite settled that the function of the Englishman is to be the
pioneer of justice, truth, liberty, and the true religion, and the purveyor of
cotton fabrics and hardware to a benighted planet overrun with inferior races,
should brace himself up for the reading, and divesting his mind of prejudice,
should call up the judicial faculty for which he is famed, and gently, with slow-
moving caution, proceed to cut the leaves. . . . The book is exceedingly
quotable, but hard to quote by reason of the interdependence of the parts. . . .
Mr Godard . . . finds opportunity for much satire, and ably avails himself of every
chance. As purely academical reading he is excellent, and every philanthropist
will sympathise. . . . The index affords a handy means of reference." —
BIRMINGHAM DAILY GAZETTE.

"A valuable contribution to the literature of social ethics." — JUSTICE.

"A very able book— one that will interest and captivate many who cannot
accept all the author's conclusions. . . . We recognise with pleasure his
intellectual grip and his incisive style." — MONTROSE STANDARD.

"A masterly work. . . . We should certainly advise all thinking persons to
peruse these pages and try to extract light from their glowing sentences and
the fine frenzy and forcible argumentation visible in every line." — SOUTH
LONDON PRESS.

London : GRANT RICHARDS, 48 Leicester Square.
And the NEW AGE PRESS, 8 John Street, Adelphi.

Reduced to 2a. 6d. net

Racial Supremacy

All rights reserved

RACIAL SUPREMACY

BEING

STUDIES IN IMPERIALISM

BY

JOHN GEORGE GODARD

AUTHOR OF
" PATRIOTISM AND ETHICS "

"POVERTY: ITS GENESIS AND EXODUS"
ETC.

" What is Empire but the Predominance of Race ? "

J-.ORD XS.OSI

BY
UN!VEH5!TV OF TC RONTO

LIBRARY

MAST £[•,-.. £G i \TiV£ NO. :

EDINBURGH : GEO. A.

BERY

42 GEORGE STREET

LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & CO., LTD.
1905

Prefatory Note

I THE present volume has its origin in a series of
articles contributed to the Westminster Review,
but they have undergone such extensive revision
and expansion as to justify the result being re-
garded as a new work. Whilst each of the studies
is substantially independent of the others, their
dominant thesis is the same, they are united by a
continuity of purpose, and taken collectively they
embody an attempt to present a fairly compre-
hensive survey of modern Imperialism.

Contents

I. IMPERIALISM :
ITS NATURE AND PRODUCTS

PAGE

THE RISE AND GROWTH OF MODERN IMPERIALISM . i

IMPERIALISM DEFINED AND ANALYSED . . . 4

IMPERIALISM AS A DEMORALISING INFLUENCE . . n

IMPERIALISM THE BANE OF SUBJECT RACES . . 16

IMPERIALISM INIMICAL TO FREEDOM . . 31

II. LIBERALISM AND IMPERIALISM

A LIBERAL DEBACLE ..... 38
THE RATIONALE OF LIBERALISM . .42

LIBERALISM VERSUS IMPERIALISM . . -54

A LIBERAL DEGENERATE ..... 59
THE LIBERAL APOSTASY ..... 72
THE MORAL OF THE DEBACLE . . . .81

III. COMMERCIALISM AND IMPERIALISM

THE POPULAR THEORY .... ,= 87

EXTERNAL TRADE . . . .89

THE RATIONALE OF TRADE » . . .104

THE ARTIFICIAL REGULATION OF TRADE . . 115

viii Contents

IV. ECCLESIASTICISM AND IMPERIALISM

PAGB

THE CHURCH MILITANT . . . . .154

THE CHURCH'S APOLOGIA . . . .169

THE CHURCH PATRIOTIC ..... 200

V. THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

" BENEVOLENT DESPOTISM " .... 214
THE PROCESS OF SUBJUGATION . . . .217

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SUBJUGATED . . 229

THE PROBLEM OF EMPIRE . . . -255

VI. THE BURDEN OF EMPIRE

THE GROWTH OF IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE . . 273

THE PRICE OF IMPERIALISM . . . .282

THE REDUCTION OF IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE . . 294

INDEX . . . . . . .311

Racial Supremacy

IMPERIALISM: ITS NATURE AND
PRODUCTS

THE RISE AND GROWTH OF MODERN
IMPERIALISM

THE advance of Imperialism during the present
generation, at first more or less fitful, but very pro-
nounced in the last two decades, is probably the
most important sign of the times, and one of
ominous political portent.

Eight years ago Lord Rosebery uttered some
weighty words on the subject, and the fact that
his Imperialist instincts have since then developed
into a dominant passion, and that he seems to have
disregarded his own counsels, gives them added
force. For the last twenty years, he intimated, and
still more for the last twelve, we had been laying
our hands with almost frantic eagerness on every
commendable tract of territory adjacent to our own
or otherwise desirable ; we had during the later
period added to our Empire twenty-two areas as
large as that of the United Kingdom itself; with
the result, first, that we had excited to an almost
intolerable degree the envy of other colonising

A

2 Racial Supremacy

nations, and must reckon, not on their active
benevolence, but on their active malevolence ; and,
secondly, that we had acquired so enormous a mass
of territory that it would be years before this un-
digested empire could be consolidated, filled up,
settled, and civilised — the admirable moral which
he deduced being that, until this had been accom-
plished, our foreign policy must inevitably be a
policy of peace.1

The moral, however, has been ignored ; and during
the period which has elapsed since it was drawn,
we have effected the conquest of the Soudan, and
have in South Africa, after a long and costly struggle,
added to our undigested Empire another area con-
siderably larger than that of the United Kingdom —
presumably on the principle that we cannot have too
much of a good thing. For the prevailing assump-
tion seems to be that empire is a good thing ; Lord
Rosebery himself apparently did not suggest it was
otherwise ; he merely uttered a warning against its
too rapid extension, and his later pronouncements
clearly show that in itself he regards empire with
fervent admiration. And for some time past we
have had other prominent members of that political
party which was supposed especially to stand for
freedom and government by consent conspicuously
labelling themselves Imperialists, and actively sup-
porting a policy of subjugation and government by
force.

All this indicates a distinct change in public
sentiment within a comparatively recent period ; for,

1 Speech at Edinburgh, October 9, 1896.

Imperialism

although the British Empire is fairly venerable, we
for long had little desire to add to our territory, and
even our Colonies were at one time looked upon as
burdens. Mr Disraeli, it will be remembered, re-
ferred to them as those wretched Colonies which
were a millstone round our necks l ; and it is
a curious illustration of the irony of fate that it
should have been reserved for him to have given
birth to what may be termed modern Imperialism.
It was the Earl of Beaconsfield who added the
appellation of the Caesars to the titles of the Crown ;
it was under his regime that the great god Jingo
became an object of popular adoration ; it was he
who plunged us into war with Afghanistan to secure
a " scientific frontier " ; and it was he who first added
the Transvaal to the Queen's dominions.

In 1880, however, the new spirit received a de-
cided check, owing chiefly to the fact that we had
a Gladstone with us then. A born leader of men,
with an intensely fascinating personality, and exer-
cising a moral and intellectual influence almost
unique, he denounced Imperialism in no unmeasured
terms, and preached the equality of nations as a
guiding principle of foreign policy ; and he carried
the vast majority of his countrymen with him. He
did not succeed in absolutely crushing the opposing
battalions ; at times they were too strong even for
him, and impelled him on occasions to actions re-
luctantly taken against his own judgment ; but
during his reign a much less aggressive spirit pre-
vailed, whilst his subsequent zeal in fighting the cause

1 See Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, by the Right Hon. the Earl of
Malmesbury, vol. i. p. 342, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1884.

Racial Supremacy

of Ireland operated to divert the forces of Imperialism
into another channel.

From the time, however, that Mr Gladstone's
active career terminated, the policy of " expansion,"
as it is euphemistically termed, has been steadily
growing. Its rapid development of late years is
largely due to one masterful man, not long passed
away, who was determined to play the Imperialistic
card for all he was worth ; a man of enormous
resources, indomitable will and unflagging energy,
Mr Cecil Rhodes. In Mr Chamberlain, a personage
of less solid parts, but possessing the dangerous
faculty of arousing and manipulating popular passion,
he found a willing coadjutor ; and with the one
organising the " plan of campaign " in South Africa
and the other marshalling the forces at home, Im-
perialism became absolutely rampant. The dominant
spirit of the two men, however, although they have
both been partly influenced by the same sentiments,
has not, judging by their career and public utter-
ances, been identical ; and to appreciate the dis-
tinction between them in this respect, and to under-
stand the factors which make for Imperialism, it is
necessary to analyse the sentiment, first ascertaining
what it is.

IMPERIALISM DEFINED AND ANALYSED

Imperialism is the spirit of empire, so that we
have to look to the signification of the latter word
in order to arrive at a definition. And that word
simply means, rule, dominion, sway — empire is,
to quote Lord Rosebery once more, " the predomi-

Imperialism

nance of race." 1 Imperialism, therefore, is the spirit
of rule, ascendency, or predominance ; the rule of
one race or people by another race or people,
involving, of course, the subjection of the former to
the latter. " Not the derivation of the word only,
but all its uses and associations, imply the thought
of predominance — imply a correlative subordination.
Actual or potential coercion of others, individuals
or communities, is necessarily involved in the
conception."2

From this it will be seen that the term, which is
often very loosely and vaguely used, is sometimes
so inaccurately employed as to be positively mis-
leading. The point is all-important, since, while
every one has a right to his own definition, the
popular defence of Imperialism will generally be
found to afford an illustration of the fallacy arising
from the use of a term in two distinct and even
antagonistic senses. Thus, when we speak of the
" British Empire," we have in our minds all the
dominions of the Crown, which comprise on the
one hand our self-governing Colonies and on the
other our arbitrarily governed dependencies ; and
having intimated that the Colonies are prosperous
and contented, we proceed to argue that empire
is therefore good, and triumphantly conclude that
we are justified in subjugating and ruling other
races. Obviously we are here employing the same
term to describe two totally different things. We

1 Inaugural Address as Lord Rector of Glasgow University,
November 16, 1900.

2 Herbert Spencer, Facts and Comments, London, Williams &
Norgate, 1902, p. 112.

Racial Supremacy

may, if we like, ignoring the etymological significa-
tion of the word, define Imperialism as the principle
of autonomy under one titular head ; but if we once
give it this connotation, we are precluded from
using it in its appropriate derivative sense as
meaning the principle of predominance or rule from
without ; and since the two principles come into
sharp conflict, it is clear that by establishing the
one is sound and beneficial we are going a long way
towards demonstrating the other is not. But by
using the one term to describe the two principles
we successfully bamboozle the " man in the street ",
who is incapable of logical analysis, and he honestly
believes that Imperialism is a good thing, because,
forsooth ! autonomy is a good thing. The Im-
perialist nearly always points with pride to Australia
and Canada as instances of the beneficence of
empire, and on the strength of this proceeds to
defend aggressive expansion and arbitrary rule ;
in other words he actually seeks to justify govern-
ment by force by appealing to instances of govern-
ment by consent, and by a simple ambiguity of
terms he often deludes himself, and generally deludes
others, into arriving at conclusions which the most
elementary acquaintance with the art of reasoning
would suffice to show are palpably absurd. Con-
fronted with the fact that the vast majority of the
subjects of the Crown are alien races absolutely
ruled by the dominant Power, and fresh from an
ostentatious tour through two large provinces but
recently forcibly annexed, Mr Chamberlain calmly
assures us that " the new conception of Empire is
of a voluntary organization, based on community of

Imperialism 7

interests and community of sacrifices, to which all
should bring their contribution to the common good."1
Of course, the truth is that our large self-govern-
ing Colonies are not instances of empire at all (unless
it be with regard to the position they themselves
occupy towards the aborigines) ; there is no question
of " racial predominance " as between us and them ;
and whatever evidence they afford of prosperity
and contentment, so far from supporting the con-
tentions of Imperialists, tends to deprive such
contentions of any value. These Colonies are not
ruled by us ; they neither receive their laws from
us nor pay tribute to us ; and, although united to
us by the ties of kinship and affection, they are, as
Mr Chamberlain has himself pointed out, inde-
pendent sister nations.2 They remain in amity with
us precisely because we do not attempt to rule them.
We did once endeavour to coerce a Colony, and we
lost it ; we have recently imposed our will upon a
Colony, and so far as loyalty is concerned we have
lost that also, and may think ourselves fortunate
should this ultimately prove to be the limit of the
loss. Certain it is that if the processes of Im-
perialism were applied either to Australia or Canada,
they would go the way of the American States.3

1 Speech at Mansion House, London, March 20, 1903. Even a roan
like Sir R. Giffen is betrayed into the same fallacy — due to the same
vital misconception of the facts — for he intimates that we are all
Imperialists to-day because we have been accustomed to the idea of an
Empire united by the bonds of affection, all the different units being
practically independent. Speech at Hay wards Heath, June 4, 1904.

2 Speech in the House of Commons, April 3, 1900.

3 " My policy is not to force our Colonies — that is hopeless, they are
as independent as we are — but to meet everything they do." Mr
Chamberlain at Birmingham, May 15, 1903.

8 Racial Supremacy

If we wish for instances of empire, we must look,
not to our self-governing Colonies, which after all,
measured by population, only comprise about four
per cent, of the territories of the Crown, but to those
vast regions which we do in fact govern, and notably
to India. Empire we have, and that in abundance,
for it amounts to nearly a quarter of the inhabited
globe ; whilst almost eighty-five per cent, of those over
whom the Union Jack waves, or ninety-five per cent,
of those outside the United Kingdom, are subject to
us, and in most cases absolutely ruled and taxed by
us, and have but scant share in their own govern-
ment.1 Here then we find in active operation the
principle of ascendency, with its correlative principle
of subordination ; here we get " predominance of
race " ; here we have Imperialism in action. And
it is in the light of this veritable Empire, and not of
the federation of autonomous States, that the spirit
of the age must be regarded.

Now if we analyse Imperialism, we shall find
it consists almost exclusively of two ingredients ;
tracing it to its source, we see that it proceeds in
the main from the spirit of pride and the spirit of
greed. With some, no doubt, there is an honest
belief that it makes for the progress of the world ;
but this is rather the result of a desire to justify
their creed than the source of its inspiration. And
either pride or greed may preponderate. With the
capitalist class and mining magnates of South
Africa the latter spirit is the more powerful, as it
probably was with their colossus the late Mr Rhodes.

1 See page 214.

Imperialism

With Mr Chamberlain, Lord Rosebery and the
average Englishman, the former spirit chiefly prevails.
Both classes, however, are to some extent influenced
by both sentiments ; and it is merely a question of
degree. Thus Mr Rhodes had undoubtedly the
keenest appreciation of power ; the acquisition of
wealth, indeed, with him ultimately became largely
subservient to ambitious aims, but he always had a
lively perception of the value of money ; and, whilst
setting himself to acquire riches, he was seldom
unduly punctilious in the pursuit of his objects.
On the other hand, neither Mr Chamberlain nor Lord
Rosebery disdains to appeal to the trading instinct ;
but this is not a personal or dominant factor with
them, and it is by a feeling of national pride that
they are mainly animated. To Mr Rhodes the
British flag was a most valuable commercial asset ;
to Mr Chamberlain it is the symbol of sovereignty.
With the capitalist class the anxiety is to secure new
markets as a means of increasing trade and enhancing
profits : their Imperialism has been aptly denomi-
nated " Emporialism." 1 With the masses of the
people, although they have some vague fallacious
idea that empire promotes their material interests,
it is the sense of racial superiority which most
powerfully prompts a desire to dominate.

To this sentiment of pride is traceable the fact
that when a man of the type of Mr. Chamberlain is
in power, Imperialism inevitably becomes rampant.
For he has only to tickle our vanity and appeal
to our amour propre> and we at once rise to the
occasion. Behold the omnipotent British nation !

1 Liberalism and the Empire^ London, R. Brimley Johnson, 1900, p. 4.

io Racial Supremacy

Is not this great Babylon that we have built by the
might of our power and for the honour of our
majesty ? Are not we a chosen race, the modern
Israel, called of God, going forth conquering and to
conquer ? Shall we be insulted ; shall we be defied ;
shall not our enemies lick the dust ? Beware how
you tread on the tail of the British lion ! We've /
got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the /
money too. One Englishman can always beat three j
(or is it six ?) Frenchmen. We'll tell the envious )
foreign stock our empire is the earth. And so on.
In short, we must be supreme. And then — when
our supremacy is acknowledged, we will confer the
inestimable boon of British government, the best of
all possible governments for the best of all possible
worlds.

Imperialism thus becomes the deification of
brute force. Only by force can empire, as a rule,
be created ; only by force can empire, as a rule, be
maintained. " Subject races, or subject societies, do
not voluntarily submit themselves to a ruling race
or ruling society ; their subjection is nearly always
the effect of coercion." 2 And there is this to be
said about force, that you cannot argue with it, you
cannot appeal to it. It has neither head nor heart,
it is outside reason and it is outside morals — it can
only be met by force. And when Greek meets
Greek then comes the tug of war — with the result,
the aphorism of Solomon notwithstanding, that the
battle is usually to the strong ; or in other words,
that might triumphs. It is no doubt a comforting
doctrine that right always prevails in the end, but

1 Facts and Comments (footnote, p. 5), p. 113.

Imperialism 1 1

unfortunately it is not true. If it were, Poland to-
day would be a separate State, the population of
Armenia and Macedonia would be somewhat larger
than it is, and the British Empire would be some-
what smaller.

I IMPERIALISM AS A DEMORALISING INFLUENCE

But whilst it is not by the triumph of right over
might that retribution invariably comes, nevertheless
retribution does come ; and perhaps its most
common and most disastrous form is seen in the
demoralisation of the people. They may succeed in
subjugating others, but they pay a heavy price in
their own degradation.

No nation can engage in what Mr Herbert
^ Spencer calls " political burglary " l without under-
going what he aptly terms " re-barbarization." 2
For the greater part of three recent years the whole
energies of England were concentrated upon an
Imperialistic war ; that is to say a war of aggression,
of conquest, of annexation ; a war admittedly and
designedly for empire. And what has been the
effect upon the British people ? Time was when
England was the home of freedom and the pioneer
of progress. But under the baneful influence of
Imperialism all this has been changed ; freedom has
been stifled and progress arrested. It is not that
the people have become immoral ; it is that they
have been demoralised. It is not that they
deliberately embarked upon a career they knew to

1 The Principles of Ethics, vol. i. p. 257.

2 Facts and Comments (footnote, p. 5), p. 122.

12 Racial Supremacy

be wrong ; on the contrary the vast majority of them
honestly believed they were right ; it is that their
moral judgment was perverted and their moral
standard lowered, so that what they formerly re-
garded as wrong they then regarded as right. And
this is a far greater calamity. The man who
realises that the excessive use of stimulants is a bad
thing, but who nevertheless is to his sorrow
occasionally betrayed into drunkenness, is on a
higher moral plane than the man who has so
accustomed himself to perpetual tippling as to regard
it as a perfectly legitimate and normal procedure.
And there is more hope for a nation which, under
the influence of temporary passion, knowingly
breaks its moral code, than for a nation which
debases its moral code and mistakes that debased
code for the true standard.

If any one had prophesied a few years ago that
Great Britain would have written such history as
was penned in blood since the outbreak of the South
African War, the average Englishman might well
have retorted, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this thing ? " If any other nation had written
such history, the average Englishman would, possibly
with " unctuous rectitude," have spoken in no un-
measured terms of such depravity. Yet not only
has the history been written, but — and this is the
pertinent point — the majority of Englishmen are
unconscious that it indicates any moral guilt or
culpability.

Let a few of the leading facts be recalled — they
suggest that Christianity had become a dead letter,

Imperialism 1 3

ethics powerless, civilisation a delusion. Men were
demoniacal in their animosity, gloried in revenge,
and gloated over carnage. A free press promulgated
slander and falsehood, and advocated the slaughter
of prisoners of war. A brave enemy was denounced
in such terms as " banditti, filibustered and ruffians " ;
and a revolting official proclamation treated them
as criminals. Farms and homesteads were wantonly
and insanely destroyed, until nearly the whole terri-
tory (now our territory by what Sir Conan Doyle
calls the " right " of conquest x) was laid waste.2 Men
were threatened with expatriation for resisting aggres-
sion ; women were placed on short rations (which in
plain English means half starved) because their
husbands refused to surrender. Captured foes were
arraigned before military tribunals composed of their
enemies, and then shot in cold blood ; " rebels " were
hanged like felons when the ties of race and their
sense of justice proved stronger than their allegiance
to a despotic power ; and the " infernal atrocity " was
committed of compelling their relatives and friends
to witness the ghastly scene, presumably that the
iron might enter into their souls. And, finally, some
fifteen thousand little children were immolated on
the altar of empire, a holocaust which might put
pagans to shame, but for which the fatalist's plea
that " war is war " sufficed with a Christian nation

1 The War in South Africa ; its Causes and Conduct ', p. IO.
London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1902.

2 "When Lord Milner took over from the military the government
of the country, the country itself was a wilderness. . . There was
scarcely left in the land anything but blockhouses and entanglement
wires." The Colonial Secretary, Speech at Hotel Cecil, London,
June 10, 1904.

14 Racial Supremacy

whose Master reserved his sternest denunciations for
those who should offend against these little ones.

Yet — and herein we reach the climax — despite
this grim catalogue of horrors, we were told on
all hands that never was a war waged with
greater humanity ! In other words, the nation's
moral fibre was so warped that it was unconscious
of any guilt attending upon deeds from which under
normal conditions it would intuitively revolt. There
was no hypocrisy in the case ; the people did believe
the war had been conducted with humanity, and pro-
bably still believe it ; and it is this conviction which
is the evidence of their demoralisation. For no
civilised being could possibly regard these things
as consistent with humanity unless his moral judg-
ment had been perverted. The tyrant's plea of
necessity is intelligible, as coming from a tyrant ;
but then the candid tyrant does not prate about
humanity. England, however, does not intend to be
tyrannical ; she does believe in humanity, but,
possessed by the demon of Imperialism, her moral
vision is so distorted that she can no longer dis-
tinguish between right and wrong. And those who
retain the normal vision must, when they see how it
is possible for a nation to fall from her high estate,
be filled with a feeling of unutterable despair, and at
times almost irresistibly tempted to enquire, " Who
shall show us any good ? "

The good, however, we are told, is to come.
Order will evolve out of chaos ; Briton and Boer
will eventually settle down in life-long amity ; and
peace, prosperity, and contentment will once more
abound. Yes, we are all of us familiar with the

Imperialism 15

Jesuitical plea ; but the answer to it, in a word, is
that it is not true. Imperialism does not produce
paradises, and if it did, the inquiry might well be
made whether any man worthy of the name could
find joy in a paradise erected on the graves of women
and children and cemented with the blood of the
bravest and the best. But Imperialism cannot pro-
duce paradises, though it can produce pandemoniums.
In South Africa we have suppressed two Republics,
from one of which even we might not have disdained
to take lessons in the art of government, and the
other of which has been described by one who lived
under it for years as an almost ideal democracy.1
And the incidental result was that for the time
being we stamped out self-government in our own
Colonies, alienated half the white population, and
converted loyal subjects into open or secret rebels ;
so that a war, pursued for the acquisition of territory
and the conversion of aliens into unwilling subjects
of the Crown, ultimately developed into one for the
retention of territory and the subjugation of pre-
viously loyal subjects of the Crown. A policy
attended with such results (and it required no re-
markable prescience to foresee them, and they were,
indeed, not obscurely hinted at by Mr Chamberlain
in i8962) can best be described in language Mr
Gladstone once applied to another instance of incom-
petent statesmanship — " it is an insane policy."
Only by its absolute reversal, only by the frank
abandonment of racial predominance and the estab-
lishment of autonomous institutions, will South

1 Mr E. B. Rose. See page 73.

2 Speeches in the House of Commons, February 13 and May 8.

1 6 Racial Supremacy

Africa be ultimately saved, and some measure of
gladness restored to that unhappy country, and
Great Britain relieved of an intolerable incubus.
Good, as the result of our evil-doing, we shall look
for in vain ; all that can be hoped for is a gradual
recovery from the ill that has been wrought.

In the meantime, we ourselves are reaping what
we have sown. Never in modern history has
political morality been at so low an ebb, honour
disregarded by statesmen, and chicanery unblushingly
practised. An impetus has been given to crime,
and there is a general laxity of national conduct.
Our influence for good has been weakened ; we have
forfeited the right to criticise other States ; v/hen we
remonstrate against the devastation of Macedonia we
are bidden to look to the Transvaal ; the respect
which rectitude always commands is no longer
largely ours. There has been a paralysis of the
forces which make for progress ; retrogression is the
order of the day ; the noblest characteristics are
held in subjection, and political charlatanism and
Hooliganism are rampant.

In short, it comes back to this, that the lust of
conquest has resulted in moral decadence, and
initiated a process of " re-barbarization."

IMPERIALISM THE BANE OF SUBJECT RACES

Thus much for Imperialism in its aggressive
aspects, and more especially in its pernicious influence
upon the dominant race ; let us now contemplate it
in, what may be termed, its normal aspects, and

Imperialism 1 7

more particularly in its baneful effects upon the
subservient race. What does it accomplish, when a
people, having been definitely subjugated, is perman-
ently governed by the victors ? And in answering
this question we shall find that further light is in-
cidentally thrown upon the Jesuitical plea already
referred to, and what small warrant those who con-
tend that a beneficent end justifies drastic means
have for their preliminary assumption that the end
will prove to be beneficent.

The most prominent and pertinent instance of the
effect of the government of one race by another race
is found in India. Here we have (apart from the
Native States under our suzerainty) an enormous
territory, with more than 230 millions of people,
absolutely ruled by an alien Power of about one-ninth
the area and with less than one-fifth of the population.
Here, therefore, if anywhere, ought we to be able to
ascertain whether or not empire, when once estab-
lished, is a good thing.

Now if one nation is ever to govern another
beneficently, obviously the first requisite is knowledge
— knowledge of the country, of the people, and of
their peculiar requirements — whilst the second is a
lively concern for the welfare of the governed. Yet
what is the position of the overwhelming majority of
Englishmen with regard to India? It is not too
much to say that it is a position of profound ignor-
ance coupled with profound indifference.1 Whatever

1 " I sometimes think that the most remarkable thing about British
rule in India is the general ignorance that prevails about it in England.
. . .The average Englishman is much more interested in the latest
football or cricket match, in the motor trials, or in wrestling encounters

B

1 8 Racial Supremacy

amount of interest the average man may take in
home or foreign politics, it is probable that from one
year's end to another he does not bestow more than
a passing thought upon our Indian Empire ; he is
content to accept it as being — in the terms of the
grandiloquent phrase — " the brighest jewel in the
diadem of the Crown." This in a democratic country
is sufficiently significant, since if the people are
apathetic despotism is absolute. India, in fact, is
oligarchically, if not autocratically, ruled. Parlia-
ment shares the general supineness. On the rare
occasions when the affairs of this vast Empire are
brought under the notice of the House of Commons,
the bulk of the members are generally conspicuous by
their absence, and the discussion is left to the
Secretary of State and a few valiant men who have
the welfare of the subject races at heart. The
former is invariably imbued with the usual official
optimism concerning British rule, and, if he be
thoroughly acquainted with the actual condition of
the country, he manages to conceal his knowledge
with remarkable skill. Only one deduction can be
made — it is impossible for India to be well governed.
On a priori reasoning, there is no escape from this
conclusion ; but let the conclusion be brought to the
test of induction.

What do the facts show ? Simply that India is
ruled in our interests rather than in hers. Years ago

than he is with the greatest responsibility that has been undertaken by
his fellow-countrymen that any nation on the face of the earth has ever
known." Lord Curzon, Speech at the Guildhall, London, July 20,
1904.

Imperialism 1 9

Ruskin pointed out that every mutiny, every danger,
every terror, every crime occurring under our Indian
legislation arose directly out of our native desire to
live on the loot of India ; l and one of the recent
writers on the subject, Mr William Digby, C.I.E.,
intimates that the plunder is proceeding far more
outrageously to-day.2 It is a terrible indictment
which he frames, and no substantial answer to it has
appeared. The officials responsible to Parliament
for India have self-complacently enunciated an
admirable criterion of good government, one which
all will accept, and with which Mr Digby starts.
Sir Henry Fowler stated that the question was
whether English rule "has or has not promoted the
general prosperity of the people of India, whether
India is better or worse off by being a province
of the British Crown — that is the test." And
said Lord George Hamilton : " I admit at once
that if it could be shown that India has retrograded
in material prosperity under our rule we stand self-
condemned, and we ought no longer to be trusted
with the control of that country."

Adopting this test, Mr Digby sets himself to show
India has under our regime been steadily growing
poorer, until it seems that the irreducible minimum
has been reached. Basing his case on the Blue Books
and official statistics, disclaiming all responsibility
for the facts he cites, and intimating that all he does is
to use the material which the Government of India

1 Lectures on the Pleasures of England (i 884): Lecture III. Studies in
Ruskin, by E. T. Cook, M.A., London, George Allen, 1890.

2 Prosperous British India, a Revelation from Official Records^
London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1901.

20 Racial Supremacy

and the Secretary of State supply, he undertakes
three distinct analyses and presents us with a com-
parison as regards average income, taxation and
famines. As to the first, his position is that whilst
in 1850 the average income (according to a non-
official estimate) was twopence per head per day,
and in 1882 (according to an official estimate) three-
halfpence per head per day, it was in 1900 (accord-
ing to an analytical examination of all sources of
income) less than three-farthings, or so far as the
bulk of the people are concerned less than a half-
penny. To be more precise, he makes the present
annual income of India £i, 2s. 4d. per head1 if
equally divided, but as a very large proportion of the
total goes to the wealthy classes (numbering rather
more than a million) the average for the remainder
(230 millions) is about 133. per annum — and if we
contrast this with the average British income of £43
per head per annum, or even with the average income
of about £20 per head of the manual labour class, we
get an indication of the " prosperity " of India. But
this 135. per annum is gross income, that is to say, it
is subject to the claims of the Government ; and the
next point is that such income is taxed to the extent
of twenty per cent., thereby reducing it by at least
2s. 6d., whilst the average taxation on the total
average income of £i, 2s. 4d. works out at 35. 3d.
or about fifteen per cent., so that the wealthy (as
usual) contribute less proportionately to their means.
In England we grumble at being taxed (by a
Government of our own election) to the extent of
eight or ten per cent, and it is scarcely necessary

1 The official estimate is £2.

Imperialism 2 1

to point out that even the same percentage of taxation
presses with enormously greater severity upon very
small incomes ; so that we here get a second significant
indication of the " prosperity " of India. In these
circumstances, that severe famines should periodically
occur, and that they should increase in intensity, is
inevitable — it would be miraculous if they did not.
But the tale which is told in this connection is
simply appalling, being to the effect that, whilst in
the first half of last century 1 1 million lives were lost,
in the next quarter 5 million deaths were recorded,
whilst in the last quarter the estimated loss reached
the awful total of 26 millions. Here, then, we have
a third startling indication of the " prosperity " of
India. And, as we have seen, Lord George Hamilton
— expressly challenged by Mr Digby to disprove his
statements and figures — has said : — " If it can be
shown that India has retrograded under our rule, we
stand self-condemned, and we ought no longer to be
entrusted with the control of that country."

But will it be urged that this is too severe a test
— that if this retrogression be proved, it ought to be
demonstrated to have taken place, not merely under
our rule, but because of our rule ? Is a Government
answerable for the poverty of its subjects, and are
not famines traceable to a vis major, or, in pious
language, to the " act of God ? " Let us see. In
the first place, it seems tolerably clear that we
cannot evade responsibility for taxation — for levy-
ing on our impoverished Indian subjects an impost
more than twice as high as that levied upon
ourselves — who are comparatively opulent. But
why are the people impoverished, why are the

22 Racial Supremacy

famines so frequent and so intense, why do millions
periodically die for lack of food ? And the answer
is, because famine or no famine, the grain goes out
of the country with automatic regularity in order to
pay tribute to England. " India must be bled,"
said Lord Salisbury years ago, and then proceeded
to give sage advice as to the parts to which the
lancet should be directed, at the same time intimat-
ing that much of the revenue is exported without a
direct equivalent 1 — and this is truer than ever
to-day. Continues Mr Digby, " during the last
thirty years of the century the average drain cannot
have been far short of £30,000,000 per year" ; and,
as conveying some idea of what this means relatively,
it may be said that, taking the figures (excluding
those of treasure) for 1898-9 they show that the
exports for which there is no " direct equivalent "
are about six-fifteenths of the total, the latter being
75 millions as against 45^ millions imports.2 Even
these imports seem to be of little benefit to the
people, for they are practically absorbed by " Anglo-
stan " — " the region to which the roseate statements
in the Viceregal and State Secretary's speeches
refer " — and not by Hindustan. The fact that there
is a comparatively large importation of the precious
metals is sometimes quoted as a proof of prosperity,
but it is really an additional indication of adversity ;
for treasure has to be paid for in kind, a large
portion of it is required for coinage and wastage,

1 Minute, 26/4/1875. Ret. C. 3086-1 of 1881, p. 144.

2 For the year ending March 1902, the excess of exports over imports
was 24 millions ; the next year it was 29 millions and the next 40
millions.

Imperialism 23

and the very year when the import was greatest
was one of terrible famine. All the offices of high
emolument are held by the dominant race ; the
country has been denuded of working capital, and
irrigation which might have saved it has received
inadequate attention. The cultivator of the soil
holds it at the mercy of the mortgagees, who are
principally English ; the tea plantations, coffee
gardens and jute and indigo estates are mainly in
alien hands, and the profits go out of the country ;
whilst the wheat and rice, which are really required
for home consumption, are perforce exported to the
extent of about 17 millions a year. Nearly
seven times as much has been spent on railways as
on irrigation works — railways chiefly useful for
sending grain out of the country and not yielding
an adequate return, but made with foreign capital
(affording a market for English steel rails, locomotives
and rolling-stock) on a guaranteed interest (in the
earlier years five per cent.) ; so that the investment
eventually rose in value in the London market by
fifty per cent, or more, and when the Government
bought they did so at a heavy premium created
solely by their own guarantee. A huge army is
maintained in the interest of the entire Empire and
far beyond the requirements of India herself;1 and

1 If 30,000 men could be spared from India during the South African
war, it seems tolerably clear that they are not permanently required
for the defence of India. And yet a recent official statement runs : —
"We still pursue our aim of increasing the efficiency of our military
defensive forces" ; and this is followed by figures showing a gradual
growth of expenditure since 1900-1 from 14 to 1 8 millions. Blue Book,
East India (Financial Statement'] 193, p. 15.

Of course India is to be saddled with the cost of our Imperial ex-
pedition to Tibet on the ground that it was the Indian Government

24 Racial Supremacy

altogether no less a sum than about 16 millions1
is annually taken from India's scanty resources by
the Secretary of State to provide for the cost of
government, pensions and allowances, military ex-
penditure, interest and dividends, and sundry other
charges. And so perennially this drain on the
resources of the country goes on as the price of
British rule ; and we get some indication of why it
is that a large portion of the people obtain but one
meal a day, that the average duration of life is only
twenty-three years (as compared with forty years
in Great Britain), that millions periodically die of
starvation, and that whole tracts of territory have
been depopulated.

This, briefly presented, is Mr Digby's indictment
of our rule in India ; although he fully recognises
that such rule has secured freedom from internal
strife, and that the civil administration has many
good points in its favour. That the indictment is
absolutely impregnable in every detail need not be
here contended ; it must be substantially disproved
before we stand exonerated ; and despite the hostile
criticism it has evoked, nothing approaching an
effective rejoinder has been forthcoming. Lord

who called the tune — that is to say, the unfortunate ryot is, as usual,
to pay for the sport of his rulers.

1 (Now 18 millions.) "But this grand total does not include
the remittances on account of private gains from railways, banking,
merchandise, the ocean and river carrying trade, tea and coffee plant-
ing, cotton and jute mills, indigo, coal mines, and the like, or the
private savings of officials and others which are sent to England.
Taking these into consideration, it is a moderate computation that the
annual drafts from India to Great Britain amount to a total of thirty
millions." New India, by Sir Henry J. S. Cotton, K. C.S.I., London,
Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co., Ltd., 1904, p. 100.

Imperialism 25

George Hamilton, whilst admitting that India is very
poor, argued that the income has increased and that
the famines are due to drought which no Govern-
ment can prevent.1 He, however, refused to receive
a deputation from the Indian Famine Union, who
desired to urge an exhaustive economic inquiry ;
whilst Mr Digby effectively quotes the rainfall in
famine years as showing that drought is due not to
the absence of water but to neglect of the facilities
for storage. Sir Charles A. Elliott, formerly Lieut-
Governor of Bengal, essayed a more detailed
criticism of our author ; 2 wherepon the latter adroitly
cited Sir Charles himself as formerly " not hesitating
to say that half our agricultural population never
know from year's end to year's end what it is to
have their hunger fully satisfied."2 But what was
regarded as the Official Reply to the indictment
appeared in the columns of the Times? and Mr
Digby then wrote calling for a definition of issues,4
whereupon he was specifically challenged on six
points.5 In high satisfaction that " for the first
time in its history the India Office was ready and
apparently anxious to meet its critics " he promptly
prepared a detailed and categorical answer. The
Times, however, could only allow space for a com-
paratively short letter, so the full document was
put into type as a separate pamphlet, in which was
reprinted the official defence ; but permission to
publish this was actually refused, the writer of the
article objecting to its reproduction ; with the

1 Speech in House of Commons, February 3, 1902.

2 The Review of Reviews, vol. xxv. pp. 256-7 (1902).

3 February 3, 1902. 4 February 6, 1902. 5 February 10, 1902.

26 Racial Supremacy

result that it had to be deleted, and that the
pamphlet as issued contains several pages which are
blank except as to an explanatory note of their
original contents.1 The attempted vindication of
the official position thus ended in a fizzle. It is no
doubt easy for a Government to give itself a good
character ; 2 what would be more to the point would
be the testimony of the governed.

To attempt to quote, from all the numerous
writers and authorities, the independent testimony
which supports the general conclusions as to the
impoverishment of India would be too formidable a
task to attempt here ; 3 but brief reference may be
made to the strong corroborative evidence of one
later writer, stated, as an open secret, to be an
Anglo-Indian ex-official who devoted twenty-eight
years of his life to the task of governing the country.
And some of the striking features of the tale which

1 British Rule in India, Apologetics and Criticisms. A Runaway
Apologist. London, A. Bonner, 1902.

2 As Lord Curzon does. Speech at the Guildhall, London, July 20, 1 904.
"The tendency of officials is to exalt unduly the excellence of the

work on which they have been themselves engaged, and err on the
side of excessive self-laudation. ... It is not in the volumes annually
published by Anglo- Indian administrators that we may look for any
glimmer of insight into that utter derangement of economic and social
conditions which our conquest has wrought, and which is the chief
cause of the pauperisation of the people." New India (see footnote,
p. 24), p. 163.

3 Amongst others may be mentioned, Mr Dadabhai Naoroji (see
Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, London, Swan Sonnenschein
&Co., Ltd., 1901), Sir William Wedderburn, Bart., Mr Romesh C.
Dutt, C.I.E. (see India in the Victorian Age, London, Kegan Paul,
Trench, TrUbner & Co., Ltd., 1904), Mr S. S. Thorburn, Mr W. C.
Bonnerjee, the late Mr W. S. Caine, M.P., Mr C. E. Schwann, M.P.,
and Sir Henry J. S. Cotton, K.C.S.I. (see New India, supra). By

Imperialism 27

the author of " The Failure of Lord Curzon " l tells
are as follows : — The debt of India increased between
1875 and 1900 from 95 million pounds to 199
million pounds 2 and the military charge from
roundly 120 millions to 230 millions of rupees.
Over-taxation of the most grinding kind is eating out
the life of the Indian races ; the annual burden on
land over nearly all the provinces is equivalent to at
least a 5 5 per cent, income-tax ; the agricultural
classes, who are sunk in poverty, are taxed beyond all
reason, and the Government is continuing and accentu-
ating a desolating policy. The Delhi Durbar was
an unpardonable waste of public and private money,
and whilst it would need the pen of a Juvenal
to adequately portray the degradation of English
manners involved, a single fact will bring home
the real meaning of the whole pagan rout, namely
that one of the most prominent feudatories declared

way of illustration the following testimony of Sir W. Wedderburn may
be quoted :—

The Indian native population, the greater part of whom are peasantry
living on the produce of the land, have no reserve to fall back upon.
If the annual harvest is a failure they must die of hunger, unless helped
by the State. It is a fact little known that in all the famines that have
occurred, even in the worst places, there has never been a lack of food
at reasonable prices. Not only was there a sufficient quantity of
grain, but there were sufficient railways to bring it within reach of
all who needed it. The reason why the natives are so pitiably in
want of money with which to purchase grain, is that they are in
the hands of the money-lenders, hopelessly in debt, owing to the
severe taxation to which they are subjected. Speech at Walthamstow,
January 19, 1904. And see also pp. 238-245.

For the views of one who writes "frankly from the standpoint of an
admirer of British rule in India" the reader may be referred to Actual
India, by Mr Arthur Sawtell, London, Elliot Stock, 1904.

1 London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1903.

a Now 213 millions.

28 Racial Supremacy

it was temporarily bankrupt and unable to meet its
debts on account of the famine, the expenses of the
Coronation at Westminster, and the still heavier out-
lay at Delhi. The taxation of one of the poorest
nations on earth is kept up to concert pitch in order
to equip an army beyond the needs of India in a
manner the richest nations of Europe would be
ashamed to attempt ; and the London Standard
blundered into downright truth when, after pointing
out that 13,000 British officers and men and over
9,000 natives were drawn from India for the South
African war, and that 1,300 British officers and men
and some 20,000 native troops had been sent to
China, it remarked " such is the scale on which India,
at the shortest notice, and without dislocating her
establishments, can contribute towards the military
capabilities of the Empire beyond her own frontiers"
A Government of which these are some of the
manifestations can only result in the abject misery
of the governed. Two-thirds of the Indian popula-
tion, some 200 millions of human beings, are made
up of ever-hungry cultivators and day labourers. In
Madras roundly one-eighth of the entire agricultural
population was sold out of house and home in little
more than a decade ; India is rapidly becoming a
land steeped in perennial poverty, and unless some
strong and early steps are taken, the English people
will find itself face to face with annual famines, due
chiefly to the exactions of the State, to the oppres-
sion of the poor by the " Imperialist Empire-Builder."
The vaunted surpluses are due not to prosperity
but to the enhanced value of the rupee, whilst
taxation is maintained at the high rate previously

Imperialism 29

necessary to meet a depreciated currency.1 Excise
revenue has risen from £1,755,000 in 1875 to
£4,239,000 in 1901 ; and liquor made at a Govern-
ment distillery was found on analyis to contain seven
times more fusel oil than the worst unrectified Scotch
whiskey. Some years ago the most Conservative
journal in India, the one ordinarily regarded as the
mouthpiece of the Government, wrote with regard to
Bombay that " Stupidity, blindness, indifference,
greed — inability, in a word, in all its thousand
forms — settled down, like the fabled harpies, on the
ryot's bread, and bore off with them all that he sub-
sisted upon." And — to make a final quotation from
this author — whilst the almost all-redeeming feature
of maladministration is that it is ever battled against
loyally and often successfully by brave-hearted
Englishmen, whose local experience and sympathies
have not been blinded and blunted by the so-called
necessities of finance, they risk much ; and no
official can hope for high preferment and at the same
time criticise even in the most moderate manner the
policy of the Supreme Government, for he becomes
at once what is known as an " unsafe man."

Poor hapless India ! " Look around/' says Mr
Digby, " look deeply ; and steel your heart for that
which you shall see and hear, for you will gaze upon

aThe increase in the Revenue Returns is officially relied upon as
showing that the country is not becoming poorer. ' ' What is actual
proof of exhaustion is regarded as though it were a token of indisput-
able prosperity." Mr Digby, The Ruining of India, p. 3, London,
A. Bonner, Took's Court, 1902. The fallacy of the test is sufficiently
indicated by the fact that there were revenue surpluses in years of dire
fa ine.

30 Racial Supremacy

a sum of human misery and will contemplate a
mental and political degradation the like of which,
among civilised and progressive countries, is nowhere
else at this moment to be seen, and probably was at
no time during recorded history anywhere to be
seen." l To this condition — there seems, alas ! no
escape from the conclusion — has our eastern Empire
been reduced ; whilst for that unhappy country, in
the time of her deepest distress, no national grant
could be voted (although in previous crises we had
not been lacking in aid) because we were spending
nearly two millions a week in gratifying our
insatiate hunger for more empire. Such is the
spirit and such is the product of Imperialism.

The idea that we govern well is firmly rooted, but
it is a delusion. Doubtless other nations would not
govern better, and most of them govern worse ;
but that is not the point. Government at the best
is necessarily imperfect, because it is conducted by
fallible beings ; but the rule of one race or nation
by another is inevitably bad, though different races
may live happily together under the same regime if

1 Mr Digby died in September 1904. From early manhood he was
indefatigable in the cause of India, and many representative men
(including several members of the London Indian Society) were present
at his funeral. Dr Clifford delivered an address, in the course of
which he said they were parting with one of God's true workers, a
noble man devoted to the service of humanity ; that to him the
oppressed had a sort of fascination ; the cause of the forlorn won his
sympathy, stirred his zeal, and inspired his hope ; and that pre-
eminently he was the "Friend of India," the 300 millions of which
land seemed to be always present to his imagination and in his heart ;
he had striven to alleviate their sufferings, to diminish their burdens, to
develop their aspirations ; and he had sown seeds which would yield a
great harvest, and left a legacy of responsibility as well as a legacy of
privilege.

Imperialism 3 1

it is their own. Only by self-government, and by
the basis of that government being as broad as
possible, can good government be approximately
attained.

IMPERIALISM INIMICAL TO FREEDOM

The explanation of the failure of Imperialism is
simple ; it is due to one characteristic, manifested
alike as regards the dominant and subservient race,
namely the antagonism to freedom — by which, of
course, is meant collective freedom.1

Freedom lies at the root of progress, and for this
reason Imperialism is inherently vicious ; its indict-
ment may be summed up in the statement that it is
destructive of liberty. Only in proportion as com-
munities govern themselves, and work out their own
salvation, do they fulfil the law of their being, and
advance in the scale of civilization ; only in pro-
portion as they refrain from arbitrarily ruling others,
are they able to secure for themselves the blessings
which freedom vouchsafes. Empire degrades the
victims and demoralises the victors, because it
permits of liberty to neither ; in its inception and in its
fruition it spells bondage. And " the danger is not
that a particular class is unfit to govern," for " every
class is unfit to govern " ; but " the law of liberty
tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith
over faith, of class over class." 2

If we wish to see how, in the making stage,

1 See p. 49.

8 Letters of Lord Acton to Mary, daughter of the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone, London, George Allen, 1904, p. 93.

32 Racial Supremacy

Empire stifles freedom at every step, we have but
to revert to South Africa. Here we had in rapid
and cumulative sequence — the introduction of so-
called " martial law " (that is the negation of all law)
— the suspension of parliamentary government, in
breach of the constitution — the establishment of
a military censorship of the press — the abrogation
of the principles of justice — men arrested and
detained in custody without being brought to trial,
and in some cases without knowing of what they
were accused — women and children ejected from
their homes and marched away to privations which
resulted in death — with such secondary picturesque
incidents as, on the one hand, the forcible deport-
ment of a philanthropic lady who had thrown light
upon the situation, and on the other, the
detention in the country of an unfortunate editor
(who had suffered imprisonment) until the action
had been denounced by one English statesman as
" plainly illegal, unconstitutional, tyrannical, arbitrary,
impudently absurd and preposterous." 1

And then, peace having been declared, we find
the military despot yields only to the civil despot,
who in turn yields to the financial despot ; the
government largely controlled by the capitalists, and
becoming subservient to raising dividends ; a
rigorous dynamite monopoly established, a new
serfdom introduced into the mines and white labour
curtly dispensed with ; the people robbed of their
territorial rights ; the Home Government at once
withholding representative institutions and refusing
to curb the gold-hunting oligarchy ; and the chief

1 Mr Morley in the House of Commons, April 24, 1902.

Imperialism 33

liberty accorded to the majority being the liberty
to starve.1

Or do we wish to see how empire, in the mature
stage, stifles freedom, turn we again to India. Here
we have countless millions denied the rights accorded
to the English agricultural labourer, taxed to pay
for a Government in which they have no voice,
condemned to support an army they cannot control,
rack-rented for land they cultivate mainly for the
benefit of others, compelled to yield interest on an
expenditure they did not make, and generally
reduced to the condition of hewers of wood and
drawers of water, with sufferance as the badge of
all their tribe. There is no need to recapitulate.

Whilst, however, the denial of freedom involved
both in conquest and subsequent rule, is, so far as
the conquered and subservient race is concerned,
self-evident, it is not so readily perceived that
Imperialism also exacts the same price at the hands
of the conquering and dominant race.

Would we realise this, let us look at home. Here
we have had a momentous judicial decision which
to the lay mind is not easily reconciled with Magna
Charta and the Petition of Right,2 freedom of speech
persistently denied, political opponents assaulted
and public buildings wrecked, rowdyism proudly
quoted as a proof of the devotion of the people
to the new ideal ; and, above all, the proletariat

1 See footnote pages 206-7. Commenting on a Blue Book dealing with
the affairs of the Transvaal, the Standard naively remarked ' ' The picture
it presents is far less cheerful than we might have expected after a
considerable period of British rule." February 4, 1904.

2 Exparte D. F. Marais ; Privy Council, Nov. 5, Dec. 18, 1901.

C

34 Racial Supremacy

forging their own fetters and carrying out the
behests of an imperious dictator. And it must be
so by eternal law ; people who enslave others always
end by themselves becoming slaves. For subjugation
and arbitrary rule can only be accomplished by
force ; and force can only be organised by militarism ;
and the essence of militarism is subordination —
subordination, not merely of the private soldier to
the commander, but of the State to the Government.
A righting people can never be free, and the more
they fight the further they recede from freedom ;
a nation which sets itself to bring another under
its yoke must itself be content to be arbitrarily
ruled. Even the mere taxation which the process
renders necessary operates in the same direction,
for the additional demands of the State involve an
increased compulsory service on the part of the
citizen from which he derives no benefit.

Unless the spirit which has for the last few years
been rampant in England can be checked — happily
there are signs that it is to some extent abating —
her liberties will disappear. Imperialism is the
trump card of plutocracy and oligarchy, and the
British working man has been yielding up his
birthright to the demon of conquest. If the people
are discontented, prate to them of glory ; if they
are reduced to living in slums, tell them they have
goodly heritage in a great Empire. The poor
fools will awaken from their delusion ; but it will
not then be easy for them to escape from their
self-imposed bondage.

We sometimes hear the smug phrase, Imperium et
libertas. As applied to the subject race, it is a cruel

Imperialism 35

mockery ; as applied to the dominant race, it is
an exquisite satire. With a slight verbal alteration,
however, merely the change of the conjunction, it
embodies a profound truth. Imperium AUT libertas
is the choice, for no nation can have both. We
may go on year after year subjugating others, we
may conquer until there shall be no more lands
to conquer, but the inquiry — to which a so-called
Christian nation pays little heed — arises, " What
shall it profit us if we gain the whole world and
lose our own souls ? " Our spiritual natures are
being atrophied by the lust of power and the pride
of empire ; and we are welding our own gyves.
Even the gentler sex has been contaminated ; when
war is waging the restraining influence of our sisters
is withdrawn, and the women become as heartless as
the men. In the enigmas of history there is nothing
more astounding than that England, the champion
of freedom and the friend of the oppressed, should
destroy freedom and play the part of the oppressor,
withal unconsciously undermining her own liberties.

Is it too late for us to retrace our steps ? The
past cannot be recalled, the evil done is irrevocable ;
but the future is ours to mould as we will. The
doom of the ancient empires of the world has not
yet been pronounced upon us ; yet when we read of
" decline and fall " we may well realise that we too
have declined, and fallen also in certain senses ; and
although the culminating act of the Imperial drama
has happily not been reached, Nemesis will not be
dodged, and we have entered upon troublous times.
But we may still return to the parting of the ways,

36 Racial Supremacy

and regain the right road ; and there are not want-
ing hopeful auguries. Strong efforts have been
made to recall us to the path of rectitude and
honour. Powerful impeachments of " methods of
barbarism " have gone forth ; there has been plain
speaking in high places, and one political party in
the State — a party which has for too long been
partially paralysed — is regaining vigour and show-
ing indications of its old vitality.

Ah ! had we but had a Gladstone with us still,
one who with clarion voice should have roused the
country from Land's End to John o' Groats with a
proclamation of the eternal verities, and preached
again the lofty creed of government by consent, the
recognition of " the equality of the weak with the
strong and the principles of brotherhood amongst
nations and of their sacred independence " x — what
a different tale might not the past few years have
told ! It is not the fault of others that they lack
the fascinating personality or the unique persuasive
powers, and some of them did their best. But they
failed to awaken in the hearts of the people that
responsive echo which his words evoked. Yet may
we hope that his work still lives ; and that, if
slowly and haltingly, the people whom he moved
with his eloquence will recall his words, and renew
their allegiance to the principles they learned from
him, and in which they once rejoiced.

Corrupted we have been by pride more than
greed. Whilst some have pursued the ignis fatuus
of Imperialism with the fierce desire to accumulate
wealth, it is not as a commercial asset that the bulk

1 Speech in the House of Commons , June 27, 1850.

Imperialism 37

of the people have regarded the British flag — they
have been deluded by the blatant appeals to their
national vanity, and by the alluring sense of racial
superiority. But a haughty spirit has more than
once gone before a fall. Again and again were we
overtaken by disaster and defeat ; for the greater
part of three years a people, small in numbers, but
as sturdy and liberty loving as ourselves, held us at
bay ; and, although we may flatter ourselves that we
have subdued them, the lesson is the same — that
liberty is a jewel to be highly prized, that those
who value their own freedom should respect the
freedom of others, and that retribution waits upon
the wrong-doer. We have destroyed, says Mr
John Burns, the moral fibre of our people, we have
degraded the free institutions of the land we once
loved to hail Great Britain. And then, " What is
this Imperialism ? " he asks ; and answers the
question in language understanded of the people :
" It is nothing more nor less than uniform black-
guardism."

Racial supremacy is disastrous, not merely to the
subservient, but to the dominant race. Imperialism
destroys all that is best and noblest in a nation, and
is alike inimical to social development, to moral
progress, and to general well-being. True greatness
is found within rather than without. It is not given
to many men to rule others wisely or well ; it is the
man who rules himself that is really great. And it
is not the nation which seeks to conquer or to
govern others, but the nation which conquers and
governs itself that attains to majesty.

II

LIBERALISM AND IMPERIALISM

A LIBERAL DEBACLE

THE spectacle presented by one of the great political
parties in the State during a period when issues un-
usually momentous called for determination, the
spectacle of a house divided against itself, indicated
a grave crisis in the history of the party, and one
which could scarcely fail to exercise a material in-
fluence on its future career. It is true that the
crisis is supposed to have passed with the termina-
tion of the event in which it originated, and that
there are signs of a partial reunion ; but although a
new rallying point has been found the old differences
remain, and it is only by fixing the eye on an object
of mutual antipathy that what would otherwise
be conspicuous becomes crepuscular, and that an
approach to a common focus has been temporarily
attained. If wounds (not being fatal) heal in time,
they nevertheless cannot be forgotten when they
leave ugly scars ; and, whilst " let bygones be by-
gones " is a very good injunction in certain cases,
it does not always admit of performance, and there
are occasions when it is positively pernicious. Dis-
sensions which are due to a mere passing incident it
is wise to bury in oblivion, but it is disastrous to
38

Liberalism and Imperialism 39

attempt to ignore them when they spring from deep-
seated causes and are far-reaching in their effects.
The differences which prevailed in the ranks of the
Liberal party were fundamental, and, although for the
time being ignored, they still prevail ; they might,
under given conditions, result in the storm raging
again with its old fury ; in any case they have left
their mark ; in any case they point to a divergence
concerning vital principles, and have therefore an
indirect bearing on the destinies of the party. They
related to questions of high imperial polity, and
polity is of the essence of party. Mr Chamberlain
has intimated, with an unimpeachable accuracy not
always characteristic of his utterances, that the
British Empire will remain though he should die
to-morrow ; and so long as the British Empire
remains problems of empire will exist ; and so long
as problems of empire exist their solution is the
business of politicians ; and it is, in the main, the
conflict of views with regard to the nature of the
solution which differentiates the various groups.
Hence, the moment such a conflict arises within the
same group in connection with a problem of the first
magnitude, the very existence of the group is
imperilled ; and to attempt to evade the danger
by agreeing to differ is merely to adopt the inept
process by which the ostrich blinds itself to its
impending fate.

The segregation of the Liberal party was not
only emphasised, but more or less perpetuated, by
the formation of two organisations, with both of
which the same individual could not possibly be
identified. The one known as the " League of

40 Racial Supremacy

Liberals against Aggression and Militarism " was
born in the early days of the late war, was of rapid
growth, and embraced many prominent men, now
active members of the political committee of the
New Reform Club in which the League was eventu-
ally merged. The other, of later birth, originally
assumed the name of the " Imperial Liberal Council,"
and although in one sense short lived, yet as it " ulti-
mately suffused itself gently into the soul" of another
body,1 the present " Liberal League," it may be said
to be, by a process of metempsychosis, very much
in evidence, and to command influential support.
Of course both Leagues disclaimed any intention of
hostility to Liberalism, and it is no doubt true that
separate organisations may exist within the same
ranks without being necessarily antagonistic. Nor,
indeed, is there anything novel in the sectional
division of a political party. The present generation
has witnessed the inception of " Tory Democracy,"
a somewhat peculiar creed which was evolved by
certain restless and ambitious spirits who, discon-
tented with the stolidity of official Conservatism,
sought to strike out a path for themselves. It has
still a few adherents ; but it sank into insignificance
on the coalition of prominent Liberals with their
normal opponents, and the formation of a new party
under the title of " Unionists." The latter stands
upon a different footing, and is a kind of hybrid
partnership between men of reputedly incompatible
general principles, formed for the purpose of defeat-
ing a particular project which they both regarded as
peculiarly objectionable ; but its history shows that

1 Lord Rosebery, Speech at Hotel Cecil, London, July 31, 1902.

Liberalism and Imperialism 41

the partnership, if not fatal to the men, is fatal to
the principles. And now this hybrid body has itself
been rent in twain by the individual who was largely
responsible alike for its formation and for the disrup-
tion of the group with which he had hitherto been
identified.

It is not, however, in the "Constitutional party, "as its
members sometimes style themselves, that we must
usually expect to find that divergence of opinion which
not infrequently occurs amongst Liberals — and this
for an obvious reason. To secure unity between men
who are mainly concerned with upholding existing
institutions is, naturally, much less difficult than to
secure it between men who are mainly concerned with
reforming such institutions. A progressive party,
in fact, cannot in the very nature of things be for
long absolutely homogeneous. Its adherents may all
agree as to the existence of evils or anomalies, but
they will have their individual opinions, not only as
to the methods of reform, but as to the relative im-
portance of various items of their programme ; whilst
for the promotion of each of the more prominent
of those items associations are usually called into
being, and command the special support of different
members of the party. In such circumstances
sectional divisions are inevitable ; and although there
can, or at any rate ought to be, united action to
secure the general objects of the body, absolute
unity is scarcely possible. This in itself is not
altogether to be deplored, for it tends to a kind of
winnowing or clarifying process. But whether re-
garded as desirable or otherwise, it is too indubitable
to render the creation of any new sectional organisa-

42 Racial Supremacy

tion a matter of surprise, or even of importance,
per se.

There is, however, at least one clearly defined limit
to the permissible heterogeneity between politicians
claiming allegiance to the same cause, namely that
it must not involve a conflict of first principles. It
is from the disregard of this that we get the cleavage
of the ranks on the question of Imperialism — which
resulted in the Liberal debacle. For such a cleavage
goes to the root ; and if it does not kill, growth can
only be independent. In other words, and dropping
metaphor, we get two distinct parties ; and hence the
disintegration indicates that on one side or the other
there has been a betrayal of the common cause.

Now an incongruity of this character can only arise
from the failure, either to adequately apprehend first
principles, or to consistently reduce them into action.
Before, therefore, we can arrive at the ultimate cause
of the disruption and determine with whom the re-
sponsibility'lies, we have first to ascertain what those
principles are, and then to discover in what way they
have been infringed. The point resolves itself into
one of whether or not Imperialism is inconsistent
with Liberalism ; and this cannot be settled unless
we have a clear and definite conception of Liberalism.
Imperialism has already been analysed.1

THE RATIONALE OF LIBERALISM

What, then, is Liberalism ? The question is one
which, in view of the number of its adherents and

1 See pp. 4-10.

Liberalism and Imperialism 43

the records of its achievements, ought to command
a ready response. And yet, simple though it seems,
probably there are very few Liberals who could
answer it offhand in anything like a precise manner ;
and the chances are they would fall back upon
illustrations, or, if they attempted a generalisation,
would intimate that Liberalism consisted in the pro-
motion of reform. But a creed is not to be defined
by actions ; these should be the outcome of the creed ;
and the " promotion of reform " is in itself a vague
and indeterminate phrase. Liberalism does not
consist in a Newcastle programme, on the one hand,
or in a clean slate, on the other. A programme is
not only a very good, but a very necessary thing,
provided we know how to draw it up ; and a clean
slate may perhaps at times be useful, provided we
know what to write upon it. Men, however, are not
Liberals because they advocate particular measures ;
on the contrary, they ought to advocate particular
measures because they are Liberals ; and they are
certainly not Liberals because they freely apply the
sponge, although it is of course possible that Liberal-
ism may prompt them at times to take that course.
Works spring from faith ; they should give us a clue
to the faith, but they do not constitute it ; they may
be the outward and visible signs of an inward and
spiritual grace ; but, before we can accept them as
signs of grace, we must know what grace is.
Liberalism indubitably induces a desire for reform ;
but reform does not consist in mere change, and
change indeed may mean retrogression and not pro-
gress. Every suggested change, every proposed
reform, every item of a programme, every species of

44 Racial Supremacy

propaganda, must be tested by some principle before
it can be appraised ; and to those who profess to be
Liberals conformity to the principles of Liberalism
constitutes the test ; it is by those principles that a
Liberal must judge Imperialism. Therefore to answer
the question of " What is Liberalism ? " as a pre-
liminary to the inquiry of whether or not Imperialism
is in harmony with it, we have to ascertain what its
fundamental principles are.

Now, although one would have thought that there
could be little scope for investigation into a matter
of this kind, the fact seems to be that it would puzzle
the majority of Liberals to reduce their beliefs to
first principles, and that if they made the attempt
they would by no means agree ; indeed, it is the
failure to firmly apprehend and grasp such principles
that is the chief cause of the vagaries and eccentrici-
ties which not infrequently characterise the party of
reform. Men see that society is imperfect, that in-
justice prevails, that the times are out of joint : there
is much in their daily experience from which their
moral nature revolts ; some of them are themselves
victims or scapegoats ; and as the result, unless they
are too apathetic, indifferent or cowed to take any
interest in public affairs, they give in their adhesion
to that political body which professes dissatis-
faction with the existing condition of things, seeks
to alter them, and inscribes on its banner the
word " progress." But they do not get a philo-
sophic conception of their creed ; it is not to them
so much a principle as a programme; their Liberalism
merely takes the form of advocating a number of
measures, all of which are probably sound and bene-

Liberalism and Imperialism 45

ficial, but which they are unable to trace to that
common source from which such measures, if really
Liberal, ought to spring. Hence, when some new
problem arises, or some new departure is proposed
— as, for instance, in the case of Ireland and Home
Rule — many of them are perplexed, and may eventu-
ally decide to oppose what, if they had a guiding
principle by which to test the problem or proposal,
they would have seen it to be their duty to support.
And these characteristics are by no means peculiar
to the rank and file of the party ; they have been
exhibited by some of its leading members. Several
years ago Mr Andrew Reid issued a small volume
under the title of "Why I am a Liberal,"1 containing
the reasons given by a number of prominent men ;
yet, despite the source from which they emanated,
the reasons were for the most part far from luminous.
Some of the writers, although responding at length,
seem to walk round the question ; others deal with
it in an illusory manner. Very few can be said
to lay down a root principle or present us with a
crystallization of Liberalism ; and reference need
only be made to those dicta which are associated
with names of the first rank, or to those which seem
specially apt. Of course, the definition to which
great weight attaches, and which is often quoted
on account of its authoritative and epigrammatic
character, is that of Mr Gladstone, to the effect
that Liberalism is trust in the people qualified by
prudence (Conservatism being mistrust of the people
qualified by fear). The qualification, however, opens
a safe retreat for any weak-kneed Liberal, who, if
1 London, Cassell & Co., Ltd.

46 Racial Supremacy

charged with falling short of his creed, would calmly
reply that he is simply actuated by prudence ; whilst
the definition seems to have the further defect that
it regards Liberalism from the statesman's rather
than from the popular standpoint. Trust in the
people is no doubt a sound principle for a Liberal
Government, but when enunciated for the benefit of
the people themselves it is simply an exhortation to
self-trust or to trust of one another ; and however good
individual or mutual confidence may be, it is not the
final word of Liberalism, nor does it suffice for the
solution of political problems. Lord Rosebery's
answer was inconsequential : " Because I wish to
be associated with the best men in the best work."
Any honest politician of whatever creed (or a dis-
honest one, for a matter of that) would probably
say the same thing ; and all that the utterance
amounts to is the expression of a pious opinion on
the part of its author that the best men are Liberals
and the best work that which they undertake.1
Browning contributed a poem in which he pro-
claimed that Liberalism consists in the promotion
of liberty ; and Mr Chamberlain regarded it as the
expression in politics of the law of progress. The
first is no doubt practical, but scarcely sufficiently
determinate by itself; and the second, whilst sug-
gestive, does not afford substantial guidance. Mr
Broadhurst, however, came near to the mark when
he stated that the object of Liberalism is to remove

1 At a much later date Lord Rosebery— still nobly, but vaguely,
striving after "the best" — gives a "rough definition" of Liberalism as
a "readiness to accept and to assimilate the best ideas of the time and
to apply them honestly in action." Speech at the Queen's Hall, London^
June 10, 1904.

Liberalism and Imperialism 47

all obstacles erected by man which prevent all having
equal opportunities ; for, although this is not a de-
finition, it is possible to evolve from it what perhaps
is the most satisfactory definition at which we can
arrive. And, again, Mr Arthur Arnold tells us that
Liberalism abhors inequality before the law ; and Dr
Bennett declares himself a Liberal because he would
have equal rights and laws ; whilst Dr Llewelyn
Bevan gathers up Liberalism in the one word
" equality " ; and he further logically develops the
idea with remarkable lucidity and brilliancy in
some passages which may hereafter be pertinently
quoted.

The definition of Liberalism which most nearly
combines the three qualities of exactitude, concise-
ness and comprehensiveness is " the promotion of
political equality " ; in the doctrine of political
equality is found the fundamental principle of
Liberalism, although that doctrine no doubt admits
of expansion, and there are corollated or allied
principles. " Equality " simpliciter^ as given by Dr
Bevan, if by that is meant absolute equality in all
matters, is not possible, and probably not desirable.
There are natural inequalities which it would be
vain to attempt entirely to remove, and some of
which give a charm to life and to man's intercourse
with man. But there are also artificial inequalities,
and these are generally mischievous — nature can
take care of herself — and the conception of Liberal-
ism is that it is safe, wise and beneficial to war
against inequality ; that equal rights and equal
opportunities should be enjoyed by all, and that

48 Racial Supremacy

in proportion as this ideal is approached will the
prosperity and happiness of the race be promoted.
And the essence of that conception is found in the
doctrine above referred to ; in the principle that
everyone should stand in the same position before
the law, that everyone should have the same voice in
the making of the law, that everyone should have the
same political privilege and responsibility. Political
equality therefore involves self-government, for it
cannot obtain under any other form of government.
And, as a corollary of this, Liberalism demands
that the aim of government should be the good of
the community as a whole ; that the object of legis-
lation should be to promote the welfare, not of a
particular section, but of all sections ; and that, as
special privileges can only be conferred upon some
at the expense of others, the maintenance and ex-
tension of such privileges must be firmly resisted.
Hence, monopoly, of whatever form, is repug-
nant to the spirit of Liberalism ; and herein we
get in one word, the clue to every substantial
item of the Liberal programme. Elaborate argu-
ments may be framed in favour of the abolition of
an hereditary chamber, the disestablishment of
the Church, the taxation of ground values, the
municipalisation of the liquor trafic, and many other
reforms ; but they are all traceable to the common
denominator that monopoly is bad. It is sometimes
said that Liberalism pits the masses against the
classes ; but whilst Liberalism is undoubtedly con-
cerned with the masses, and whilst the evils it seeks
to remove generally bear with unequal severity upon
one portion of the community — by far the larger,

Liberalism and Imperialism 49

and as a rule the more helpless — a more accurate
statement would be that Liberalism takes no cogni-
sance of the classes as such, for in the masses all
classes are included. But it does pronounce a veto
upon legislative nepotism, and can have nothing
to do with "doles," whether to landlords, clergy,
brewers or the " friends " of the Government for the
time being.

Associated with, if not involved in the funda-
mental principle, is the further principle of liberty ;
but herein it is worth noting that the former con-
ception of liberty, the conception of the old Man-
chester school, the conception of Mr Herbert Spencer,
has undergone considerable modification ; and it is
now seen that unrestricted liberty simply comes
back to monopoly, and that individual liberty must
be consistent with collective freedom or the equal
liberties of all. Hence the once popular doctrine of
laisser-faire has been frankly and freely abandoned,
and the whole tendency of modern Liberal legisla-
lation (sometimes, it may be admitted, of Conservative
legislation also, for reasons which need not here be in-
vestigated) has been largely socialistic in its nature.
For it has become more and more recognised that
political liberty is merely a means to an end, and
that what is primarily requisite is economic freedom ;
that the liberty which permits a man to go without
a dinner if he has not the means of paying for one,
must yield to the freedom which permits all to
labour for the requisites of healthy existence and to
retain the products of their industry.1 It is to the
grave disparity in the distribution of wealth — the

Seepages 148-151.
D

50 Racial Supremacy

result of monopoly — that to a great extent, not only
political inequality, but social inequality is due ; and
whilst Liberalism is not communistic in the sense of
seeking to bring about an equal distribution of
wealth, it is concerned with the removal of that in-
equality which is due to privilege, and with the
securing to all of the same opportunities and the
same rights. And with this conception of liberty —
a conception to which it is not of course suggested
every Liberal has attained, though it is the logical
outcome of his creed — the distinction between
Liberalism and Socialism becomes less pronounced
or important, the difference being largely one of
methods ; and not the least conspicuous achievement
of Socialism is that it has to a great extent suc-
ceeded in educating and infusing its spirit into the
Liberal party. Old age pensions, a graduated in-
come tax, municipal control of gas, water, and
tramways — not to mention again items of the Liberal
programme already referred to — are all reforms of
a distinctively collectivist character ; and if the
Socialist is the sworn foe of monopoly, the consistent
Liberal can scarcely regard it with less antagonism.

And now, we have only to apply to our inter-
course with other countries this fundamental principle
of political equality, with its allied principle of
liberty, and we have the key to Liberal foreign
policy. If we recognise the equal rights of indi-
viduals, we must recognise the equal rights of nations.
If we abjure any distinction between the various
units of the body-politic, we must abjure any
distinction between the various units of the cosmos-
politic. If we believe in self-government for our-

Liberalism and Imperialism 51

selves, we must believe in self-government for others.
If we claim the right to make our own laws, we must
concede to foreign countries the right to make their
own laws. If class supremacy or despotic rule is
repugnant to us, national supremacy or despotic rule
should be equally repugnant. If we object to
privilege and monopoly within the community, we
must object to privilege and monopoly by the com-
munity. In proportion as we claim the right to
regulate our own conduct, to control our own affairs
and work out our own salvation, must we accord to
other races the same right, unless they should freely
and voluntarily cast in their lot with us. If we
would not ourselves permit coercion by alien States,
we are debarred from employing coercion towards
alien States ; if we would suffer no dictation as to
the management of our national concerns, we are
forbidden to employ dictation as to the management
of ultra-national concerns. Nor is the principle of
political equality less applicable to international
concerns ; but here we are confronted with the fact
that any one State may fail to observe it, and
whilst intervention to compel its observance within
that State would itself be a breach of the principle,
intervention may be permissible when the breach
affects other States. And that circumstances may
arise in which intervention is justified, not to compel
the observance of the principle within another State,
but to prevent such a gross breach of it as outrages
humanity, is only an exception which proves the
rule. There are cases in which races of a lower
type of civilisation, or even races which claim to be
in the van of civilisation, are guilty of such tyranny,

52 Racial Supremacy

oppression and revolting cruelty, that it becomes the
sacred duty of other Powers to see that these things
shall not continue. But the limits of the interven-
tion are, according to Liberal principles, clearly
defined. The tyranny must be indisputable ; it
must not be of a petty character (since, though even
then it is indefensible, the remedy is worse than the
disease) ; and the intervention must be solely with
the object of preventing the continuance of such
tyranny, must cease when the object is accom-
plished, and above all must be free from even the
suspicion of racial animosity and still more of self-
interest. Indeed, by this last factor alone would it
be almost safe to determine whether or not a legiti-
mate case for interference has arisen ; for nations
will always be slow to take upon themselves the
onus of attacking another Power from purely al-
truistic motives. As a rule they are actuated by
selfishness, vindictiveness, jealousy or hatred ; and
with all the wanton cruelty to which the racial or
tribal instincts have led, it would be difficult to find
an instance in which there has been a forcible attempt
to arrest such cruelty, due to purely philanthropic
or humanitarian zeal. So that we come back to the
general rule that Liberals must concede to other
nations the rights they claim for themselves, that
the doctrine of political equality, if valid at all, is
one not simply of national but of world-wide ap-
plication. This is the only foreign policy consistent
with Liberalism. We can sympathise with suffering
abroad not less than at home ; we may help to
alleviate it by personal sacrifice ; we are free to
frankly criticise the policy of other States ; we are

Liberalism and Imperialism 53

not debarred from tendering judicious "friendly
counsel " or from expressing moral condemnation ;
we may be justified in seeking to suppress brutality
or aggression ; but if we exceed these limits ; if we
indulge in vulgar abuse, slanderous innuendoes or
scurrilous attacks ; if we cast covetous eyes on
territory, or embark in schemes of national ag-
grandisement ; if we have recourse to coercion of
any character either from selfish motives, or with
objects other than such as have been referred to, we
are acting contrary to the spirit of Liberalism. The
golden rule might, after all, be usefully imported
into the domain of politics ; and we shall perhaps
not altogether fail to catch its meaning if we are
only true to the doctrine of political equality.

If, then, the inquiry is repeated " Why am I a
Liberal ? " the answer must be ; not because I trust
the people, for that is inconclusive ; not because I
am desirous of being associated with the best men
in the best work, for that is inconsequential ; not
because I am identified with the cause of progress,
for that is indeterminate ; not because I advocate
reform, for that is indefinite ; but, because I believe
in the principle of political equality and in all that
such principle involves ; because I am prepared to
accept that principle as a guide to conduct and
make it the test of political consistency ; because I
endeavour to promote such measures as spring from
that principle, irrespective of whether they are
calculated to confer personal benefit or to result in
personal loss ; and because I do not illogically and
selfishly limit the application of that principle to my

54 Racial Supremacy

own country, or seek to promote her interests at the
expense of other communities.

Says Dr Bevan in some remarkably fine expository
passages :—

" By Liberalism I understand those principles and that
practice which aim, first, at rendering the individual a
self-governing person ; second, combining men for the
common purposes of social life, in such communities as can
practically act together, under the necessary limitations of
space and time; third, recognising the unity and the
solidarity of the entire race."

" The separations which are marked by any limitations
of freedom, such as are involved in tributary nations,
national interests, protective tariffs, disabilities arising from
foreign birth, and the like, are all alien to the true concep-
tion of Liberalism. For I know no nation but the race,
and no patriotism but universal humanity."

" The supreme sanctions, therefore, of Liberalism, as I
conceive them, are the interests and welfare of all men,
without distinction of race, language, or colour." l

LIBERALISM VERSUS IMPERIALISM

And now, if we have obtained a correct appre-
hension of what Liberalism is, we see at a glance
that it comes into sharp conflict with Imperialism.
The essence of the latter is predominance,2 that is
to say political inequality. It does not recognise
equal rights or equal opportunities ; it is the anti-
thesis of self-government, being arbitrary rule ; its
inevitable tendency is to promote the interests not
of the governed but of the governing, as can be seen
wherever it is in operation. It means the creation,
maintenance and extension of privilege and mon-

1 Why I am a Liberal (footnote, p. 45), 28-30. 2 See p. 5.

Liberalism and Imperialism 55

opoly, and of all the evils flowing therefrom. It
is the negation of liberty, the denial to others of
the freedom claimed for oneself, the argumentum
baculinum, the apotheosis of despotism. Thus at
every point it is anti-Liberal. Racial supremacy is
not less opposed to equality than class supremacy ;
national predominance is not less coercive than
sectional predominance ; absolute government does
not cease to be the denial of self-government because
it is applied to an alien race. In short, Liberalism
and Imperialism are wide as the poles asunder.

It is no doubt true that the Imperialist professes
to seek the welfare of the governed, and often honestly
believes he is promoting it ; that is to say, he has
such an exalted idea of his own capacity for rule
as to think he is conferring a boon by enforcing it,
and is so puffed up with national pride and patriotic
conceit as to beam with complacent benevolence
when he witnesses the expansion of his country's
sway. That he is labouring under a colossal delusion,
that the welfare of the governed is not actually
promoted, that Imperialism cannot, in fact, produce
good government, has already been pointed out,1 and
in any case need not be here demonstrated, since
for present purposes such a demonstration would
be irrelevant. For if the Liberal who puts forward
this contention could establish its validity, he would
simply be destroying the very foundation of his
creed, because he would then be establishing that the
doctrine of political equality is unsound, and that
the prosperity and happiness of the race is traceable
to political inequality. What he is really advocat-

1 See pp. 30-31.

56 Racial Supremacy

ing is a " benevolent despotism " l or a paternal
form of government, and the answer to him is that,
if he believes in this, he ought to strip himself of
his Liberal attire, for he is merely masquerading
in Tory garments. A Conservative Imperialist is
at any rate consistent ; Imperialism is the natural
deduction from his creed, for to him the doctrine
of political equality is obnoxious. He has fought
against it in the past ; he fights against it to-day.
He does not think that all men should have the
same rights and opportunities ; he does not regard
the masses as capable of self-government ; he holds
it is for the good of the country that power should
not be apportioned according to numbers, and that
what he terms the " educated " and " propertied "
classes should have a larger if not a preponderating
voice in the government ; and just as he has been,
and is, opposed to the removal of political disabilities,
to adult suffrage, to the abolition of plural voting,
and to the abrogation of what he considers as the
safeguard of an hereditary Chamber, and just as he
views with satisfaction the existence of monopoly
and the maintenance of privilege, so he logically
approves of coercive rule in Ireland, has no twinge
of conscience as to the dominion exercised over
India, and glorifies empire and exults in its expan-
sion. In so doing, he is but uniformly judging by
his own perspective, the result of a narrow vision ;
but when a professing Liberal prostrates himself
before the Imperial fetich, he rebels against the
light.

1 The theory of benevolent despotism is fully discussed later. See
The Ethics of Empire , page 214.

Liberalism and Imperialism 57

Here, however, the Liberal Imperialist may say
that his ultimate aim is the creation of autonomous
States — that Imperialism is merely a means to an
end, and when a race has been brought under our
sway, free institutions will in due course be accorded
to it, the object being that self-government shall be
granted the moment the capacity has been de-
veloped. As to this it may, in the first place, be
remarked that if the real motive of subduing others
is to leave them free to govern themselves, then
(even ignoring the Jesuitical nature of the process)
we arrive at the position that the culminating purpose
of Imperialism is to destroy itself. That being so,
the question arises whether it would not be better
at once to give it the happy dispatch. If we are
so anxious to promote autonomy, why not recognise
it where it already exists, instead of abrogating it
with a view to its restoration ? And if our mission
is one of pure philanthropy, why not limit ourselves
to philanthropic means, instead of forcing our boons
upon reluctant peoples at the point of the sword?
The method is not calculated to commend itself to
them, and one can fancy them saying : —

" Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
But — why did you kick us downstairs ? "

The short effective answer to the plea, however, is
that it is not true in fact. Imperialism seeks, not
to destroy but to perpetuate itself — it does not aim
at the creation of autonomous States, but maintains
arbitrary rule : it does not seek to develop the
capacity for self-government, but checks or stifles
it ; and it is only when the capacity exists and is

58 Racial Supremacy

able to assert itself — in other words, only when
Imperialism can be check-mated — that self-govern-
ment is obtained. Let us read the history of the
acquisition of British India, with all its revolting
details ; let us read the history of British rule in
India, with its long record of the exploitation of a
famine stricken people ; let us ask what substantial
measure of self-government has ever been conferred
upon India, and what progress has been made
towards that postulated goal of autonomy, if we wish
to realise the hollowness of this casuistical defence
of empire.

Of course the truth is that all the talk about the
ultimate good of conquered races proceeds from
pure self-deception, whereby we conceal the fact
that we are merely pursuing our own interests, or
gratifying our own passions, or asserting our own
supremacy. There is only one logical basis for
Imperialism, and that is found in the doctrine of
the superior person, the doctrine of divine right, the
doctrine of the chosen nation ; in short, the
doctrine, ' by whatsoever name known, of which the
foundation is inequality.

Imperialism and Liberalism, then, let it be
repeated, are as wide as the poles asunder ; from
which it follows that the nearer we approach the one
the further we recede from the other. A Liberal
can only render allegiance to Imperialism at the
expense of his Liberalism ; the Liberal party can
only adopt an Imperialist policy by stultifying itself.
The conclusion is one from which there is no escape,
but fortunately (or unfortunately) it is one which

Liberalism and Imperialism 59

can be readily verified by actual experience. For \
what has been the effect of Imperialism upon one
brilliant individual who formerly led the Liberal
party ? And what has been the effect of Imperial-
ism upon the Liberal party itself? Both questions
are worthy of a detailed answer.

A LIBERAL DEGENERATE

In the career of Lord Rosebery we can trace,
almost stage by stage, the gradual undermining of
Liberalism by Imperialism. Despite the fact that by
the accident of birth he was doomed to breathe the
Conservative atmosphere of the hereditary Legislative
Chamber, despite the fact that the possession of
considerable wealth was calculated to imbue him
with the tenets of plutocracy, he demonstrated that
the Liberal creed is robust enough to overcome
these adverse influences, at any rate in the case of
a man of keen intellect, broad sympathy, and
absolute integrity. He threw in his lot with the
progressive party, placed his great talents at their
disposal, became the loving disciple and sworn ally
of Mr Gladstone, rapidly came to the front, and at
a comparatively early age attained to the exalted
position of Prime Minister. But whilst freeing him-
self from class bias, he almost from the first
exhibited an inability to shake off national bias ;
and he became identified with what is known as
a " strong foreign policy," a policy to which, so far
as it merely indicates a determination to legitimately
maintain national rights, of course no objection can
be taken, but one which is generally interpreted

60 Racial Supremacy

with considerable latitude. At the height of his
career he resigned the leadership of the party ; and
from that day forth he has conspicuously manifested
an increasing sympathy with Imperialism and a
diminishing sympathy with Liberalism, until at
length, despite his drastic criticism of the Govern-
ment— a criticism which their genius for blundering,
their despicable shuffling, their bureaucratic arrogance,
their disreputable legislation, and their remarkable
inefficiency irresistibly provokes — it would be diffi-
cult to discover what fundamental political principle
divides him from the " Unionist " party ; or rather,
did divide him, until that party was itself split up
into two hostile sections. His appearance in public
was for some time fitful and meteoric, but the
notable fact is that year after year whenever it took
place it was made, not for the purpose of en-
couraging his political allies or with the result of
advancing the Liberal cause, but for the purpose
of criticising their policy, and with the result of
retarding the cause. The one and only role he
played to perfection was that of the candid friend,
to the delight of the common enemy and the
strengthening of their defiant citadel. Criticism
from within is no doubt at times very necessary,
and may, if judicious, prove salutary ; but a man
of weight and talent who, whilst holding himself
aloof from active work, comes forward at recurring
intervals and grave junctures to inflict damaging
blows upon those with whom he is nominally
identified, can do more mischief than an actual
traitor.

Five years ago Mr Massingham pointed out in

Liberalism and Imperialism 61

the Nineteenth Century l that this " most irresponsible
of men " had made himself impossible, and that
the evidence of his decision to break with the
Liberal party was decisive. He had then made
four incursions into politics, each in absolute
antagonism to the Gladstonian tenets, namely to
crush out the Armenian agitation, to intensify the
Fashoda incident, to foreshadow his subsequent
repudiation of Home Rule, and to renounce the
post-Majuba policy. The Liberal party, true to
its principle of sympathy with oppressed nationalities,
had definitely ranged itself on the side of the victims
of the " Great Assassin," but Lord Rosebery, from
a holy horror of the possibility of war — a horror
which might have been credited to him for righteous-
ness if it had been exhibited at a somewhat later
period — signalised his resignation of the leadership
by separating himself from the policy of his former
chief, and whilst not " unwilling to draw the sword
in a just and necessary cause," apparently did not
regard the arrest of the crusade of slaughter in
Armenia as within that description, which, indeed,
was limited to the defence of " interests directly
and distinctively British." 2 In the case of Fashoda,
the late leader emerged from his retreat and rallied to
the support of the Conservative Government 3 in
order, as Mr Massingham put it, to " add the coping
stone or ornamental finial to that North African
Empire which Mr Gladstone dreaded and disliked,"
and thus increased the difficulties of French statesmen

1 November, 1899, p. 729.

2 Speech at Edinburgh, October 9, 1896.

3 Speech at Epsom, October 12, 1898.

62 Racial Supremacy

in making a graceful retreat and averting hostilities,
and assisted in provoking an intensely bitter feeling
towards us on the part of our near neighbour. At
the City Liberal Club we had the famous " before
1886" speech,1 which although characteristically
enigmatical, save in its outspoken Imperialism, was
in the light of further development evidently intended
to indicate dissociation from the great measure for
giving self-government to the sister isle, which is the
sacred legacy bequeathed to the Liberal party by
its revered and lamented chieftain. Finally our
imperialistic zealot, in a speech in support of the
South African War2 pronounced a solemn adverse
judgment upon the just, wise and magnanimous act
— an act which for all time will stand out as one
conspicuous instance of that righteousness which
exalteth a nation — whereby the Boers were restored
to their territory and independence of which they
had been wrongfully deprived.

Thus far had Lord Rosebery by the end of 1899
abandoned the Gladstonian traditions, turned his
back on the Liberal party, and proved faithless to
the doctrine of political equality. The next stage
in the downward course was one of special signi-
ficance, for it brought to view the finger-post which
bears the laconic but deadly suggestive legend " To
Conscription " ; and whilst the Liberal warning reads
" that way madness lies," it was not obscurely hinted 3
that the Imperial admonition runs "that way safety

1 May 5, 1899.

2 At Bath, October 27, 1899.

8 Speech in the House of Lords, February 15, 1900.

Liberalism and Imperialism 63

lies." The election manifesto of September 1 900 l
was one of the weakest and crudest productions
that ever emanated from a statesman of eminence,
its contribution to practical Liberalism consisting in
a colourless reference to " legislation in respect of
temperance and the housing of the working classes,"
and its Imperialism being sufficiently manifest in
references to the problem of South Africa and the
priceless heritage of Empire in terms which no
Conservative would have hesitated to adopt ; whilst
War Office administrative reform naturally shared
the honours of the jejune political programme.
Two months later we had the inaugural address as
Lord Rector of the Glasgow University2 — a most
brilliant and impassioned discourse from the literary
and oratorical standpoint, but the whole burden of
which is the greatness and glory of empire ; and in
the course of this we get the now famous and apt
definition of empire as " predominance of race,"
coupled with the inquiry of " how is that predomin-
ance to be secured ? "

A considerable interval then elapsed, during which
the sulking Achilles seems only to have emerged
from his tent to plough a lonely furrow, a prey to
that gloomy pessimism such process is calculated to
engender ; which resulted in his next public appear-
ance in July 1901 being signalised by a speech
" morbid to the point of hysteria," but relieved by
such flowers of rhetoric as " a great hullabaloo,"
"Jack the Ripper," and "Oh, my heavens!" and
graced by such amenities as a reference to " a meet-

1 Letter to Captain the Hon. H. Lambtony September 22, 1900.

2 November 16, 1900.

64 Racial Supremacy

ing of lunatics " and " an organised hypocrisy " ;
leading up to the announcement that the Liberal
party was paralysed by a neutrality on Imperial
questions, and that its salvation lay in purging itself
from all anti-national elements.1 And then towards
the close of the year came the sensational Chester-
field speech ; 2 a speech to which, for some occult
reason, large numbers of Liberals looked forward as
they would to the deliverance of an oracle — the
oracle, however, proving to be of the usual Delphic
order, enabling his hearers to interpret his utterance
according to their several predilections — a speech
of which the supposed contribution to Liberalism
consisted in advising the party, first to wipe its
slate clean, and secondly not to dissociate itself
from the new sentiment of empire that occupied
the nation ; concerning which it is to be observed
that the one is no doubt the necessary preliminary
to the other, seeing that Imperialism will be satis-
fied with little less than the entire slate, and that
programmes of domestic reform must therefore be
sponged out. This was followed in two months by
the Liverpool pronouncement,3 the chief feature of
which was to make it definitely clear — if there had
previously been any doubt on the point — that in
cleaning the slate Home Rule necessarily dis-
appeared ; a fact which, despite the speaker's con-
tention to the contrary, seemed effectually to destroy
the last barrier which separated the so-called Liberal
Imperialists from the so-called Liberal Unionists,

1 Speech at City Liberal Cluby July 19, 1901.
a December 16, 1901.
8 February 14, 1902.

Liberalism and Imperialism 65

and which afforded the latter the legitimate oppor-
tunity of gleefully remarking that it had taken Lord
Rosebery sixteen years to come to a conclusion at
which they had arrived in sixteen days. The finale
was reached in less than a week — to some it seemed
that it ought to have been reached much earlier —
when the quondam Liberal leader, in a letter
appropriately written to a Tory newspaper,1 definitely
separated himself from the party with which he had
hitherto been identified, and placed himself outside
the official tabernacle ; the reasons given, though
embracing nothing that was then new, being
sufficiently comprehensive to avoid any possibility
of misconception.

Here, then, the curtain fell, for the time being
at any rate, upon Lord Rosebery 's career as a
Liberal — although, of course, those who, whilst
identifying themselves with the party of progress,
share his views as to racial predominance, do not
recognise the fact or they would be conscious of
the incongruity of their own position. His Liberal-
ism succumbed at last to a process of slow poisoning,
arising from inoculation with the virus of Imperialism.
Until he himself pronounced his own excommunica-
tion, it was possible to hope for the best, and
strenuous efforts were made to retain him; efforts,
however, which only resulted in loss of dignity and
stamina. His political epitaph might fittingly be,
" He left his party for his party's good." Months
previously Mr Sidney Webb had congratulated him
on his " escape from Houndsditch," 2 which salubrious

1 The Times, February 21, 1902.

2 Nineteenth Century — and After ; September 1901, p. 366.

E

66 Racial Supremacy

locality was felicitously regarded as the emporium
for Gladstonian old clothes ; and, although an old
clothes' emporium can with equal felicity be con-
templated as a Conservative depot, the metaphor
would then only require to be presented as the
"flight to Houndsditch" to convey a similarly
appropriate and graphic summary of the facts.

What may be the future of this talented but un-
stable politician, it would require a bold man to
predict ; but this much seems certain that, so long
as he is a slave to Imperialism, Liberalism will to
him be little more than a name to conjure with ;
and unless he should discover a loftier source of
inspiration than the doctrine of racial predominance,
it will be a sorry day for the Liberal party and the
cause of progress should he again be entrusted by
them with the reins of authority. It is true that,
holding aloof from the Unionists (who are probably
not anxious to find recruits amongst men who do
more damage from within than from without), he
has, in his favourite character of a Free Lance,
vigorously attacked the revolution of our education
system — somewhat tardily, and after some previous
wobbling — but Liberals who still foolishly centre
their hopes on the wanderer may derive what
comfort they can from his belated opposition to a
measure against which even Birmingham Unionism
revolted. It is also true that — having previously
intimated he was not a person who believed Free
Trade to be part of the Sermon on the Mount, and
would not hastily reject any plan offered on high
authority for really cementing the Empire, nor as a

Liberalism and Imperialism 67

very old and convinced Imperialist condemn such a
plan till he saw it practically before him1 — he
shortly found, though " with pain and with grief,"
that he was unable to support Mr Chamberlain's
scheme, so far as he knew it ; 2 and eventually, with
his customary power and eloquence, preached Free
Trade as an economic Gospel,3 though with a half
apologetic exordium ; 4 and a little later unequivoc-
ally threw over Mr .Chamberlain, with " his mad
and dangerous experiment," and at the same time,
having conjured up a personal grievance anent an
" attempt at proscription " (!) graciously issued the
injunction to " let bygones be bygones," flung back
" the message of peace," and with exemplary courage,
announced that Liberals would be worse than fools
if they were not united shoulder to shoulder against
the forces of reaction.5 An energetic defence of
Free Trade, however, even had it not been tardy
and originally apologetic, can afford per se no
distinctive evidence of Liberalism, especially when
accompanied by an intimation that the " subject is
not a matter of party politics " 6 and that it should

1 Speech at Burnley, May 19, 1903.

2 Speech at Hotel Cecil, June 12, 1903.

3 Speech at Sheffield, October 13, 1903.

4 The caustic comment of the Standard was, "We can never be
sure that we know exactly what he means, or that he will adhere to
what, at any given moment, seem to be his convictions." October
14, 1903.

5 Speech at Leicester, November 7, 1903. More recently, however,
Lord Rosebery intimated he agreed with Mr Chamberlain that if there
had been an offer by the Colonies it would have been criminal on the
part of our statesmen to neglect the consideration of that offer ;
although he added he did not think the result would have been a good
one. Speech at Lincoln, September 20, 1904.

8 Speech at Burnley, May 19, 1903.

68 Racial Supremacy

have been non-political ; l and when, in fact, many
eminent Conservatives have been not less outspoken
in its support. For reformers can never be satisfied
with resisting retrogression,2 but must be constantly
pressing forward ; and whilst Mr Chamberlain's
" raging tearing propaganda " is, after all, part of
the price exacted from us for having pursued that
Imperial policy of which the former leader of the
Liberal party is so ardent an exponent, he does not
so far appear to have taken any keen interest in the
more prominent Liberal remedies for the economic
evils which undoubtedly exist, and which afford
Protectionists an excuse for parading their nostrums.
Indeed, Lord Rosebery's utterances are invariably
pitched, not in a Liberal, but in an Imperial key 3—
as we have already seen, but as may be still further
exemplified in bringing the record up to a more
recent date. When the first heavy blow was
administered by the electorate to a reactionary
Government for taxing the children's bread and
offering them priestly pabulum,4 he regarded the
event in the light of a warning to the Liberal party
for allowing itself to be dissociated from the
Imperialist aspirations of the nation 5 (the phrase
has a familiar ring). In his next notable deliverance,
whilst disclaiming any intention of reverting to the

1 Speech at Sheffield, October 13, 1903.

2 Lord Rosebery, of course, found no difficulty in denouncing the
monstrous Brewers' Endowment Bill.

3 "There is a laudable attraction about the label 'Imperial' —
people dislike to be dissociated from anything so ticketed, and they are
right." Lord Rosebery 's Preface to " Canada and the Empire," by E.
S. Montagu and B. Herbert. London, P. S. King & Son, 1904.

4 North Leeds Election, July 29, 1902.
8 Speech at Hotel Cecil, July 30, 1902.

Liberalism and Imperialism 69

well-worn theme, he could not resist the opportunity
to offer a " word in season " in the nature of an
admonition concerning a " sense of Imperial responsi-
bility " ; explaining in the same speech that he
renounced the Presidentship of the Scottish Liberal
Association, because he " wanted to carry out to the
very end the process of separation from party
politics" which he had begun in I896.1 About two
months later we find him engaged in the congenial
task of invoking the good wishes of every patriot on
Mr Chamberlain's " Imperial mission " to South
Africa, and again not vaguely hinting at his own
detachment by stating that there were a vast
number of people not violently in love with either
party, who would gladly in the present stress of
affairs support a wise and strong Government to
whatsoever party it might belong.2 Shortly after-
wards— apparently alarmed, somewhat late in the day,
at the cost of the militarism he had supported — he
urged we should seriously consider whether we could
not work the Empire, not less efficiently, but a
little more peacefully and economically, and
intimated the Government seemed to have the
hallucination that the word " Empire " meant
expenditure (the "hallucination" has a tolerable
substratum of fact) and meant little else.3 A
month later his alarm had considerably increased,
and he informed the House of Lords that the country
was "bleeding to death,"4 thereby provoking the
unkind ministerial reply that " during the South

1 Speech at Edinburgh, November I, 1902.

2 Speech at Plymouth, January 16, 1903.

3 Speech at Glasgow, February 26, 1903.

4 Speech in House of Lords, March 24, 1903.

70 Racial Supremacy

African war the noble Earl did not talk to them
of economy," l and that his speech was a dramatic
contrast to the mental attitude he adopted about two
years ago.2 We next find him presiding over a
dinner at the City Liberal Club when " compli-
mentary flies " were thrown out, inducing the
observation that he was a very old fish ; and that,
whilst he had been invited in terms of almost tender
eloquence to assume the position of leader of the
Liberal party, he could only say that he had been
leader of the Liberal party and had a very vivid
recollection of his experience.8 Then we have a
few oratorical gems, of which even Mr Chamber-
lain might be proud ; as for example — " we have been
anxious to prove to the world that our Empire meant
peace " ! 4 — though " for the last twenty- five years we
have had Empire in the air we breathe, we have
walked warily and cautiously with regard to it " 5 —
and " the British Empire ... is a great defensive
league of communities under the august headship of
the British Crown . . . and there is only one way
in which that league and those communities can
flourish, it is by each of the principal units which
compose it developing their own countries under
their own conditions in their own ways " 6 — which
conception of empire merely suffers from the trifling
defect of being exactly antithetical to the truth, and
of not altogether squaring with the orator's earlier

1 Earl Selborne, March 24, 1903.

2 Duke of Devonshire, March 27, 1903.
1 Speech^ June II, 1903.

4 Speech in House of Lords ', July 2, 1903.
* Speech at Leicester, November 7, 1903.
6 Speech at Edinburgh, December 12, 1903.

Liberalism and Imperialism 71

conception of " predominance of race," though it
might be descriptive of the " British Empire" if we
could wipe out the subservient seventeen-twentieths
of its population.1 And finally we find that the so-
called Liberal League — that League which, so far as
it has any distinctive principles, is essentially anti-
Liberal — is not to be dissolved until its President
sees a sure guarantee for the reduction of those
principles into practice by a Liberal Government ;2 an
intimation which leads one to hope that the League
may permanently drag on its renegade career.

Now in none of these speeches do we get any in-
dication of a grip of the fundamental principles of
Liberalism, or even an attempt to formulate a
moderately respectable Liberal programme. We
have the indisputable doctrine of "efficiency" —
" the first watchword," as it is termed 3 — preached
with wearying reiteration ; and it is true we have in
another pronouncement a slight improvement on the
" clean slate," in the shape of a few safe generaliza-
tions about education, temperance and housing ; *
but we look in vain for any appreciation of the fact
that the main problems it is the business of the
Liberal party to solve centre upon land and labour ;
and we actually get an injunction to "cut down

1 Later on Lord Rosebery again strikes the same false note when he
speaks of the Empire as " A band of self-governing communities spread
all over the world, united without constraint by sentiment, policy and
tradition." Speech at Trowbridge, October 31, 1904.

a Speech at the Hotel Cecil \ February 29, 1904. A little later the
versatile politician assumed the character of an apostle of Liberal unity,
and likened his mission to that of the Salvation Army, namely, to engage
in "rescue work." Speech at the City Liberal Clul>, June 30, 1904.

3 Speech at the Queen 's Hall> London^ June 10, 1904.

4 Speech at Sheffield, October 14, 1903.

72 Racial Supremacy

much of your municipal expenditure " 1 — that com-
paratively modest expenditure which, whilst Im-
perialism has been squandering its millions a year,
has done so much towards transforming this London
of ours, and has brought some little gladness and
sunshine into the lives of its humble toilers.

In fact, Lord Rosebery's Liberalism has been
riding the tiger of Imperialism ; and, as we know
from the sad fate of the lady immortalised in nursery
rhyme, such a performance, though satisfactory to
the tiger, is bad for the rider. Empire — that is to
say, the supremacy of the British race — is to his
Lordship what King Charles the First's head was to
Mr Dick ; it is perpetually bobbing up, and almost
invariably in the wrong place. Even on such an
apparently non-polemical topic as Commercial Educa-
tion, he could not descant without conveying the
impression that he was apprehensive of the cosmo-
politanism of science and had a patriotic fear lest
some other nation should chance to know as much
as we do.2 No doubt he is unfortunately right in
assuming that the Liberal party stands in need of a
warning, but the warning is of a very different character
from that which he would give them ; and no better one
can be found than in his own melancholy decadence
and the failure of the promise of his earlier years.

THE LIBERAL APOSTASY

Lord Rosebery, however, although a personage of
great eminence and marked individuality, and there-
fore worthy of careful study, is, after all, only one

1 Speech at the Surrey Theatre, November 25, 1903.

2 Speech at the Mansion House ', March 21, 1901.

Liberalism and Imperialism 73

man ; and had the Liberal party itself remained true
to its traditions, whilst it might have still deplored
the loss of its accomplished, if erratic, former leader,
it would not have presented the sorry spectacle it
has done during the past few years. But the mal-
evolent influence of Imperialism has not been con-
fined to prominent politicians ; it more or less
permeated the ranks of the party, corrupting and
demoralising it, with the result that it was for the
time being rendered impotent.

By every principle of Liberalism Mr Chamber-
lain's South African diplomacy stood condemned ;
to every principle of Liberalism the annexation of
the South African Republics was abhorrent. The
diplomacy was an attempt to dictate to another
nation what its franchise, its fiscal policy, and its
internal government should be ; its annexation was
an act of despotism resulting in the destruction of
its autonomous institutions. Had the alleged griev-
ances of the Outlanders been as genuine as they
were spurious,1 they were political grievances, griev-
ances of the category which exist in every State —
Liberals are wont to tabulate a grim catalogue of
those to be found in their own country. As a
matter of fact, the Government of both Republics
was, in many respects, far more democratic, far more
in accord with Liberal principles, than that to which
we have yet attained in England,2 but had the re-
verse been the case it would have constituted no

1 See page 179.

a Probably few dispute this as to the Orange Free State. As to the
South African Republic, see The Truth about the Transvaal. By
Edward B. Rose. London, 8 John Street, Adelphi, 1902. Chap. ii.
And see footnote p. 206.

74 Racial Supremacy

valid ground for non-friendly intervention or for
recourse to threats ; and we were, moreover, by Con-
vention bound not to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Transvaal. And had the war been brought
about by the deliberate design of the Boers, instead
of by the provocation of the British and the refusal
to listen to the appeals for arbitration, there could
not, upon Liberal principles, have been the vestige
of a justification for its continuance after the enemy
had been once driven back to their own territory
and when peace could have been made upon almost
any terms short of annexation and the destruction of
independence. In brief, the policy was Imperialist,
its object being the establishment of British
supremacy ; the war was Imperialist, its object
being the enlargement of empire ; and from every
Liberal such a policy and such a war should have
commanded uncompromising opposition. That it did
not meet with widespread opposition is due to the
fact that the Liberal party was itself submerged by
the wave of Imperialism which swept over the
country. Had it but clung tenaciously to its prin-
ciples, had there been a united Liberal party exhibit-
ing to a man its determination to resist the aggressive
policy of the Government, such a policy could not
have been pursued ; for even the audacity of a
Chamberlain Ministry would have been inadequate
to the fostering and maintenance of war in the
teeth of a hostile phalanx composed of half the
British nation. Indeed, this is clear from Lord
Lansdowne's express intimation that the Government
earnestly desired to have the country with them and
believed the country was not ready for war in June

Liberalism and Imperialism 75

I899-1 If, therefore, the Liberals had only been
true to their principles there would have been no
war. The Conservatives, of course, were only acting
in accordance with their creed ; they are frankly
and logically Imperialist ; but the Liberals betrayed
their trust, and were false to the principles by which
they should have been guided, because, not having a
firm grasp of those principles, they were ensnared by
patriotism and condoned in their own nation what
they would have been the first to condemn in
another. The freedom their fathers won for them
they denied to others ; the independence of which
they themselves are so proud they joined in uproot-
ing from a foreign soil ; for the right of self-govern-
ment which is the outcome of their creed they
concurred in substituting an alien yoke. They have,
therefore, their part and lot in the shame and humilia-
tion which came upon their country ; and when
Great Britain stands arraigned at the bar of history
for the capital crime of an unrighteous war, it may
be that they shall not be held the least culpable.

Not (obviously) that the entire Liberal party is
thus impeached, for, as we have seen, there was
division in the ranks ; and, although the war section
predominated, there was a substantial minority true
to the principle of political equality. Some of the
prominent men were from the first resolute in their
opposition to the war (there was even a " wicked
six " who refused to vote supplies) and continuously
sought to recall or arouse the general body to
a true conception of their duty ; and throughout
the country there were many others who, if less

1 Speech in the House of Lords, March 15, 1901 ; see pp. 185-6.

76 Racial Supremacy

prominent, laboured zealously for the same cause.
But what was the reception they met ? Frequently
they failed to command a hearing ; almost invari-
ably they were received with the greatest intoler-
ance ; at the best they were told that they were
dividing the party, and if they did not agree they
could at least be silent. One all-absorbing and
momentous political question occupied public atten-
tion, and one only ; a question which, from its very
magnitude, could not but affect the entire course of
history ; and upon that question those Liberals who
declined to accept the immoral doctrine of " my
country right or wrong " were to be dumb, whilst
the remainder sounded the praises of an arrogant
Tory Government, or contented themselves with
carping criticism of secondary or incidental issues —
" willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike." To
such a depth of ignominy did Imperialism reduce
the great historic Liberal party that it was posi-
tively forbidden to make a stand for its principles
and, failing an open desertion to the enemy, was
ordered to maintain a strict neutrality ; whilst
every article of the faith it was supposed to hold
dear, and for which it had nobly fought in the
past, was being ruthlessly trodden under foot.

Of course there was retribution, and retribution
there will be for many a long year. In assisting
in the coercion of others, the Liberal party was
itself subject to coercion of the most abject character.
By the Tories it was treated with open disdain, and
regarded as a negligible quantity, an emasculated
force no longer to be reckoned with. The Govern-

Liberalism and Imperialism 77

ment taunted the Opposition with its weakness,
caustically dwelt upon its inconsistency, mercilessly
challenged it to take some decisive action, treated
it with scornful derision, and boasted that the policy
which was being pursued had the support of the
entire nation with the exception of a few pro-Boer
fanatics. For the time being those who were once
the proud representatives of progressive thought
and action were, for all practical purposes, snuffed
out of existence. Strong in the impotence of its
opponents, the most inherently weak Administration
known to modern times went to the country with
a mendacious shibboleth, captured an inflamed
electorate, and received a new lease of life. The
Liberal party, having hauled down its time-honoured
flag of " Liberty, equality, fraternity," and muttering
almost apologetically its old battle cry of " Peace,
retrenchment and reform," fought for the most part
in a half-hearted way — where it fought at all —
although in one or two places stalwarts like John
Burns brandished the Excalibur of political equality.
The tournament (for it can scarcely be dignified
with a more serious name) was one of tweedledum
and tweedledee ; the only question upon which the
judgment of the constituencies was invited was that
of the war, and as the so-called Opposition had in
this matter supported the Government, voted supplies
for its military operations, and was equally pledged
to annexation, the policy of the two parties was
substantially the same ; but, on the whole, it was
only natural that the majority of the electors should
prefer the one to whom belonged the " honour " of
initiating the policy, rather than the one who whilst

78 Racial Supremacy

indulging in criticism of methods did not venture
to express disapproval of the objects. The result
in the circumstances is not altogether to be re-
gretted. It was just as well that the lesson for
the Liberal party should be complete, and they are
beginning now to realise what Imperialism means,
and to form some idea of the price to be paid for
a " patriotic " Government. Even the long dormant
nonconformist conscience, which comfortably slum-
bered whilst the Hague Convention was being torn
to shreds, and whilst freedom was being slowly
done to death, has, now that its own liberty has
been assailed, awakened with a start into wrathful
animation ; and a wail of indignation has gone up at
the base ingratitude with which those who placed
country before party have been rewarded.

And, yet, the lesson has come too late for the
present generation ; and the next generation will
no doubt have to learn it again, for men do not
profit by experience. History repeats itself, and
each age has its tale of horrors. We look back
with amazement at the fatuity which resulted in
the loss of our American Colonies ; we condemn in
no measured terms the folly of the Crimean War ;
but we have been as little amenable to reason,
prudence and justice as were our forefathers and
our fathers ; and the men of the future, who will
speak of the criminal stupidity of expending some
250 millions in the three years' sanguinary work of
extinguishing two flourishing autonomous States,
will doubtless engage in magnificent national enter-
prises of their own.

Meanwhile Nemesis will continue to attend upon

Liberalism and Imperialism 79

the Liberal party ; they have sown to the wind,
and they will reap the whirlwind. They will come
again into office only to find that the Delilah of
Imperialism has shorn their locks, that they are
hampered on all hands and that the enemy have
assiduously utilised their opportunities to fortify
their position. Vested interests have been pro-
tected ; privilege has been buttressed ; monopoly
has been strengthened. Not only has there been
no progress — this was not to be expected, and a
mere temporary halt could have been borne
with composure — but there has been appalling
retrogression. The Government has lavishly re-
warded its habitual " friends," and betrayed the
proletariat who were deluded into trusting it ; to
those that had has been given, and from those that
had not has been taken even that which they had.
All the principal monopolists have exacted increas-
ing tribute ; there have been further doles to land-
lords and further doles to clerics ; water has
commanded an inflated price which can only be
measured in millions ; telephones have had their
share of the spoil ; and the publican's — or rather
the brewer's — annual licence has been converted
into a perpetual tenancy. Additional burdens have
been placed upon the poor ; the breakfast-table
duties have been substantially increased, and
protective imposts have been alike covertly and
overtly threatened. Labour has, in its struggle
with an autocrat, been denied the benefit of the
Conciliation Act ; and, when deprived by the Courts
of the liberties it had long possessed, been rebuffed
by Parliament in its efforts to regain them. London

8o Racial Supremacy

has (though, fortunately, only temporarily) been kept
out of the enjoyment of her river, and the popularly
elected guardians of her interests have been per-
sistently snubbed. Coercion has been reintroduced
into Ireland, and an addition made to the grim
account her sons treasure up against us. The
principle of taxation without control has been
embodied in far-reaching legislation, and the
children have been captured by the priests and
are, at the expense of the ratepayers, to be
instilled with the doctrines of militant churchdom.
Thus much has the clock been put back. And with
an enormously increased National Debt and a highly
inflated military expenditure, reforms which a few
years ago were within measurable distance of being
accomplished have been indefinitely postponed.
What hope now, for example, is there for old age
pensions ; what possibility in fact for any measure
which necessitates considerable additional revenue ?
No doubt it has been shown that huge sums can be
raised, and no doubt reforms of the character in
question would not eventually add to the national
burdens, but would merely involve a more equitable
distribution of wealth ; yet the mere fact that all
classes are being called upon to largely increase
their contributions to the National Exchequer will
vastly augment the hostility to further demands,
especially if they are for pacific and not for bellicose
purposes, and for the present render progress in this
direction well-nigh impossible.

The evil that men do lives after them ; and the
children yet unborn will have to suffer for the
nation's recent debauch. The Liberals when once

Liberalism and Imperialism 81

more called to power will discover that the mere
attempt to cope with the mischief that has been
done during the past few years will tax their
energies to the utmost, and that to a great extent
the attempt will be in vain. At every step towards
the reversal of pernicious legislation they will be
arrested by the veto of the hereditary Chamber of
monopolists ; whilst they will also be confronted with
a perennial drain upon the country's resources which
it will be beyond their ability to substantially arrest.
In South Africa, especially in its devastated provinces,
they will be met with problems of empire which
under competent statesmanship would never have
arisen, and which will necessitate constant vigilance
and considerably entrench upon domestic affairs.
At home, it is not improbable they will find them-
selves in an era of commercial depression, and
witness an increase in the ranks of the unemployed,
a growth of pauperism1 and a rising disaffection.
And withal they will be haunted by the knowledge
that they cannot escape responsibility, and that they
have themselves been assisting in erecting barriers
to progress. Imperialism has not only rendered the
Liberal party impotent for the time being for good ;
it has enormously added to the volume of evil
against which it is their province to contend.

THE MORAL OF THE DEBACLE

When, therefore, we are invited to amalgamate
Imperialism and Liberalism, we are invited to

1 Since 1900 there has been a steady rise in the number of persons in
receipt of relief. And see footnote p. 153.

F

82 Racial Supremacy

attempt the impossible. When Liberals are asked
to become Imperialists, they are asked to betray
their trust. " The Liberal party," exclaimed Lord
Rosebery, with peculiar lack of perspicacity and
strange suggestiveness of opportunism, " is suffering
from allowing itself to be dissociated from the
Imperialist aspirations of the nation " j1 as though it
had not suffered for the precise reason that it
identified itself with those sinister aspirations, and
as though its mission should be to ascertain the
popular breeze and trim its sails accordingly. As
a matter of fact the Liberal bark was well nigh
engulfed simply because it drifted on to the
treacherous quicksands of Imperialism, and the
catastrophe was due to those who neglected the
compass and suffered the vessel to deviate from the
true course.

In the careers of parties, not less than in the lives
of men, there come crises which determine what a
profession of faith is worth. It is easy for an
individual to be virtuous when he has no temptation
or opportunity to be otherwise. It is easy for a
party to pursue a policy from which it has something
to gain and nothing to lose. Only when adher-
ence to principles involves sacrifice, do we discover
whether the principles have been firmly grasped
and exercise their legitimate influence. The average
working man has a fair apprehension of the doctrine
of political equality as applied to the various ranks
of society ; but when it becomes a question of
applying that doctrine to his wives and sisters, he
can often rival the most inveterate monopolist in

1 See page 68.

Liberalism and Imperialism 83

advocating the opposite doctrine. The average
Liberal has a lively appreciation of the evils of class
supremacy ; but when it becomes a case of national
supremacy he can discover nothing but good,
providing of course that the supremacy attaches to
his own nation. In both cases there exists the
sense of superiority, in the one that of sex
superiority, in the other that of racial superiority ;
and either the full signification of the principles of
Liberalism is not grasped or the principles are
shamelessly abandoned. Men succumb to individual
pride and selfishness, communities succumb to national
pride and selfishness ; and, although we may flatter
ourselves that in seeking to exercise sway over
others we are actuated by a desire to promote their
welfare, we shall find, if we seriously and honestly
analyse our motives, that egoism in one of its many
forms is the mainspring of our actions. The
mischief, however, is that whilst individual pride and
selfishness are invariably recognised as vices, national
pride and selfishness are, under the name of
patriotism, exalted into a virtue. And this is why
the Liberal, who has not a sure grip of the funda-
mental principle of political equality, and who does
not uniformly seek to make it the test of conduct,
degenerates into an Imperialist. Consciously or
unconsciously, he does, with more or less thorough-
ness and with more or less success, apply the
principle to domestic problems ; but the moment
the problem becomes a racial one the principle is
lost sight of, or is swallowed up by a conflicting
principle. Liberal Unionism, so - called, and
Liberal Imperialism, so-called, are both due to

84 Racial Supremacy

this fact : the coercion of the Irish and the
coercion of the Boers have a common origin, and
are equally destructive of political equality. Union-
ism is a case of "hold all"; Imperialism is a case
of " grab all " ; but their rudimentary motive is the
same ; they are both instances of government by
force, and are alike antithetical to the Liberal
doctrine of government by consent. Imperialism
carries the principle somewhat further than Unionism,
and therefore the latter is logically involved in the
former. It took Lord Rosebery many years to
discover this and hence he laid himself open to the
well- deserved taunt to which reference has already
been made ; but his definite repudiation of Home
Rule, if somewhat tardy, was merely the natural
result of his growing Imperialism. There is nothing
Liberal about Unionism, there is nothing Liberal
about Imperialism ; so far as they go each is the
negation of Liberalism, for both are instances of
racial predominance and both spring from national
pride or selfishness. The Liberal who once coquets
with Imperialism is in grave danger ; the Liberal
upon whom Imperialism grows will gradually acquire
the jaundiced eye ; and the Liberal who becomes
thoroughly impregnated with Imperialism will
ultimately find his political stock-in-trade represented
by a clean slate, upon which, having inscribed the
word " Empire " in bold characters, he will have
little space for anything else.

The Liberal Imperialist, in fact, is called upon to
play a double part. He must either be a political
Jekyll and Hyde, having two separate existences, or
else he must be at war with himself, constantly

Liberalism and Imperialism 85

engaged in the vain task of attempting to reconcile
two incompatibles. As a Liberal he is for equality,
as an Imperialist for inequality ; as a Liberal he is for
liberty, as an Imperialist for coercion ; as a Liberal
he is for self-government, as an Imperialist for alien
government ; as a Liberal he has one set of
doctrines, as an Imperialist he has another set ; as a
Liberal he seeks to be guided by ethics, as an
Imperialist he is swayed by patriotism. But this
conflict cannot be indefinitely maintained. One of
the principles will have to be abandoned, or one will
eventually overpower or paralyse the other ; for no
man can serve two masters. A Liberal may indulge
in an Imperialist orgy and recover from it ; all
depends upon whether or not he has merely yielded
to a special temptation and whether or not the
debauch has been agreeable. But he cannot repeat
the process without grave risk, for each new
indulgence tends to undermine his Liberalism, and
unless he arrests himself it must ultimately be
destroyed or rendered impotent. In any case it
suffers, for whatever be the ultimate fate of the man,
Imperialism is as antagonistic to Liberalism as water
is to fire. Let the spirit of predominance prevail,
and the spirit of equality is quenched ; gratify the
lust of conquest and the love of liberty is stifled.

The moral for the Liberal party is ; first, to
analyse their creed, and ascertain, not merely what
they believe, but why they believe it ; and, next,
having thus arrived at fundamental principles, never
to palter with them. The man who cannot give a
reason for the faith that is in him, or who does not
make it his one source of inspiration, may be a

86 Racial Supremacy

respectable fair-weather saint, but he is not of the
material of which martyrs are made. The Liberal
who does not fully grasp what Liberalism means, or
is not prepared to make it the absolute test of his
political actions, may exhibit enthusiasm for domestic
reforms ; but he will almost inevitably apostatize at
the first shout of " Separatist," " Little Englander,"
or " Pro-Boer." Only when the political edifice is
erected upon the rock of principle, and not upon the
sands of opportunism, can it withstand the waves of
national prejudice and the tempest of national
passions. Only by keeping the polar star of
political equality constantly in view can the Liberal
pursue an undeviating course, and avoid the snares
of patriotic pride and the pitfalls of racial antipathy.
But let him have a clear conception and a just
appreciation of his lofty creed, and " Imperialist
aspirations," as the spirit of predominance is
euphemistically termed, will trouble him not ; and
strong in the eternal principles of liberty> truth, and
justice, he will seek to promote peace, progress, and
universal brotherhood. The moral of the Liberal
debacle resolves itself into the old injunction to prove
all things and to hold fast that which is good.

Ill

COMMERCIALISM AND IMPERIALISM

THE POPULAR THEORY

EMPIRE, it is generally recognised, imposes a serious
strain upon national resources : its maintenance and
expansion involve a colossal and constantly increas-
ing expenditure. But, whilst part of this is accepted
as the price of " glory," the impression very widely
prevails that our commercial supremacy depends
upon the pursuit of an Imperial policy, and that the
monetary cost is largely in the nature of a sound
investment, resulting in the creation of new markets
for the products of industry. Lord Rosebery
attributes the " enormous burden " to our " pride of
empire " and " the protection of our trade " ; l Mr
Rhodes, it may be recalled, contemplated the Union
Jack as a " most valuable commercial asset " ; and
the popular belief is expressed in the formula that
" trade follows the flag." The theory is that we
run the Empire on business-like principles — of course
we add, on moral principles and for the good of
humanity — and that, unless we incurred the requisite
expense, our commerce would suffer to such an
extent as seriously to jeopardise our national
prosperity. We do not profess to like the ex-

1 Speech at Burnley, May 19, 1903.

87

88 Racial Supremacy

penditure ; we even sometimes grumble at it ; but
we feel that it is an expenditure which cannot safely
be dispensed with, and that indirectly it is attended
with substantial recompense.

The theory, it will be observed, rests upon the
assumption that external trade is materially promoted
by empire, and is of paramount importance. A
further, and in one sense more fundamental, assump-
tion (which is apparently regarded as so self-evidently
warranted as not even to call for positive affirmation)
is that national prosperity depends upon the state
of the commercial barometer. And to this, in the
light of recent revolutionary proposals, there should
be added the contention of some that the benefits
derived from trade (and therefore the national
prosperity) can be enhanced by artificially interfer-
ing with its natural flow. These are the proposi-
tions or hypotheses — stated or implied — which form
the substratum of what may be called Commercial
Imperialism ; and as commerce directly or indirectly
engrosses the greater part of the time of the majority
of the population, their validity or invalidity is a
matter of the highest importance.

That the propositions are all of them untenable,
and that the theory is consequently false in every
particular, is what will here be sought to establish ;
and in attempting this, it may be practically con-
venient to deal with the assumptions in the order in
which they have been stated, although not perhaps
in strict logical sequence. The investigation, there-
fore, will take the form of an examination ; in the
first place, of external trade, its foreign and imperial
proportions, and its relative volume to purely home

Commercialism & Imperialism 89

industry ; in the next place, of the rationale of
trade, and its bearing upon national well-being ;
and in the third place, of the artificial regulation of
trade by protective, retaliative or preferential tariffs,
and their effect upon the community. The assump-
tions which necessitate the first two of these in-
quiries seem to be common to all Imperialists ; the
last is called for owing almost entirely to the action
of one individual, but as he is the arch- Imperialist
and the man who more than any other has for some
years swayed his countrymen, and as his action is
largely the outcome of his Imperialism, this particular
inquiry is not less pertinent or, indeed, less essential.

EXTERNAL TRADE

Now to the men who assert that external trade is
materially promoted by empire, and is of paramount
importance, a challenge to prove their case is the
legitimate reply ; and until the evidence is forth-
coming, those who deny the truth of the assertion
might be content to rest upon their denial. The
onus of establishing the contention is upon the
individual who makes it, and an opponent is under
no obligation to prove a negative. An assertion,
however, by constant reiteration acquires a fictitious
weight, especially when superficially regarded it seems
plausible; and as the Imperialist shows no desire to
come to close quarters, the only decisive method of
forcing conclusions is to carry war into the enemy's
camp. To determine the point at issue it must be
ascertained, first, what proportion of our external
trade is with our own dominions, and how this has

go Racial Supremacy

been affected by the growth of the Empire ; and next,
what proportion of the national income is derived
from our total external trade, and the precise ad-
vantages which the latter confers.

One preliminary a priori observation may, however,
be permitted. Theoretically there seems no reason
to suppose that the natural flow of trade should
favour Imperial channels. Sentiment has very little
to do with commerce. Speaking generally, and
without suggesting that there are never any modify-
ing considerations, it is safe to assert that the domi-
nating object of traders is to sell to the best ad-
vantage, and the dominating object of consumers is to
buy to the best advantage. If a British manufacturer
can supply a foreign merchant with commodities he
cannot obtain elsewhere, or can only obtain at a
higher price, he will purchase as readily as will a
colonial merchant ; and if the latter can obtain com-
modities on more favourable terms from a foreigner
than from an Englishman, he will not give the pre-
ference to the Englishman. To deal in the most
profitable markets is the prevailing principle, and
one with which nationality is seldom allowed to
interfere. Nor is the consumer seized with patriotic
remorse when yielding to the temptation to secure
some article bearing the legend " Made in Germany " ;
he may be willing to denounce the unscrupulous
foreigner, but if that foreigner sends him bounty-fed
sugar he does not hesitate to accept the bounty. In
short, apart from adulteration, imitation, puffing and
other specious devices whereby actual deceit is
practised upon the unwary, the volume of trade will
in the long run chiefly depend upon the opportunity

Commercialism & Imperialism 91

trade offers for favourable exchange ; and neither
buyer nor seller is often troubled with ethnological
scruples. This is within the experience of every one,
and it is difficult, therefore, to discover the origin of
the belief that the Union Jack or any other ensign
is a commercial asset.

Of course a Government can by prohibitory laws,
or by the imposition of duties, arrest or modify the
normal operation of economic forces, and thus prevent
or limit the importation of particular goods ; and the
acquisition of territory indubitably extends the area
of its power. But then, if recourse to such procedure
is deemed necessary, it is destructive and not con-
firmatory of the theory that trade follows the flag.
Moreover, so far as Great Britain is concerned, it
has long abandoned a Protectionist tariff; and the
advocates of Commercial Imperialism have hitherto
been content to rest upon the supposed intrinsic
merits of the policy, without suggesting that it must
be supplemented by the artificial regulation of com-
merce ; and the very circumstance that proposals —
to be hereafter examined — for reverting to such re-
gulation should now be made is, from one point of
view, a significant comment upon the policy in
question.

What, however, are the facts ? They are readily
ascertainable, and one would have thought they would
have commanded the attention of the Imperialist, if
only for the purpose of quantifying the gain he
imagines Empire confers. When we are told that
our enormous expenditure is partly for the protection
of trade, or that it enhances commercial prosperity,

92 Racial Supremacy

we are entitled to ask how much trade is protected
and to what extent is commercial prosperity en-
hanced. The expenditure is sufficiently substantial ;
what proportion of it is recouped to us — is it fifty,
twenty, ten, or how many millions a year ? Yet
nowhere can an answer to such a question be found.
Did the Imperialist but once seriously set to work
candidly to reply to this very pertinent inquiry, he
would have taken the first step towards complete
disillusionment, and would soon discover his inability
to demonstrate any substantial benefit.

If we examine the statistics of our external trade
we shall find that, broadly speaking, only about a
third of our exports (of British and Irish produce)
are to our own possessions, about two-thirds
being to foreign countries ; and that only about
a fourth of our imports are from our own posses-
sions, about three-fourths being from foreign
countries. The exact proportion is not, of course,
precisely the same every year ; but this gives us a
sufficiently general idea of the relative volume of our
trade with British and with foreign dominions, and^
broadly indicates that, so far from the flag proving A«
specially magnetic, the bulk of our external com-
merce is carried on with our so-called rivals.1 And
if we call to mind that the population of the Empire,
excluding that of the United Kingdom, is about

1 The detailed tables from the years 1855 to 1902 will be found in
the Financial Reform Almanack for 1904, pp. 133-138. Our imports
are greatly in excess of our exports, not because we are, as has been
fatuously alleged, sending "golden sovereigns" out of the country
(for even with regard to bullion and specie, we import on the average
considerably more than we export — see detailed table, ibid. p. 9 — and
indeed must, in the first instance, import all we possess, this not being

Commercialism & Imperialism 93

22 per cent., and the population of the remaining
portion of the globe about 75 per cent, of the total,
and that part of the latter portion, owing to remote-
ness, difficulty of transit, and other causes, is to a
great extent practically inaccessible to our com-
merce, we see that the relative volume of our trade
with British and foreign dominions does not
materially differ from the relative number of inhabi-
tants, so that it appears clear the ownership ot\
territory confers no substantial commercial advantage.
But the most pertinent test has yet to be applied^
During the last quarter of a century we have added
enormously (and at enormous expense) to the
dominions of the Crown, annexing about four
million square miles, that is to say, approximately
one-third of the present total, and increasing our
normal military and naval expenditure by over 40
millions, or, in other words, 160 per cent. Yet we
find that not only has the growth of the Empire
been unattended by any corresponding growth of
Imperial commerce, but that the ratio in our external
trade remains substantially the same ; and although
there has been a considerable increase in the total,
the proportions as between British and foreign
possessions has varied but infinitesimally. If we
compare our imports from and exports (of home
produce) to British possessions for the five years

a gold-producing country) nor because, as has also been suggested,
we are living on capital (for, as the Inland Revenue Commissioners' Re-
ports show, our savings and our income have enormously increased),
but because, amongst other things, our large foreign investments and our
extensive shipping involve the payment of interest and freight, which
are included in our total imports. We have, in fact, been adding to
our capital at home and our investments abroad. See Cd. 17 17 of 1903.

94 Racial Supremacy

-79 with those for the five years 1895-99,
we discover that the average percentage they bear
to our total imports and exports has only decimally
altered; the imports being 22*1 for the first period
and 2 i '6 for the second, and the exports being 33*1
for the first period and 33'8 for the second. l In
1900 the percentage was still more in favour of
trade with foreign countries, for of the total imports
the percentage from British possessions declined to
21, and of the total exports the percentage to British
possessions declined to 3 2 '4. It is true that in
1901, whilst there was a still further decrease in
the percentage of imports, there was a substantial
increase in the percentage of exports ; but the
ravages caused by the Boer War created a demand
which very materially stimulated shipments to South
Africa, and a similar observation applies to 1902
and 1903. Now, however, that this artificial boom
has spent itself, the old ratio is being steadily
approached.

The statistics, then, of our exports and imports
confirm the conclusion at which we theoretically
arrive. If our experience of human nature,
and the working deductions we habitually draw
therefrom, indicate that sentimental considerations _
seldom enter into commercial transactions, and that
it is not likely trade should specially favour Imperial

1 See tables in Financial Reform Almanack for 1904, pp. xix. and 133-
138. It should also be borne in mind that, in consequence of the
extension of the Empire, some of the trade formerly classified as being
with foreign countries is now classified as being with British possessions ;
so that to this extent not only is the latter increased, but the former is
decreased, and this makes the result of the above comparison still more
significant.

Commercialism & Imperialism 95

channels, inductive investigation demonstrates that,
as a matter of fact, the flag has not proved to be
a valuable commercial asset, and that, though we
have enormously added to our territory, there has
been no corresponding mercantile benefit. Trade^
increases, but its ratio remains substantially the same ;
Imperial expenditure is not necessary for its " pro-
tection," the expansion of the Empire does not alter
the ratio. Our dominions do not buy from or sell
to us because they are in allegiance to the British
Crown ; other countries do not refuse to send us
their merchandise or to take our own in exchange
although we have no authority over them. So far
from it proving profitable to resort to conquest in
order to secure markets, there is no profit in the
business ; despite protective tariffs the whole world
is, directly or indirectly, the market for every nation
that can compass it and has the capacity and wish
to engage in international exchange. And, as has
been frequently pointed out, the prosperity of
foreign countries makes for the prosperity of our
own ; their productive activity, instead of giving
rise to apprehension and jealousy, should be a cause
of satisfaction ; the more they themselves produce,
the more they are able to offer for our produce ;
and if there is any benefit at all in external trade,
that benefit is thereby increased. 1 In short, empire

1 In view of Mr Balfour's manifesto in favour of retaliation it is
interesting to note that not long prior to its publication, when in a more
rational mood, he distinctly recognised the above truth. Speaking at
the annual dinner of the Iron and Steel Institute on May 8, 1903, he
stated : "I am one of those who profoundly distrust the current creed —
or the creed which is largely current — that the prosperity of one nation
is the adversity of another ; that he best serves the industrial prosperity

96 Racial Supremacy

does not advance our commercial interests ; there
is, in this direction, no appreciable compensation
for the heavy burden it entails.

The first part of our investigation is not, however,
yet completed ; for the assumption under considera-
tion is, it will be remembered, not merely that
external trade is materially promoted by empire,
but that external trade is of paramount importance.
Indeed, but for this latter belief, it is probable the
former would not prevail ; and although, if dominion
does not in fact materially advance commerce, it
would not avail the Imperialist could he demonstrate
that external trade is as important as he supposes,
the question is nevertheless of fundamental interest
and worthy of not less careful examination. The
general opinion seems to be that exports afford the
only reliable index to progress ; purely domestic
industry receives but scant consideration ; and the
extent of the benefit derived from production and
exchange within the country of goods for home
consumption is apparently not realised. We have
seen that no attempt is made to quantify the postu-
lated gain from our Imperial trade ; equally true
is it that no attempt is made to quantify the gain
from our entire external trade, or to ascertain what
proportion it bears to our total trade. If such an

of his own nation who attempts to depress the industrial prosperity,
or to snatch a share of the common work of industry from some other
nation. I believe this to be utterly untrue. . . . The riches of one
nation conduce, believe me, not to the poverty, but to the wealth of
another nation ; and if we could double or treble by the stroke of some
fairy wand the wealth of every nation in the world but our own, depend
upon it our nation would greatly profit by the process."

Commercialism & Imperialism 97

attempt were made, it is probable the disillusionizing
process would be complete.

As a matter of fact only a comparatively small
portion of the national income is derived from ex-
ternal trade. The total estimated amount of that
income from every source (that is, including both
" commodities " produced and " services " rendered) is,
in round figures, 1800 million pounds per annum.1
But our total exports of British and Irish produce,
taking the highest figures hitherto recorded, only
amount to 29 1 millions, so that even their capital value
is merely equal to less than one-sixth of the nation's
earnings. The capital value of these exports, how-
ever, does not, of course, represent income from
external trade ; for if we had no foreign markets,
we should still have the goods (or other goods
which, under the altered conditions of industry, the
same capital and labour would produce in their
stead). It is the profit derived from the sale of the
exported goods which alone constitutes income from
this particular source ; just as a merchant's income is
not the value of the goods he sells, but the difference
between their total cost to him and the price he
obtains for them. Now, if we assume that this
profit is, on the average, 10 per cent, (a rather
liberal assumption) the amount is 29 millions, or
not one-sixtieth of the total income. Even if we
add a like profit on our re-exports (that is, imports
subsequently transmitted abroad, and consisting for

1See Fabian Trad No. 5, pp. 2, 3, where the basis of this estimate
is given. London : The Fabian Society, 3 Clement's Inn, 1904. Sir
Robert Giffen, at the meeting of the British Association, September n,
1903, placed the amount at £1,7 50, 000,000. Professor A. L. Bowley
has more recently estimated it at the above £1,800, 000,000.

G

98 Racial Supremacy

the most part of raw material and food, say 70
millions), the amount is only increased to 36
millions, being just equal to one-fiftieth of the total
income.

Although, however, this is meeting the Imperialist
on his own ground, it must in candour be added that
it does not do him justice, and that to arrive at the
facts the investigation must be of a different character.
The truth is that the volume of our exports, to which
so much importance is attached, affords no adequate
guide to the proportion of national income derived
from external sources ; for, in the first place, foreign
countries are largely indebted to us in respect of
investments made with them upon which they pay
interest ; and, in the next place, we are the great
ocean carriers, and obtain a substantial revenue from
the freights of the goods we carry, and neither of
these items finds any place in our table of exports.
More accurate data for the investigation, therefore,
will be, not exports but imports (those imports, the
growth of which, strangely enough, is often regarded
as alarming). The total amount of these — again
taking the highest figures hitherto recorded — is 543
millions, of which, however, we re-export 70 millions,
leaving 473 millions ; and if from this we deduct
the amount of our exports of home produce (that is,
goods we send away in part return for what we
receive), 290 millions, we have a net balance of 183
millions, thus indicating that only about one-tenth
of the total national income is traceable to external
sources. Of this 183 millions, 63 millions represents
interest on foreign investments, and is not therefore
due to current external trade, which latter can only

Commercialism & Imperialism 99

be credited with the balance of 120 millions; so
that, although this shows a much higher percentage
than is disclosed by a mere examination of exports,
it indicates that the net proportion of national
income derived from external trade is merely one-
fifteenth of the total. Of course, however, the
precise fraction is not of importance ; it is sufficient
to know that the amount is comparatively small.

But here, possibly, the interpellation will be made
that the whole of our imports, less only our re-
exports, constitutes income from external sources ;
and that, after deducting the proportion which
represents interest, there still remains 410 millions
derived from external trade, and without such
trade our income would be less by that amount.
Even if this were true, it would merely show
that less than one-fourth of our income is traceable
to this particular source, and that for more than
three-fourths we have to look at home. But,
although the 410 millions is, no doubt, represented
by foreign goods, it is not true that our income
would be less by that amount if we had no external
trade ; for in the absence of such trade we should,
as has already been pointed out, either possess the
commodities we now export, or if (as would no
doubt be the case) we partly ceased to produce them
in consequence of the absence of foreign demand,
we should then instead necessarily occupy ourselves
in producing other commodities for home consump-
tion to fill the vacuum due to the corresponding
absence of foreign supply. Of course we should
produce at greater cost, and in fact be in the same
position as if living under an absolutely effective

ioo Racial Supremacy

system of " Protection " ; but whilst this would be a
grave disadvantage, it is obvious that the proportion
of our income which is now embodied in foreign
merchandize would not be wiped out, but would to
a great extent merely change its form, that is to
say would be embodied in the additional home pro-
duce. There would be no diminution in our pro-
ductive powers (although they would in some
directions be exercised under less favourable con-
ditions) ; these are not affected by markets, but
depend upon land capital and labour ; and it is
only the particular manner in which they shall be
employed that is determined or affected by demand.
If all external trade ceased, the necessity for pro-
duction would not be in the slightest degree
diminished (rather it would be increased), but
industry would to some extent be diverted into
other channels in order to directly meet those wants
which are now indirectly met by the exchange of
some of the products of present industry for the
products of other nations. In short, cateris paribus,
there would be no corresponding variation in the
volume of wealth produced, but it would partly take
a different form — industrial activity would in some
directions be smaller, but in other directions greater.
Although we derive the equivalent of upwards of
400 millions from external trade, we have to earn it ;
and we are primarily indebted for it, not to the
customer, but to the labourer.

Of course it is not to be denied that if foreign
nations were suddenly and extensively to close
their ports, this would be most disastrous ; for it
would dislocate a considerable part of our commercial

Commercialism & Imperialism i o i

machinery, cause a loss of fixed capital, and for the
time being throw many workmen out of employ-
ment. When particular industries have once been
established on a large scale, any grave general
diminution in the demand for their products is
inevitably attended with calamity. Indeed, this is
proportionately true as regards merely temporary
fluctuations, and a prolonged winter or a wet
summer will severely handicap certain trades.
Similarly, improvements in production, whereby
existing processes are superseded, result in a definite
loss during the transition state ; scientific discoveries
may mean ruin to those who have embarked their
capital in enterprises thereby rendered obsolete ;
and as this reacts upon the community, the nation
suffers, and progress has its price. The injury,
however, which it would thus be possible for other
nations to inflict upon us would not, it must be
admitted, be attended with the material compensation
and ultimate benefit which rewards the expansion
of knowledge ; and an extensive boycotting of our
goods could not, under existing conditions, be
regarded with equanimity, especially as the con-
sequent diminution of our imports (which mainly
consist of food and raw material) would make it
more arduous to supply our wants. But the in-
dubitable fact is that it would not pay foreign
nations peremptorily and permanently to close their
markets, any more than it would pay us to take a
similar course ; the policy would be a suicidal one.
If our existing industries are on a scale which calls
for foreign markets, the same is true of theirs : if
they are to continue to export (as they are all

102 Racial Supremacy

anxious to do, and to an increasing extent) they
must continue to import ; if they send us merchan-
dize, they must take ours ; and if they attempted,
from whatever motive, seriously to embarrass our
external trade, the attempt would recoil upon them-
selves. Moreover, unless they united and presented
a solid front, they would leave us almost unscathed ;
for the ramifications of exchange are such that
isolated action is of little avail ; and, indeed, it is
probable goods directly boycotted would ultimately
reach the same country by circuitous routes, at greater
cost to the purchasers. However this may be, so
long as we are able to freely import we may rest
assured that we shall continue to export ; and we
need not fear the loss of foreign markets if we
desire to retain them and are able to supply them ;
whilst any gradual variation in demand, such as
occurs at home and under normal conditions, must
continue to be met by that gradual adaptation to
altered conditions which is constantly taking place.
And in no case can negative considerations carry
weight. The positive advantages of international
trade have yet to be briefly indicated ; but although
other countries could, if anxious to do so and
willing to pay the price, inflict an injury upon us
by abruptly closing their ports, the fact that they
wisely refrain from taking such a course is no actual
addition to the positive advantages, whatever they
may be ; and to regard it as such would be some-
what suggestive of the ingenious logic of the child
who credited pins with saving lives by not being
swallowed.

That external trade is, however, attended with

Commercialism & Imperialism 103

considerable benefit is unquestionable, and, indeed,
has indirectly already been shown ; so that there
has certainly been no desire to minimise its real sig-
nificance, by pointing out how comparatively small
is that portion of the national income which is
directly traceable to this source. And, curiously
enough, the actual nature of the benefit seems to be
largely ignored by those who look only to what
they term our commercial supremacy ; in grasping
at the intangible they fail to grasp the tangible. At
any rate their chief concern is to outstrip foreign
nations, as though we could only progress by keep-
ing others back ; their constant anxiety is to in-
crease exports, whilst the correlative increase of
imports is regarded as ominous and detrimental to
our own industries. And yet, as has been seen, it
is only through the medium of these imports that
the benefit is conveyed ; whatever advantage we
derive is embodied in them. The national gain
from external trade may be summed up in a
sentence : it consists in conferring upon all the
countries which exchange their produce a very
large portion of the natural advantages possessed
by each ; in other words, it enables them to obtain
commodities they could not themselves produce, and
to obtain other commodities they could only produce
at greater cost. Climatic conditions, the fertility of
land, mineral deposits, vegetable growth, animal life,
all vary with latitude and longitude ; and by labour
being devoted at any given spot to the production
in abundance of those commodities for which there
are special facilities, and by exporting some of such
commodities in exchange for other commodities

104 Racial Supremacy

similarly produced, a greater return is obtained to
labour, and wants are supplied at less cost than
they would otherwise be. But these benefits must
be reciprocal ; and it is because the Imperialist
ignores or inadequately realises this, that he is
jealous of the growth of foreign industry.

Commercial prosperity, then, is not to be gauged
mainly by external trade ; this only accounts for a
comparatively small portion of the national income.
Nor does empire promote trade ; its ratio as between
foreign and Imperial arenas is not in favour of the
latter, and remains substantially the same despite
territorial expansion. And the explanation is found
in the fact that material wealth is due to labour, and
not to markets ; and that markets are merely the
expression of human wants, and not of natioual
sentiments.

THE RATIONALE OF TRADE

A further stage of our investigation is now reached.
Although, if empire fails to promote trade, the case
for Commercial Imperialism is gone, this does not
render less pertinent the question whether the pro-
motion of trade is an object worthy of the admira-
tion it commands. That commercial prosperity is
synonymous with national prosperity appears to be
taken for granted ; and this, though perhaps never
actually postulated, presumably lies at the root of
the Imperialist contention. An inquiry, therefore,
into the rationale of trade should not be unprofitable.

According to the prevailing opinion, the status of

Commercialism & Imperialism 105

a community is mainly determined by the material
wealth it possesses. We may preach to the individual
that riches are but dross, and he in turn may
occasionally proclaim that " who steals my purse
steals trash " ; but the doctrine is rarely reduced to
practice by the individual and never by the nation.
That it is not to be literally acted upon is obvious,
for material things are not only useful but indispens-
able to life ; the mischief is that there is no recogni-
tion of its inward significance, and that riches are
regarded as the summum bonum. Judged by Com-
mercialism, we could imagine that the one object of
existence is to " make money," and that the com-
munity which possesses the greatest amount of
tangible assets or letters of credit, is the most to be
envied. To the attainment of this end everything is
subordinated ; and progress is gauged by the result.
If the output of merchandise is enlarged, and the
" balance of trade " is in our favour, all is going well :
but scant attention is given to the process of enlarge-
ment, to the sacrifice it may entail, to its physical
cost and suffering, or to the actual use made of the
riches which are thus obtained.

John Ruskin struck a truer note and established a
healthier standard, when he told us that there is no
wealth but life — life, including all its powers of love,
of joy and of admiration — and that that country is the
richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble
and happy human beings.1 Commercial Imperialism
would do well to recall his teaching, if indeed it has
ever heard of it ; to disprove it, if possible, and if
not, humbly to accept it and abandon its own false

1 Unto This Last. London : George Allen, 1900, p. 156.

i o 6 Racial Supremacy

standard ; and also to bear in mind the old precept
of him to whom this mammonish age renders little
practical reverence, although it does him lip homage,
namely that a man's life consisteth not in the abund-
ance of the things which he possesseth. And that
which is true of the man is true of the nation ; if it
pays little or no regard to its vital welfare and
neglects its soul, it is not healthy, however " wealthy "
it may be in the material sense of the term.

What should be the ultimate object of trade? Its
present de facto object seems to be to secure riches,
irrespective of methods (or rather by such methods
as are most likely to achieve this one result) irre-
spective of vital expenditure, and irrespective of
final utility. But the one legitimate purpose of trade
(including in the term, production, distribution, and
exchange) is to satisfy the healthy wants of the
community, and to satisfy them by healthy means ;
and in so far as it falls short of this standard, it
indicates misdirected or wasted labour, and is an-
tagonistic to national prosperity. Yet trade as now
organised does not satisfy the healthy wants of the
community, and its processes are very largely un-
healthy ; it frequently rewards those who work the
least with a superabundance, and those who work
the most with an insufficiency : it fosters and gratifies
the morbid appetites of some, and fails to gratify the
natural appetites of others ; to many it denies al-
together the opportunity of employment, whilst at
the same time it supports in voluntary idleness a
parasitic class ; and it pays little regard to final
utility, and often results in disutility. Hence, in

Commercialism & Imperialism 107

many ways it falls short of the true standard ; and
to this extent it is not conducive to national well-
being. Despite the boast that we are the richest
country in the world, the amount of poverty that
prevails is appalling. If it is true that there are
several millions who are on the verge of starvation,
if it is true that there are large numbers who do
actually starve, if it is true that many of the methods
of production are gravely injurious to health, and so
far from promoting life tend to death — and all these
things are true — then our system stands condemned,
and a mere increase of trade under such a system,
instead of being a sign of prosperity, is an indication
of adversity, and points to the acquisition, not of
" wealth " but of " illth."

The root fallacy of the position, from the national
point of view, is found in the fact that industry is
dominated by the one idea of private profit — "profit"
in the commercial sense being, not the gain to the
community arising from the production and dis-
tribution of useful things, but the gain to the
trader arising from the sale of anything, whether
useful, useless, or disuseful, at more than it cost
him. Of course there is a partial gain to the com-
munity, or the community would speedily cease to
be ; the capitalist cannot appropriate the whole,
since capital is of no avail without labour, and to
secure this some portion of the produce must be
ceded to the labourer. And of course, also, much
of the production results in utilities ; since every
one demands necessaries in the first instance. But
these results, so far as they obtain, are really
incidental to the system instead of fundamental, as

io8 Racial Supremacy

they should be. Industry is organised, not by the
community with a single eye to the benefit of the
community, but by the owners of the instruments of
production with a single eye to their own benefit ;
and the comforting theory is that, if the units all
pursue their own interests, the interests of the body-
politic will be best promoted. This would not be
true even if all the units started on equal terms ; the
extent of its falsity under a regime where they start
on gravely unequal terms is demonstrated by the
results which stare us in the face, and to which
reference has already been made.

Industry thus organised is accompanied by two
evils, wrong production and mal-distribution ; it
results in an insufficiency of necessaries on the one
hand, and a plethora of luxuries on the other ; the
healthy wants of some remain unsatisfied, because
the unhealthy wants of others are gratified. There
is something rotten in the State when large numbers
live from hand to mouth, with intervals of starvation
or semi-starvation, and yet as much can be expended
in a fashionable entertainment as would keep a
hundred families in comfort for a year. And this
rottenness is the natural outcome of our commercial
system, with its false theories, its false aims, and its
false criteria. Concerned only with accumulating
riches, without regard to their cost, their nature, or
their destiny, it results in a waste of energy and in
the atrophy of the workers. What commodities are
produced is immaterial so long as they command a
" profit " ; they may be shoddy or disserviceable —
razors that will not cut, or bowie knives that will—
they may be incapable of supplying any legitimate

Commercialism & Imperialism 109

craving, or may minister to an illegitimate craving.
And how the commodities are produced is equally
immaterial ; it may be in a poisonous atmosphere,
it may be by deathly processes, and it may be by
draining the vitality of the labourer, nourishing him
worse than cattle are nourished (for they cost money
to replace, and he does not), and regarding him, not as
a man to whose sustenance production is subservient,
but as a machine which is merely subservient to pro-
duction. Goods thus begotten are not wealth ;

" Wives and mithers maist despairin' ca' them lives o' men" ;

and a nation which accumulates much of its so-
called wealth in this way is not rich, but unutterably
poor. It is not concerned with true wealth, namely,
well-being ; it is promoting, not life, but death.
Material wealth consists in useful and pleasurable
things, things possessing the capacity to satisfy a
good human want ; and to fulfil its purpose it must
be distributed so as to give a maximum satisfaction
of the legitimate wants of all. " The final outcome
and consummation of all wealth is in the producing
as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and
happy-hearted human creatures." 1 This is the philo-
sophy of Ruskin, and it has never yet been success-
fully impugned.2

But Commercial Imperialism has not the faintest
conception of this philosophy ; it is only concerned
with perpetuating the present object and methods of
production ; so far from ever having realised their

1 Unto This Last, pp. 64-5.

2 For a scholarly exposition, analytical and critical, of Ruskin's
teachings see Mr. J. A. Hobson's book, John Ruskin, Social Reformer.
London : James Nisbet & Co. 1899.

1 1 o Racial Supremacy

inherent viciousness, it regards them as eminently
moral. It does not pay regard to the real nature of
wealth, to its utilities or its due appropriation ; it looks
only to production and sale and not to consumption
or use. Its one aim is to secure " new markets "
with enhanced " profits " ; its theory of trade is, not
the placing of useful merchandise where it is most
needed and with a view to nourish life, but the
placing of any merchandise anywhere (and whether
at the bottom of the sea does not matter, if it is
adequately " insured ") with a view to " make money."
Hence it combines with its quest for additional
" outlets " a demand for " cheap labour " ; its
measure of cheapness being, not a diminished
expenditure of energy or vital force, but an increased
exploitation of this vitality. And so the process
goes on in sinister circle. Starting with a funda-
mentally vicious conception of the object of
production and exchange, it proceeds by fundament-
ally vicious means to acquire additional territory in
the belief that that object is thereby promoted; and
having acquired the territory, it comes back to its
vicious system of production and exchange, and thus
it works round and round in the same immoral groove.
For let there be no mistake about the matter.
Although Imperialism does not promote the welfare
of the nation ; although it does not even add to the
entire volume of trade ; it does promote the sordid
interest of certain classes, and enables them to
appropriate a larger share of the produce ; and it
breeds an army of officials and parasites who are
all interested in its maintenance and extension.
Even the work of destruction involved in the

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 1 1

acquisition of new territory, for the time being
" makes it good for trade " (to use the common
expression) and by creating a largely increased
demand for some commodities — commodities which
are essentially " illth " and not wealth — and in-
directly for other commodities, gives an impetus to
production, calling for additional labour, and thus
temporarily increasing wages ; so that the very
workmen are befooled into advocating an Imperial
policy. And the men who are concerned with
administration, the countless hangers-on, and all
those who are seeking a profitable outlet for the
employment of their superfluous wealth, favour the
process, very often honestly believing it inherently
beneficial because it proves advantageous to them,
and thus failing to realise either its actual economic
or ethical nature. Nor is it an insignificant fact
that it is those industries in which the vices of the
present system are most exemplified which are
specially fostered by the process. It is the " parasitic
trades," the trades which by " sweating " the workers
and in other ways shortening their lives, are obtain-
ing a supply of labour force not paid for, and by
" deteriorating the physique, intelligence, and char-
acter of their operatives are drawing on the capital
stock of the nation" — it is these trades which are
among " the strongest competitors for the world's
custom," and which, by reason of their being thus
" subsidised," and as the result enabled to sell at a
lower price, can most readily command markets and
stimulate exports.1 The captains of these parasitic

1 See Industrial Democracy. By Mr and Mrs Sidney Webb. Vol.
ii. pp. 751-58. London : Longmans, Green & Co. 1897.

1 1 2 Racial Supremacy

industries, therefore, are peculiarly interested in any
policy which is supposed to create additional outlets
for merchandise, and Imperialism thus promotes the
very worst methods of production, and tends to em-
phasise and perpetuate the evils of Commercialism.

New markets for our produce ? " What," as has
been said elsewhere,1 " are new markets but an
increased demand for commodities, and is not the
fact staring us in the face that there exists a volume
of unsupplied demand at home ? What is the cry
of the poor but a demand for commodities ; to what
is their physical privation due but to an insufficient
supply of necessaries ? There is a grim irony in
our seeking to establish dominion over other nations
in order to create a new class of consumers when we
have millions at home only too anxious to increase—
and properly increase — consumption if they got the
chance." Let the Imperialist go to the " submerged
tenth," to the myriads who are on the border line of
starvation, to the men and women who are doomed
to penury, or even to those who, if not suffering
actual physical deprivation, can infuse but compara-
tively little joy into their lives, and he will find
sufficient " demand " to satisfy him.

Aye ! but there is no " profit " to be derived from
these men and women, except by exploiting them ;
they have nothing but their labour to offer, and for
that they are already paid whatever wage it will
command. Besides, much of their labour would not
be required if markets did not keep pace with
population. What would be the use of employing

1 Patriotism and Ethics, p. 205. London : Grant Richards. 1901.

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 1 3

them to produce, if we could not find an outlet for
the produce ? They do at any rate get something
now, but they would then get less ; an enormous
number fail to find employment as it is, and we
should only add to that number if we imperilled our
commercial supremacy. Indeed ! And does not
an increasing population demand an increasing
production ; does not the owner of every pair of
hands also possess a mouth ? Suppose, instead of
fitfully employing those hands to fill some mouths
to surfeit, leaving bare scraps for the actual producer,
we give him the opportunity of regularly employing
his hands in providing ample supplies for his own
mouth ; suppose, instead of producing for " profit,"
we tried the system of producing for " use," and
instead of adhering to methods which result in
superfluous wealth going to the wrong persons, we
resorted to methods which resulted in sufficient
wealth going to the right persons ; would not that be
eminently beneficial from the national point of view,
however unsatisfactory it might be to the present
monopolists ? At present, only thirteen thirty-
fourths of the nation's income reaches the pockets of
the manual labour class, who form the bulk of the
community and produce the bulk of the wealth ; let
labour be but equitably rewarded, and the problem
of markets would settle itself. So long as there is
a single individual with a single want unsatisfied,
there is scope for the employment of labour ; and
if the wants of all can be satisfied with a given
quantity of labour, the only result is that the
necessity for increasing that quantity disappears.
And should we reach the stage when our material

II

1 1 4 Racial Supremacy

needs can be met by a smaller amount of work,
thereby affording or increasing that leisure which
can be devoted to meeting needs which are not
material and enabling us to live a fuller life, would
that be a result to be deplored ?

What a miserable business this Commercial
Imperialism is ! We spare no effort to secure new
markets for our manufactures ; we go on increasing
our output at a real cost that is truly direful,
paying little regard to comfort or health, making
our cities more congested, expanding the area of our
grimy towns, massing our people amidst nothing
but bricks and mortar and often in sties where we
should prudently abstain from stabling our horses,
blocking out the genial sunshine, rooting up the
grateful verdure, converting the lives of legions into
one monotonous round with nothing to cheer them
on their road to a weary and premature grave ;
and all that our commercial supremacy may be
maintained, that our merchants' balances may be
more inflated, that we may add to the number of
our millionaires, and that we may pile up so-called
wealth and be able to boast of our riches. That
our means of subsistence are largely derived from
our manufactures is true ; that it would be difficult
for us to produce all the food we require is possibly
true ; and that, if we could, it would involve a
somewhat greater expenditure of labour is no doubt
true. But, manufacturers though we are, this, at
least, we can do — we can see to it that we manu-
facture under sane and wholesome conditions ; we
can see to it that an atmosphere impregnated with
the smoke from the factory is not the only atmo-

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 1 5

sphere the toiler has to breathe during his waking
hours, or that he does not merely exchange it for a
fetid atmosphere during his sleeping hours ; we can see
to it that when his day's work is done he can inhale
the pure air of heaven, and that his work is not so
prolonged as to give him little chance of even inhaling
that save through his bedroom casement ; we can see
to it that he is not regarded as a machine, to be kept
running as long as possible and at the lowest cost
for fuel ; we can see to it that he has full opportunity
for employment so as to satisfy his wants, and that
industry is organized for the benefit of all and not
for the preponderating gain of a few. In some of
these directions there has been progress, but it has
been very slow and very limited, whilst in other
directions the evils have been increased. We want
more Bournevilles, more Port Sunlights, more "Garden
Cities " planted in our midst ; and, above all, we
want gradually to revolutionise our methods of trade,
which we shall never do until we completely revolu-
tionise our conception of the object of trade. The
crying need is, not increased production, but right
production ; not more material wealth, but the equit-
able distribution of wealth ; not new markets, but new
aims ; not the acquisition of additional territory, but
the civilising of what we have got; not the subjugation
of the foreigner, but the subjugation of ourselves.1

THE ARTIFICIAL REGULATION OF TRADE

Yet the latest device of our arch-Imperialist takes
the form of a proposal which, if adopted, would

1 See pp. 148-151.

i T 6 Racial Supremacy

render the lot of the workers more deplorable still,
would intensify all the evils of the present system,
and deprive us of no inconsiderable portion of the
benefits derived from what social progress has been
made during the last fifty years. The working man
has at the present time the advantage of a cheap
loaf; and although this is unfortunately not every-
thing, it is something. If industry is increasingly
carried on under onerous conditions, Free Trade
has conferred upon the producers advantages which
were denied to former generations ; although
monopoly characteristically manages to intercept
some of the benefits. Grave though the total
volume of poverty is, its ratio to population has
materially declined ; l and if the labourers have been
increasingly withdrawn from the soil, they obtain
more from the soil than their progenitors did. The
evils from which we suffer are in greater evidence in
Protectionist countries ; the national wealth they
produce is less per head, and the workers' share is
less. By freely opening our ports, we have added to
our natural advantages no inconsiderable portion of
the natural advantages possessed by other nations.

But now a scheme is promulgated the effect of
which would be to reverse all this. We are invited
to retrace our steps, to resort to the system of our
ancestors, impede imports and tax our food. And
this — at least so the mandate originally ran, although
the discovery has since been made that it is to save
ourselves from ruin — in the interests of our Colonies,
and in the cause, forsooth ! of Imperial unity. Canada

1 A reaction has, however, set in, as part of the price of reckless
Imperialism. See footnote, p. 81.

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 1 7

and Australia, which possess vast tracts of fertile
land compared with which the whole area of the
British Isles is insignificant, are (in conjunction with
our own ground-landlords) to levy tribute upon the
grimy toilers of our towns, that the Empire may be
consolidated and the hated foreigner defied. Since
trade does not follow the flag — as Mr Chamberlain
appears to have tardily discovered — it is to be made
to follow the flag ; the latter is to be gilded, and
then perchance traitorous trade, which is always
attracted by gold, will be loyal to the Union Jack.
Our Colonies are to be bribed into fealty ; " Little
England " is to bear a still larger share of the burden
of empire than at present ; the Mother Country is
to command the affection of her offspring by work-
ing harder for their benefit, and is to show the
insolent German that she will not brook a snub to
them. Already have the British workman and his
children been mulct in their sugar and jam in the
supposed interests of the West Indian planters, and
now it is sought to extend the process, with the
ultimate result of a substantial increase in the cost
of the bulk of our foodstuffs.

Now Mr Chamberlain can scarcely be unaware
of the economic effect of his proposals, whatever
sophistry he may employ in his attempts to capture
the ignorant. His past speeches show conclusively
that he fully understands the subject, and knows —
or, at any rate, did know — that a tax upon imported
food will be attended with no pecuniary recompense,
adequate or inadequate ; indeed, the case against
Protection and Colonial preference has seldom been

1 1 8 Racial Supremacy

more vigorously stated than by him. Let a few
quotations be made, for they help to appraise his
new scheme at its worth.

"I can conceive it just possible, although it is very
improbable, that under the sting of great suffering, and
deceived by misrepresentations, the working classes might
be willing to try strange remedies, and might be foolish
enough to submit for a time to a proposal to tax the food
of the country ; but one thing I am certain of, if this
course is ever taken, and if the depression were to continue,
or to recur, it would be the signal for a state of things
more dangerous and more disastrous than anything which
has been seen in this country since the repeal of the Corn
Laws. ... A tax on food would mean a decline in wages.
It would certainly involve a reduction in their productive
value ; the same amount of money would have a smaller
purchasing power. It would mean more than this, for it
would raise the price of every article produced in the
United Kingdom, and it would indubitably bring about
the loss of that gigantic export trade which the industry
and energy of the country, working under conditions of
absolute freedom, have been able to create." l

" The owners of property — those who are interested in
the existing state of things, the men who have privileges to
maintain — would be glad to entrap you from the right
path by raising the cry of Fair Trade, under which they
cover their demand for Protection, and in connection with
which they would tax the food of the people in order to
raise the rents of the landlords. . . . Property cannot pay
its debt to Labour by taxing its means of subsistence." (i

"As to the prospect of any return to Protection in any
shape or form, I think it is inconceivable that the agri-
cultural interest would allow manufactures to be protected
while food imports went free, and I think it equally
improbable that the working classes of this country would

1 Speech in the House of Commons > August 12, 1881.
a Speech at Birmingham, January 5, 1885.

Commercialism & Imperialism 119

ever again submit to the sufferings and to the miseries
which were inflicted upon them by the Corn Laws in order
to keep up the rents of the landlords. If that is the
programme of the Tory party, we have only in answer to it
to recall the history of those times when Protection starved
the poor, and when the country was brought by it to the
brink of revolution. . . . That is not a retrospect which,
I think, would be favourable to any party or any statesman
who should have the audacity to propose that we should
go back to those evil times."1

" I tell you that any proposal to tax corn is a proposal
to put rent in the pockets of the landlords, and that any
proposal to tax manufactures is a proposal to put profits
in the pockets of particularly favoured manufactures. Ah,
well ! I do not think that you will be led away by these
absurdities." 2

"This proposal requires that we should abandon our
system in favour of theirs, and it is in effect that while the
Colonies should be left absolutely free to impose what
protective duties they please both on foreign countries and
upon British commerce, they should be required to make
a small discrimination in favour of British trade, in return
for which we are expected to change our whole system and
impose duties on food and raw material. Well, I express
again my own opinion when I say that there is not the
slightest chance that in any reasonable time this country,
or the Parliament of this country, would adopt so one-
sided an agreement. The foreign trade of this country is so
large and the foreign trade of the Colonies is comparatively
so small that a small preference given to us upon that
foreign trade by the Colonies would make so trifling a
difference — would be so small a benefit to the total volume

1 Speech at the Eighty Club, April 28, 1885.

a Speech at Birmingham, November 12, 1885. The dates of these
various speeches are noteworthy in view of Mr Chamberlain's recent
statement that he had doubts as to free imports as far back as the early
eighties when called upon to reply to the Fair-traders, and that his
orthodoxy was shattered and his views shaken. Speech at the Hotel
Cecil, London, July 8, 1904.

120 Racial Supremacy

of our trade — that I do not believe the working classes
of this country would consent to make a revolutionary
change for what they would think to be an infinitesimal
gain." i

" If you are to give a preference to the Colonies . . .
you must put a tax on food." 2

The illustrations might be multiplied, but the
object is not to convict Mr Chamberlain out of his
own mouth — since that has now become a stale
performance — but to adopt his admirable presenta-
tation (as far as it goes) of the case for Free Trade,
and to show he once fully realised that Protection
would not promote trade or add to the wealth of the
country, and that it would injure the working classes.
He now tells us that circumstances have changed ;
but apart from the fact that some of the speeches
are of comparatively recent date, it will be noticed
that in all of them he was dealing not with particular
circumstances, but with economic laws and their
effects — that a food tax causes a decline in wages, a
diminution of purchasing power, a rise in the price
of home produce, an increase in rent, an injury to
the export trade, the starvation of the poor, and
national disaster. He has himself demonstrated
that he is under no delusion on this score, and
despite the extravagance of some of his recent
utterances 3 and the fact that he has eventually
become what is euphoniously described as a " whole-

1 Speech at Grocers' Hall, June 9, 1896.

2 Speech in the House of Commons, May 28, 1903.

* Such, for example, as that £92,000,000 of trade we might have
done here has gone to the foreigner, and as the result we have lost
£46,000,000 a year in wages during the last thirty years ! Speech at
Newcastle, October 20, 1903.

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 2 1

hogger," we are driven to seek a better reason for
his latest proposals than the one that he has been
ensnared by the common protectionist fallacies.

The dominating motive of the Ex-Colonial
Secretary he has indeed made clear to us, and
his scheme is the logical outcome of his later career.
No doubt he is desirous of drawing off the attention
of the electorate from the miserable fiasco resulting
from his South African diplomacy, and from the
egregious blundering of the incompetent Government
of which he was so conspicuous a member ; and he
presumably thought that to spring upon the country
this revolutionary project, was calculated to accom-
plish that object. But this, in any case, is not his
principal reason. He is before all things an
Imperialist ; it is not because he has forgotten his
economics, but because he has become intoxicated
with empire — so much so that, as he tells us, he
dreams dreams of it 1 — and has a rooted antipathy
to everything which is not British, that he has em-
barked on this mad crusade. He has himself shown
us he is not ignorant of the price that has to be paid ;
but to the man who has been mainly instrumental
in flinging away some 250 millions in conquering a
few thousand Dutch farmers, mere pecuniary con-
siderations have no weight. His one dominant idea
seems to be the glorification of the British Empire
and of Mr Chamberlain as the man who runs it, and
incidentally the disparagement of other nationalities
and the discomfiture of all who decline to lick his
boots ; and he pursues this idea with the recklessness
of the feverish gambler who, finding that he is losing,

1 Speech at Birmingham, January n, 1904.

122 Racial Supremacy

plunges still more heavily. There was a time when
he fully realised the dangers of Imperialism, a time
when he truthfully depicted what would be the out-
come of the very policy with which he has now long
been enamoured, as is sufficiently evidenced by the
following extract : —

" There is a great party in this country which seems to
have learnt nothing by experience, but which is always
eager for an extension of an empire already, I should
think, vast enough to satisfy the most inordinate ambition,
and which taxes our resources to the utmost in the attempt
to govern it well and wisely. If we were to accept the
advice which is so freely tendered to us, I predict that the
temporary difficulties we have to face would become per-
manent dangers." l

But since he uttered these words he has far out-
stripped the " inordinate ambition " which was not
then satisfied with the vastness of our possessions ;
and, although since then the vastness has become
much vaster, he now tells us that the British Empire
is only beginning : 2 and, having become the slave of
this ambition, he either does not or will not perceive
that his latest scheme, if adopted and pursued to its
logical end, would ultimately spell ruin. Of course
it is quite true that, when a gambler has almost
infinite resources, the day of reckoning may be long
delayed ; and the public career of our Imperial
gambler would have been impossible in any but an
exceedingly wealthy country. Sooner or later,
however, the time arrives when it is discovered that
you may pay too dear for your whistle ; and already
is Mr Chamberlain being looked upon as a dangerous

^Speech at Victoria Hall, London, September 24, 1885.
2 Speech at Birmingham, January 30, 1904.

Commercialism & Imperialism i 23

fanatic by some who hitherto regarded him as a
heaven-born statesman. A great statesman he is
not : he might more accurately be described as a
"great wrecker." He once wrecked the Liberal
party, and he has now wrecked the Conservative
party ; he recently wrecked South Africa, and if he
is not arrested he bids fair to wreck Great Britain.
There is only one way to avert this further catas-
trophe— Jonah must be thrown overboard.

Although, however, it may be difficult to take the
new apostle of Protection seriously when he con-
tends that the commercial prosperity of this country
would be promoted by a reversal of our Free Trade
policy, there are many of those who measure com-
mercial prosperity by their own personal gains who
firmly believe — and they have good ground for the
belief — that those personal gains would be enhanced.
There is " profit " in the business for some : in other
words, the term " Protection " is a correct one ; it
does protect (at the expense of the community) the
particular industries to which it is applied, for it
raises the price of the home produce by substantially
the amount of the duty placed upon foreign produce
of a like character. And hence, the mercantile
inspiration of the demand for " tariff reform " is of the
same character as that for new markets — Protection
is the correlative of Commercial Imperialism. " Just
in so far as an Imperialist is logical," says Mr J. A.
Hobson in his masterly treatise on the subject,1 " does
he become an open and avowed Protectionist." The

1 Imperialism, a Study. By J. A. Hobson. London : James
Nisbet & Co., Ltd. 1902. Page 72.

124 Racial Supremacy

Saturday Review candidly recognised the same truth
when it told us that the Imperialist will have to
make up his mind to give up either Imperialism or
Free Trade, and that he cannot retain both ; l and no
sooner does the Duke of Devonshire revolt against
the natural development of Chamberlainism than we
are informed that " the ranks of the Little Englanders
have gained another recruit " and that " the Duke is
no longer an Imperialist even in name." ' Just so.
For if the object in obtaining new territories is to
obtain new markets, then as soon as the fact dawns
that trade does not follow the flag, steps must be
taken to ensure that it shall ; if the Empire is to be
self-contained, then Protective tariffs have to be im-
posed against other countries ; and if the foreigner
is to be regarded with commercial jealousy, then
" retaliation " is a blessed word.

The latest Imperialist proposals, therefore, are only
the natural development of the policy which this
country has been persistently pursuing for some years
past, whether regarded from the political or com-
mercial standpoint. Mr Chamberlain started from
the political, but soon found that the commercial was
the more popular ; and his solicitation for the unity
of the Empire, and his appeal to sentiment, speedily
yielded to a concern for British industry, and an
appeal to the pocket, although he rings the
changes.

A passing word then is all that need be offered
on the one aspect of the question ; and in any case
it is the other which is here chiefly pertinent. As

1 May 28, 1903.

3 The Daily Mail, November 25, 1903.

Commercialism & Imperialism 125

to the unity of the Empire, it is worth while recalling
that the Colonies form but a comparatively small
portion of our dominions, and are not in fact ruled
by us ; 1 whilst the wonderful scheme seems un-
accountably to take no cognizance of India or our
other dependencies, which sadly stand in need of the
solicitude manifested for the welfare of our self-
governing possessions ; and, further, that a unity
which is to be promoted by bribes is scarcely worth
having. And with regard to the anxiety to provide
a weapon of defence against the tariffs of other
nations, whilst (as we shall hereafter see2) the scheme
is futile for this purpose, it is to be remarked that
the avowal of such a purpose is another illustration
of the spirit of Imperialism and is gratuitously pro-
vocative of international animosity. Foreign countries
have not resorted to Protection as a menace to us,
nor did we adopt a Free Trade regime out of con-
sideration for them ; they have simply been actuated
by the same motive as we have been, namely, a
desire to promote their own interests ; and though
their economics may be unsound, they have a perfect
right to regulate their commercial affairs in their
own way, and we have no legitimate grievance.

The important question for us, however, is the
effect which the new revolutionary proposals would
have upon our national well-being ; and the general
observations already made upon the point, and the evi-
dence elicited from Mr Chamberlain's former speeches
may be supplemented by the enunciation of a few
fundamental principles which govern the subject.

1 See pp. 7-8 and also p. 214.

2 Pages 132-142.

126 Racial Supremacy

Now in the first place, it is an elementary fact,
although it seems necessary to recall it, that duties
on imports are paid by the country imposing them,
and that their ultimate incidence is upon the con-
sumer. Not that it is theoretically impossible for
the duty, or a portion of it, under special circum-
stances to fall upon the exporter ; as, for instance,
if he possesses an absolute monopoly of the article,
and the sum he obtains for it is merely limited by the
demand ; since here, the utmost price having already
been reached, he must lower it by the amount of the
duty in order to effect the sale. But cases of this char-
acter, if they ever occur, are too rare to be even
regarded as a modification of the general rule ; the
possibility of imposing the tax on the exporter is so
remote that it need not be taken into serious account.
There is no device of man by which ordinary import
duties can be appreciably and permanently shifted on
to the exporting country, for the play of economic
forces fixes price (and consequent profit) at such a
figure that it simply would not pay to sell at the
reduced price ; and the exporting country would
as the alternative take their exports elsewhere, or, if
they could not, then soon cease to produce them at
a loss. The result is that the cost to the consumer
is increased by the amount of the duty. No one
pretends for a monent that British manufacturers
pay the tax levied upon their exports by a foreign
country, or that they would in the long run get more
for their goods (although they might do a larger
trade) if the tax were removed ; and as a matter of
actual fact it will be found that where commodities
upon which there is no import duty in Great Britain

Commercialism & Imperialism 127

are exported to this country and to other countries
which do impose such a duty, price varies (other
circumstances being the same) by an amount at least
equal to the duty. Mr Chamberlain candidly re-
cognised this when he intimated he was prepared to
assume that a preferential food tax would fall upon
the consumer.1 That ethical considerations would
not restrain us from compelling the foreigner to bear
part of our national burden, if we had the chance,
was sufficiently demonstrated in connection with the
imposition of a duty on exported coal in 1901 ;
fortunately for morality we cannot do so.

Another elementary fact, however, is of much
greater significance. Granted, it may be said, that
the importing country has to pay the duty, still the
Government must have revenue, and if it did not get
it in this way, it would have to in some other ; so that
it comes to the same thing in the end, and the only
effect of raising revenue by a new tax on imports
would be that some existing tax could be remitted.
Of course this contention ignores the grave objec-
tions there are to indirect taxation, one of which is
that the cost of collection is greatly increased ; whilst,
in connection with import duties, considerable expendi-
ture is also incurred in taking precautions against
smuggling ; so that the Government never benefits by
the full amount of the tax. But the contention over-
looks something far more vital — already incidentally
alluded to — namely, that whilst revenue is derived only
from the imported taxed produce, the price of all
produce of the same character is correspondingly raised
irrespective of its source. It is the peculiar vice of

1 Speech in the House of Commons, May 28, 1903.

128 Racial Supremacy

protective imposts that they take considerably more
out of the pocket of the consumer than they put
into the National Exchequer ; and it should be added
that this mischief would only be intensified by
giving a preference to the Colonies. For example,
if a duty is levied upon imported corn, thereby
increasing the price, there will inevitably be a
similar rise in the price of home-grown corn, although
it pays no duty. And if the duty is remitted upon
colonial corn, its price will still be substantially the
same as that of foreign corn, but it will be from the
latter only that revenue will be derived. The very
object of a protective duty is to enable the protected
industries to get higher prices by eliminating foreign
competition at normal price, and this object is
effected ; whilst a remission of the duty in favour of
the Colonies operates as Protection for their benefit.
A duty on foreign food-stuffs, for example, would
mean that we should tax ourselves for the benefit of
the Colonies according to the extent of the imports
from them, and for the eventual benefit of the
English ground-landlords according to the extent
of the increase in home-grown food, although for a
time it might be possible for the farmer to intercept
this particular gain. Mr Chamberlain's present com-
paratively modest scheme would, so far as food alone
is concerned, probably result in the consumer paying
about 1 6 millions, of which the Treasury would get
only 6 millions, and the Colonies about I \ millions.1

1 It is calculated that the Sugar Convention (combined with the tax,
is costing us 8 millions a year (whilst it is almost ruining the confec-
tionery trades), in order to " protect " the West Indian Colonies to the
extent of \ of a million.

Commercialism & Imperialism 129

But the mischief would not stop at this, for when
Protection is once introduced it inevitably spreads.
The moment a duty is imposed which benefits a
particular industry, other industries which derive
no benefit from this limited protection, but which
nevertheless have to share the burden, irresistibly
clamour for like protection ; whilst, the duty being
soon found insufficient to accomplish the object, the
natural tendency (exemplified in all protectionist
countries) is to increase it ; and the ball being once
started rolling, cannot be stopped. The ultimate
result might, therefore, well be appalling. The
value of our food stuffs was for 1902 probably 820
millions, of which only about 180 millions came
from foreign countries and about 40 millions from
British possessions, the balance of 600 millions being
an estimate of home produce. On these figures
(and even if not strictly accurate, they afford an
approximate illustration of the point) whilst an
import duty of only 5 per cent, would raise the price
by at least 4 1 millions, the Exchequer would get but 9
millions even if (as, of course, would not be the case)
the imports from foreign countries were not reduced ;
2 millions would represent a bonus to our Colonies
(if their exports increased as those of foreign
countries diminished, the bonus would be more and
the revenue receipts less) ; and nearly 30 millions
would go to the home producer in the first instance,
the bulk of which he would have before long to
transfer to the landowners in the form of increased
rent. Our manufactures would indubitably suffer,
and if the duties were extended to raw material (as
a matter of fact the greater part of our imports help

I

130 Racial Supremacy

to feed our industries 1), they would suffer still more,
and would at once demand Protection ; a yet heavier
burden would be imposed upon us, and the process,
if not arrested, would ultimately point to bankruptcy.
And a process of which this is the logical outcome
is vicious ab initio. Reduced to its naked simplicity,
Mr Chamberlain's proposal to tax imported food is
one for making a dole to the Colonies and to British
land magnates (a relatively small one to the former
and a relatively large one to the latter) at the
expense of the British community and primarily of
the working man ; whilst his scheme for taxing
imported manufactures is one for favouring some
industries partly at the expense of others (but at the
ultimate expense of the consumer) which in turn
would successfully clamour for similar protection,
until prices were raised all along the line ; 2 the
natural development of the entire policy being
something perilously near national collapse. If
we seriously wish to tax ourselves for the benefit
of our dominions abroad, it would pay us in-
finitely better to vote them a direct " grant
in aid."

Here, however, it will perhaps be urged that there
is another side to the question, and that if, in return
for our concessions to them, the Colonies remitted

1 Apart from this, we cannot give an equal preference to the Colonies,
and should raise a hornet's nest about our ears unless we taxed foreign
raw material ; for, whilst we import from Canada about twice as much
food as raw material, from Australia and New Zealand we import
three times as much raw material as food, and from the Cape and
Natal we import raw material only.

a In this connection, it is worth recalling the fact that we are world
carriers and derive no inconsiderable income from our shipping trade,
which protective tariff's would seriously injure.

Commercialism & Imperialism 131

in our favour their protective tariffs, there would be
compensation for any loss we might otherwise
sustain. As to this, it is in the first instance to be
observed that there has so far been little indication
of an intention on their part to do anything of the
kind, and that, as they have very largely built up
industries by protective tariffs, it might be rather a
serious matter for them suddenly and appreciably to
modify those tariffs, and in any case they would
suffer a loss of income. But the more pertinent
answer is, that it is out of their power to confer upon
us benefits commensurate with the injury we should
inflict upon ourselves ; and that, even if it were
within their power, the cost to them would be so
great as to enormously outweigh the advantage
they derived. The additional burden we should
undertake would, as we have seen, be out of all pro-
portion to any gain to them ; so that if they under-
took a similar burden they would be infinitely worse
off. And assuming they were willing to meet us to
the fullest possible extent, what would it amount to ?
Roughly speaking, of their total imports three-fifths
are now sent from the United Kingdom and British
possessions and only two-fifths from foreign countries,
whilst of this latter the greater proportion consists
of commodities we could not supply ; and there is
probably only about a further one-fifteenth of the
whole — a possible 8 millions — which they might
take from us instead of from foreign countries. More-
over, even if they did initiate the largest reciprocal
measures possible, then in the language of John
Stuart Mill, " the result of the whole transaction is
the ridiculous one, that each party loses much in

132 Racial Supremacy

order that the other may gain a little " ; 1 to which
may be added his sarcastic observation on the
" vicious theory of Colonial policy, which regarded
Colonies as valuable by affording markets for our
commodities, that could be kept entirely to ourselves ;
a privilege we valued so highly that we thought it
worth purchasing by allowing to the Colonies the
same monopoly of our market for their own produc-
tions which we claimed for our commodities in theirs "
— a " notable plan for enriching them and ourselves,
by making each pay enormous sums to the other,
dropping the greatest part by the way." 2

Thus much as to the benefits we are to confer upon
the Colonies with a view to secure the unity of the
Empire ; there remains for consideration the injury
we are to inflict upon foreign countries in order to
coerce them into proper behaviour. What we require,
it seems, is a weapon of defence ; " Retaliation " is
the new economic gospel of Mr Chamberlain's more
cautious allies, and the Prime Minister is its prophet.
We are, he tells us, " to do to foreign nations what
they always do to each other, and instead of appeal-
ing to economic theories in which they wholly dis-
believe, to use fiscal inducements which they
thoroughly understand."3 As we cannot convert
these unregenerate aliens, we are ourselves to back-
slide : hitherto we have been too considerate towards

1 Principles of Political Economy. Book v. chap. x. sec. I.

1 Representative Government, chap, xviii. par. 4.

8 Economic Notes on Insular Free Trade. London : Longmans,
Green & Co. September 1903. It will be remembered that only a
few months previously (see footnote, p. 95) Mr Balfour had recognised,
and indeed enforced, the truth that the prosperity of one nation con-

Commercialism & Imperialism 133

them ; we have generously opened our ports to their
goods in a spirit of magnanimity which they have
failed to appreciate ; we have bought their produce
from philanthropic motives, and not because we
wanted it, or because we found it cost us less, or
because it fed our people and fed our machinery ;
we have not done to them what they always do to
each other, and we have set a noble example and
have acted in an unselfish spirit. But we must
sorrowfully confess that it does not pay ; we have
been too neglectful of our own interests (it is a
national characteristic), and advantage has been
taken of this ; there is nothing left for us but retalia-
tion. So, if other nations will not freely admit our
goods, we must henceforth decline to freely admit
theirs, and in this way shall we bring them to their
senses.

This "weapon of defence" argument has the
characteristic feature of all the contentions of Com-
mercial Imperialism, it rests upon an assumption ;
there is no attempt to show that retaliation would
benefit us — that is taken for granted — and while
some ingenuity is displayed in seeking to establish
its ethical justification, there is a curious omission to
demonstrate how it will operate or why it should
prove efficacious. And, strangely enough, the
doctrine is being promulgated precisely at the
moment when other countries which have put it into
practice are beginning to realise how vicious it is ;

duces to the prosperity of another ; it is exquisite to note he now leads
one financial organ to observe: "Mr Balfour has just helped to de-
molish the fiction that the prosperity of one nation is necessarily the
prosperity of another nation." (The Financial News, September 22,
1903).

134 Racial Supremacy

and our own representatives at the principal European
capitals furnish us with most instructive reports as
to the disastrous effects of tariff wars.1 Of course,
the fact is that had we once since we adopted Free
Trade seriously thought it injurious to us, or that
we could have effectually " retaliated " upon Pro-
tectionist countries by taxing imports from them,
we should immediately have ceased to be content to
" appeal to economic theories in which they wholly
disbelieve " ; and what the advocates of this peculiarly
contemptible form of Protection have to establish is
that the economic theories in which we have believed,
if foreigners have not, are in fact unsound, and that
they were right and we were wrong. Hitherto we
have been satisfied that absolute Free Trade is good
for us, even if other nations will not adopt it ; now
we are told that absolute Free Trade " in a world of
Protectionists " is bad for us, and we are invited to
revise our own policy because our rivals have not
copied it. If they think they can outstrip us by
carrying a heavy weight, we are to disillusionise them
and have our revenge by carrying one ourselves.

It is no doubt true that, whilst a nation which
imposes Protective duties does itself grave injury, it
to some extent withdraws from other nations the
benefits derived from the free international exchange
of goods. Those benefits, as has been pointed out,2
are that each country can obtain some commodities
which it could not otherwise obtain at all, and can
obtain other commodities at less cost than it could
produce them for itself; and the only method by
which all countries can command to the full the

1 See White Book, Cd. 1938. 2 See page 103.

Commercialism & Imperialism 135

natural advantages enjoyed by each is by that of
universal Free Trade. But unless Protective duties
are so high and so general as to veto international
exchange altogether, or at least seriously restrict it,
the harm they can do to a nation that permits
free imports is considerably less than is commonly
supposed, and indeed is not substantially ap-
preciable. For it is to these imports that the
benefit attaches, that is to say, to the exports of
other nations ; and the duties they impose is, not
on those exports, but on their own imports : the
object is not to prevent merchandise going out of
the country (for, on the contrary, the one desire is
to export as much as possible), but to prevent
certain kinds of merchandise coming in, the mis-
taken belief being that this, by artificially en-
couraging particular home industries, is beneficial
to the nation. A country, therefore, which disowns
this creed and, recognising that imports are a boon
does not impede them, has no difficulty in procuring
them — indeed the absurd complaint is that they
enter too freely — and the only injury it can sustain
from the Protective duties of other nations is such
as may be due to the fact that they operate to
somewhat restrict the amount of external trade.
But so long as such trade in fact takes place, it
is the free importing nation which derives the
chief benefit. If all countries abolished their ex-
isting imposts an impetus would no doubt be given
to international exchange ; but, whije such countries
would ultimately gain enormously, there is little
reason to suppose that Great Britain, which has
already secured the advantages of Free Trade by

136 Racial Supremacy

adopting it, would find those advantages sub-
stantially enhanced. At the present time there
is no article of foreign origin which we cannot or
do not obtain to the extent of our demand, and that
at less cost than we could produce it, even where
we could produce it at all. With a larger volume
of trade it is not impossible that the cost to us might
in some cases be slightly less, and that we could
import more and increase our consumption, but it is
certainly the Protectionist nations, and not ourselves,
who would peculiarly reap the benefits arising from
the abandonment of the system, for the reason that
we (having abandoned it) reap them already.

But is it fair — the inquiry is frequently made —
that foreign countries should have a free market for
their goods, whilst they deny a free market to
our goods ? The question exhibits the old funda-
mental fallacy that what we are mainly concerned
with is markets (by which is meant demand, and not
supply), that we benefit by getting rid of goods and
not by obtaining them. If we once realise that the
advantages derived from international trade attach
to imports and not to exports — to what we receive,
and not to what we part with — and that exports
merely constitute the method of paying for the
foreign goods we require, we readily perceive that
there is nothing unfair to us in the Protective tariffs
of other nations so long as they freely send us their
goods ; and further that, whilst they take this latter
course, their Protective tariffs are futile as against
our goods, unless they are willing to make us a
present of their own or supply them at less than
they would otherwise do. Ah ! but they entrench

Commercialism & Imperialism 137

their industries behind a bulwark and then compete
with us in other markets. Well ! have they not a
perfect right to do so if they can, and how does the
" bulwark " help them or injure us ? A bulwark
costs money to make and maintain, and a nation
which incurs this expense, so far from being thereby
able more successfully to compete with a nation
which does not incur such expense, only heavily
handicaps itself. It produces under greater dis-
advantages, and can in fact only outbid its com-
petitors by selling on less profitable terms, if not at
a loss. And if it does this, then the purchasers
(and we are all purchasers) reap the gain.

Here, however, there jumps up the " dumping "
bogie. " Sell at a loss ! " it will be said, " yes, that
is precisely what is done ; having a sure home
market, these protected industries can afford to
' dump down ' upon us their surplus produce at less
than cost price ; and if they continue the process
they will eventually ruin our own industries, and
then they will have us at their mercy and there will
be no more selling at a loss." Let us see. In the
first place, obviously whenever the dumping process
is in operation, we are getting cheaper goods ; or, to
put it conversely, we are obtaining a higher price
for our own goods ; our exports are commanding
a greater quantity of imports than they would
otherwise do ; the exchange is in our favour, and
the process is therefore to our benefit. In the
second place, dumping is not a continuous per-
manent phenomenon, but is of a temporary fluctua-
ting character; it is not (as has been suggested,
without any evidence) the outcome of a design to

138 Racial Supremacy

ruin our industries (not one of which has yet been
ruined by it), nor is it conceivable that it should
ever be, for that would recoil upon its authors ; it is
analogous to shopkeepers' sales of surplus stocks at
reduced prices, and is due to the fact that the produc-
tion of particular goods sometimes outstrips demand,
especially in the case of protected industries. In
the third place, dumping is not the monopoly of
foreign nations (who are regarded as hostile to
us) ; it is equally characteristic of our own Colonies
(who are regarded as friendly to us) and it is even
possible that we ourselves are sinners (if sin it be) ;
the explanation being of course the same in all cases,
namely the desire to " cut a loss." In the fourth
place, we are not the only " victims " (or beneficiaries)
of dumping, for everybody seizes an opportunity to
purchase at less than normal prices ; and when we
are told, as Mr Chamberlain tells us,1 that the United
Kingdom is the only country where the process can
be carried on successfully and that all other great
countries protect themselves by immediately putting
on a tariff to keep out the dumped articles, the
answer is that this is simply not the fact, and that
articles are dumped in highly protected countries
which, so far from counteracting this by a prohibitive
tariff, take it " lying down." In the fifth place,
since the bulk of our imports consist of food and
raw material, both of which feed our own industries,
it is obvious that any reduction in price, so far from
injuring, must stimulate those industries ; the cheap
iron and steel, for example, sent us by Germany (to
Mr Chamberlain's alarm) positively give an impetus

1 Speech at Liverpool, October 27, 1903.

Commercialism & Imperialism 139

to our manufactures and at the same time depress
similar German manufactures. In the sixth place,
the problem of how to prevent dumping is insoluble
unless we definitely veto all imports by imposing
absolutely prohibitive duties ; for no scheme could
be devised which should automatically shut out
particular goods precisely when, and just because,
they happened to be offered at " unfair prices " — and
indeed, long before the preliminary question of what
was " unfair " could be settled in any given instance,
the hare would not only be caught, but cooked and
eaten. And finally, if " dumping " is so naughty, and
the " dumpor " ought to be scotched, what about the
wicked " dumpee " — the wretched English merchant
who is so depraved and unpatriotic as to purchase
these under-priced foreign goods ? The malicious
alien we cannot reach, but his more despicable
fellow-conspirator is on the spot ; let him be arrested
and placed on his trial (say for high treason) before
a British jury (who can conscientiously declare that
they never bought an article for less than it cost to
make), and, if found guilty, dumped down in Portland
for the rest of his miserable existence, and then we
shall soon stamp out this calamitous influx of cheap
goods. Poor dumping bogie — requiescat in pace !

It comes back, then, to this, that the amount of
injury inflicted upon a Free Trade nation by the
Protective tariffs of other nations is merely such
as occurs from international trade being to some
extent thereby restricted ; and, having regard to the
present enormous volume of international trade and
to the fact that, even with that large volume, only a
relatively small portion of our national income can

140 Racial Supremacy

be traced to this particular source, such injury is for
practical purposes scarcely worthy of consideration.
Under universal Free Trade we should no doubt
somewhat increase our exports, but as already pointed
out l there is another side even to this, and it does
not follow that the comparatively small commercial
gain would be a real net national gain ; for, in view
of the evils which attach to our present organisation
of industry 2 the vital cost would probably be at
least equal to the benefit. The chief aim of the
reformer will be, not so much to increase our external
trade, which has already reached the point of en-
abling us to share in nearly all the natural advantages
of other countries, but to make our existing trade con-
sistent with and more directly contributory to the
solid welfare of the nation.

A policy of " Retaliation," then, is from every
point of view unsound : it is uncalled for, useless,
and pernicious. If the injury which foreign nations
can inflict upon us by their so-called hostile tariffs is
comparatively so slight that it can be ignored,8 there
is no necessity for reprisals, and the imposition by
us of similar tariffs would inflict but comparatively
slight injury upon them ; Retaliation is a futile remedy

1 See pages 106-115.

1 Of course, as has already been pointed out (p. 100), if such duties
were suddenly made so high and so universal as to seriously dislocate
our industry, that would undoubtedly injure us for the time being ; but
this is practically impossible, and if possible, would be suicidal, whilst
retaliative duties would then either be nugatory or add to the mischief.
And although particular trades which export largely would suffer loss
from any decided increase in the foreign tax on their products, there is
no method by which this loss could be prevented, unless it be by taxing
the entire community for the benefit of the particular industry — that
is, converting a relatively small private loss into a large national loss.

Commercialism & Imperialism 141

for what is in the main an imaginary ill. This,
however, is only its negative aspect ; on its positive
side it is a fruitful source of disease. Whilst it would
be attended with no benefit, it would do us harm ;
so far as it goes, it shares the vices (already pointed
out) which are common to all Protective duties.
Even regarding the matter from the limited stand-
point of a competition for foreign markets, we should
place ourselves at a disadvantage, for the object of
retaliative duties is to attack the exports from other
countries to us ; and we should therefore be com-
pelled to tax raw material and food,1 thereby raising
the cost of production of our manufactures. Nor is
there the slightest reason to suppose a mere threat
on our part would result in the lowering of a foreign
tariff, for those tariffs are imposed for the purpose of
protecting native industries ; 2 whilst the actual im-
position of a retaliative duty would only result in
counter- retaliation, of which we have a recent instance
in the imposition by Russia of a duty on Indian tea

1 Raw material constitutes nearly 27 per cent, and food nearly 45
per cent. Of the remaining 28 per cent., 5 consists of crudely manu-
factured materials and 8 of wholly manufactured materials, botL for use
in industry. Of the balance, a large proportion consists of " luxuries "
which we could not produce, and some of which are already taxed for
revenue purposes. And it must be remembered that goods commonly
classed as manufactures are really the raw material of many industries,
and that it is practically impossible to tax any of these goods without
injury to some of such industries.

2 Even Professor Ashley, who (with the exception of Professor
Cunningham) is probably the only authority of weight that can be
cited in favour of the new policy, recognises with regard to retaliation
that "it is hardly likely any considerable use of tariffs can be made
for this purpose, because the countries which are excluding our goods by
high customs are doing so in order to develop the industries themselves."
The Tariff Problem. London : P. S. King & SOB, 1903, p. 132.

142 Racial Supremacy

as a reprisal for the exclusion of her sugar from our
ports. Retaliation, in fact, means, as has been aptly
said, that because we are smitten, or choose to consider
we are smitten on one cheek, we are to smite our-
selves on the other. The so-called weapon of de-
fence is, as has been not less aptly said, a blunt
knife with a sharp handle ; in employing it to stab
a supposed enemy we shall severely wound ourselves,
whilst we scarcely penetrate his skin.

The truth is we cannot even coquette with Pro-
tection without paying for the flirtation — the siren,
now as of old, is exacting in her demands. It is
not infrequently remarked that Free Trade is obsolete ;
and that, whilst it might have been all very well
when it was adopted, it is not suited to the altered
conditions of industry. But there is really nothing
obsolete in the fundamental principles of Free Trade ;
if, for example, it were formerly true that a protec-
tive duty taxes the consumer far beyond the
amount of the duty, and that the tax cannot be
shifted or converted into a productive investment,
it is equally true to-day. The common argument
that other nations have progressed and flourished
under a Protectionist regime is a non causa pro
causd ; the fact is that, if they have progressed and
flourished, it has been in spite and not because of
Protection. When a country has boundless tracts
of fertile land (the ultimate source of all material
wealth) it is potentially rich : yet, if it artificially
fosters manufactures, it is easily deluded into the
belief that its prosperity is due to this, whereas it
is actually due to the country's inherent resources.

Commercialism & Imperialism 143

The progress of the United States, which is often
cited as an illustration of the efficacy of Protection,
really points the opposite moral ; for throughout this
enormous area — nearly thirty times that of the
United Kingdom, while the population to be sup-
ported is less than double — internal Free Trade
prevails. Germany with its restricted area, is find-
ing out that Protection does not pay ; and although
vested interests are strong, the mass of the working
classes are in organised revolt against the system.
France, whilst its area is about the same, has a
much smaller population — less than the United
Kingdom, although the country is nearly double
the size — and as this population is almost station-
ary, the pressure does not increase. Sweden, which
is regarded as a Protectionist elysium, has, since it
resorted to an import duty on maize, steadily lost
its export trade in bacon, butter and eggs ; whilst
that of little Denmark, which successfully resisted
the attempt to impose a similar duty, has been
rapidly growing. Our own Colonies, however, are
not without their object lesson, for they are adding
year by year to their debt, and this debt is not to
any substantial extent traceable (as ours is) to reck-
less expenditure in war, but has arisen under a
Protectionist regime : and enormously as our own
debt has increased, theirs has increased in much
greater proportion. In Australasia the amount in
1 86 1 was equal to £9, 8s. per head, twenty years
later it had grown to £34 per head, and now it
stands at £58 per head, whilst our own huge debt
only works out at about £19 per head. And un-
less Australia can accomplish the difficult task of

144 Racial Supremacy

disclosing additional assets proportionate to its ad-
ditional liabilities, what becomes of the theory that
it has prospered under Protection, still more of the
theory that it has prospered because of Protection ?

It is often asked why, if Free Trade is so bene-
ficial, other countries do not adopt it. The answer
is that when huge industries have been called into
being and fostered by tariffs, powerful antagonistic
interests have thereby been created ; and further, if
those tariffs were suddenly abolished, the industries
in question would collapse, a vast amount of fixed
capital wasted, and workmen thrown out of employ-
ment ; whilst other fields of labour would not be
immediately developed, and a crisis would ensue
which would for the time being have most dis-
astrous results. Protection is not unlike a cancer ;
not only does it draw on the vital resources, but
to remove it may involve the life of the patient.
If he have a strong constitution, the cancer may not
cause much inconvenience, and until it gravely de-
velops, the mischief may not even be suspected : but
when it does fully develop, there is great danger in
resorting to a drastic remedy ; and if it be possible
to arrest the disease, and gradually to eliminate it,
that is the course of safety. So, where Protection
has obtained a firm grasp, although it is a devitaliz-
ing malady, at once to eradicate it is dangerous ;
only by degrees can it be safely combated without
running great risks. The case of the abolition of
the English Corn Laws may be cited to the con-
trary, but this affords no parallel to the case of
protected manufactures. A tax on foreign wheat
only " protected " the ground landlord (just as the

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 45

re-imposition of the tax would benefit him) ; and
although its removal may to some extent have caused
agriculture to decline, such removal was really
the withdrawal of a subsidy to a parasitic class ;
it involved no disorganisation of general industry,
no loss to the community ; but on the contrary it
gave an impetus to general industry, and proved
an immediate gain to the community. A country,
however, in which there are very large protected
manufactures, has a most serious problem to face
whenever it contemplates adopting Free Trade ;
whilst the gigantic interests bound up in the existing
system are sure to offer determined antagonism. So
far from the result of Protection in other countries
affording any encouragement to us again to resort
to this artificial regulation of trade, it sounds a warn-
ing note against embarking in such a fatal enterprise.
We may, however, here be reminded that one of
the effects of imposing a substantial duty on imported
foodstuffs would, by giving an impetus to their home
production, be the stimulating of agricultural pursuits.
And this would certainly not be a result to be depre-
cated : indeed, to those who measure cost of pro-
duction by the expenditure of vital force it will be
apparent that, although all the evils arising from the
enhanced price of food would still remain, to the
extent to which more of the wage-earning classes
were able to live healthier lives there would be a
distinct gain. But this is not an argument which
lies in the mouths of those who are now advocating
a return to Protection, for the reason that they do
not measure cost of production by the expenditure
of vital force, but look only to the margin of private

K

146 Racial Supremacy

" profit " which can be commanded, and that their
object is not to enable the wage-earning classes
to live healthier lives, but to " consolidate the
Empire," exploit the foreigner and increase exports
(that none of these results would be achieved does
not alter the motive). Still, if any incidental advan-
tages did ensue, and if they could be obtained in no
other way, the candid investigator would have to
give them due weight. A duty, however, which
should materially stimulate agriculture would indeed
have to be substantial — not 2s. on a quarter of corn,
but five or ten times as much — and if this were re-
mitted in favour of the Colonies, their competition
would have to be reckoned with. But the sub-
stantial reply to the argument is that, whilst the
incidental advantages would in degree be com-
paratively slight, they can be secured to a fuller
extent in another way. Protection is only a quack
remedy for agricultural depression, and the quack
exacts enormous fees ; it means, as has already been
stated, the taxation of the whole people for the
benefit of the ground landlords. The evils atten-
dant upon our present industrial system are due to
monopoly ; to tax food is to still further enrich the
arch-monopolist ; it is feeding the disease at its
source. The true remedy for agricultural depression
would require considerable space adequately to
expound, and it can only here be suggested. It lies
in the direction of introducing a radical alteration
in the tenure of land, of raising the standard of
cultivation, of increasing the efficiency of labour, of
securing effective organisation, and (it may be added)
of nationalizing the railways. There is obviously

Commercialism & Imperialism 147

something fundamentally wrong when we have
millions of acres inadequately tilled, and at the same
time a huge army of unemployed. The private owner-
ship of the soil has resulted in the worst evils of
monopoly ; there is no inducement to render it
more productive when the ultimate effect is to raise
rent. Whilst enormous increase has been made in
the yield of nearly every other industry, agriculture
has remained almost stationary : science, skill,
capital, energy have been increasingly placed at the
disposal of manufactures, but comparatively speaking,
the land has commanded few of these favours.
Labour is attenuated, capital is inadequate, and
organisation defective ; the working farmer thinks
himself fortunate if he can make both ends meet,
and the most fundamentally important of all pursuits
has suffered because other pursuits offer more
" profit." In a country where land is practically
unlimited the entire position is different, but in a
small densely populated country like Great Britain
there is most pressing need for reform. The
monopoly of the soil by a few individuals is directly
antagonistic to collective prosperity ; and nothing
but a drastic alteration of the system will result in
the earth bringing forth her increase. A tax on
imported food, so far from proving a remedy, would
only tend to perpetuate the mischief, at the same
time giving rise to the additional mischief already
indicated : not by increasing the toll now levied
upon labour, but by diminishing and ultimately
abolishing it, shall we promote the solid welfare of
the nation.

And this leads to one further point, in conclusion.

148 Racial Supremacy

Whilst the facts (many of them elementary) to
which attention has been called abundantly demon-
strate the falsity of the Protectionist's theory, there
is yet another fact (not so elementary) with which
the Free Trader is confronted ; one which indicates
there is a tendency for him to overstate his case,
and which emphasises the necessity for that recon-
struction of our industrial system referred to when
considering the rationale of trade. Free Trade, by
itself, is not always an unalloyed good. It induces
the specialization of industry, that is to say an in-
creased concentration of labour upon those branches
of production where natural advantages can be most
fully utilised ; and in Great Britain, therefore, it has
given a great stimulus to manufactures. Now it
has already been pointed out that, although this
may result in the acquisition of more material wealth,
material wealth is not everything, and may be
purchased at a ruinous vital cost ; 1 and further that,
so far even as material wealth is concerned, the men
who produce it do not under prevailing conditions
derive their legitimate share.2 And it has also been
indicated that it is those trades in which the vices
of the existing system are especially exemplified —
the parasitic or subsidised trades — which most readily
command markets and stimulate exports ; 3 so that,
to this extent, the specialization of industry to which
Free Trade leads takes the form, as matters now
stand, of drawing on the capital stock of the nation.
The Free Trader, pure and simple, seldom realises
this ; he claims too much, and argues (or rather more

1 See pages 104-109. 2 See page 113.

3 See page in.

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 49

often assumes) that because unfettered international
exchange is beneficial, the community necessarily
shares equally in the benefit, and he does not
appreciate the subtle way in which part of it is
annexed by some to the detriment of others, and
that Free Trade is quite consistent with the condition
of many of the toilers being most abject. Protec-
tionists, on the other hand, although they sometimes
contend in the teeth of facts that import duties
would raise wages,1 come no nearer grappling with the
fundamental economic problem. That problem is,
how shall industry be organised so as to secure to all
the maximum of solid gain, measured not by money,
but by the satisfaction of healthy human wants ;
and to solve such problem Free Trade requires to
be supplemented. The Protectionist would abrogate
it, would resort to a policy destructive or reductive
of its benefits ; the social reformer would aim, not
at getting rid of the benefits, but at directing them
to their proper destination. To promote this, it is
necessary that, whilst no restrictions should be
imposed on international trade, restrictions should
be imposed on the exploitation of labour. The
effect of industrial parasitism upon national efficiency
and national welfare, and its bearing upon Free
Trade, have been subjected to an incisive and lucid
analysis by Mr and Mrs Sidney Webb in their

1 The Board of Trade investigation into " British and Foreign Trade
and Industry" (Blue Book, Cd. 1761 of 1903, p. 289) shows that the
average weekly wages in fifteen skilled trades is ; as to capital cities,
in the United Kingdom 425., in France 363., and in Germany 245. ; and
as to other cities and towns, in the United Kingdom 365., in France
22s. iod., and in Germany 22s. 6d. ; and as the purchasing power
in the foreign countries is less, real wages are still lower. It is a
significant fact that the only Protectionist country in which even money

150 Racial Supremacy

monumental work on " Industrial Democracy,"1
and no Free Trader can afford to ignore it. "If
the employers in a particular trade are able to take
such advantage of the necessities of their work-
people as to hire them for wages actually insufficient
to provide enough food, clothing, and shelter to
maintain them in average health ; if they are able
to work them for hours so long as to deprive them of
adequate rest and recreation ; or if they can subject
them to conditions so dangerous or insanitary as
positively to shorten their lives, that trade is clearly
obtaining a supply of labour force which it does not
pay for " ; and the result is, as is demonstrated, the
same as that of the old vicious subsidies or bounties
known as a "rate in aid of wages." And under a
Free Trade rtgimey combined with unrestricted
" sweating," there will be a " rapid growth of
particular exports which imply the extension within
the country of its most highly subsidised or most
parasitic industries." " Seen in this light, the
proposal for the systematic enforcement, throughout
each country, of its own National Minimum of
education, sanitation, leisure and wages, becomes a
necessary completion of the Free Trade policy ;
only by enforcing such a minimum on all its industries
can a nation prevent the evil expansion of its
parasitic trades being enormously aggravated by its
international trade." Hence " the economists of the

wages are higher than in Great Britain is the United States — traceable to
its great natural advantages — and there food is the one article that is
cheap, for it is home- produced and not taxed. "Wages do not rise with
the price of food

1 Note, page in, supra. See Vol. ii. Part iii. chap. iii. section
(d) and Appendix ii.

Commercialism & Imperialism 1 5 1

middle of the century only taught, and the Free
Trade statesmen only learned, one-half of their
lesson " ; and what is requisite is, not to unlearn
the half already learned, but to learn the other
half.1 Protection is no remedy for the evil. An
import duty on the products of the sweated trades
themselves would be practically inoperative, for
they are not appreciably subject to the competition
of foreign imports ; and an import duty on other
products would equally leave them scathless. So
long as any trade is subsidised, by whatever means,
it is able to appropriate more and more of the export
trade ; and what is requisite is, not to tax imports,
but to abolish the subsidy. If Protection is an illusory
remedy for imaginary ills, it is not less an illusory
remedy for actual ills ; it would make the former
real and it would accentuate the latter. Free Trade
is a benefactor, not a robber, but its benefactions are
largely intercepted ; and our aim should be, not
to cut them off at their source, but to divert them
into their legitimate channel. It is not " tariff
reform," but industrial reform, that is needed.

Commercial Imperialism and Imperial Com-
mercialism illustrate in a painful degree how it is
possible for a country to neglect its highest interests
in order to pursue a chimera. Empire is expanded
in the fatuous belief that it benefits trade, and then
it is proposed to restrict trade in the scarcely less
fatuous belief that the restriction benefits Empire.
Surely never did argument run in a more vicious circle

1 See also Mr Webb's article on "The Policy of the National
Minimum," The Independent Review ', July 1904, p. 161.

152 Racial Supremacy

or exhibit greater misapprehension of objects and
methods or of causes and effects. Based upon a
gross conception of the nature of wealth, ignoring
the ultimate purpose of its production, regarding
trade as an end rather than as a means, and
measuring success by the quantity of goods disposed
of and not by the quantity appropriately utilised,
this theory proceeds to advocate the acquisition by
physical force and at ruinous expenditure of new
"dumping grounds," and when the dragooning
process fails proceeds to offer bribes ; at every stage
ignoring patent facts and running counter to
economic laws, and presenting, on the whole, the
most insidious plan which the ingenuity of a
mischievous imp could devise for producing chaos,
disaster, and national retrogression.

Imperialism primarily results in the destruction
of the liberties of the conquered race, although,
when conquered, self-government may sometimes be
ultimately granted them ; there is a certain retri-
butive justice in the fact that it imposes shackles
on the conquering race. Unfortunately, however, the
retribution is not so perfectly meted out as to amount
to even-handed justice ; for it is generally visited
most severely upon the dupes, whilst the schemers
either escape or achieve a pernicious success ; and
it is not easy to arouse the dupes, since, although
they realise the suffering, the cause is not patent to
them, and if it were, they alone are powerless to
remove it. Only by bringing home to the nation
as a whole the fact that Imperialism is not profitable
— for if it were, morality has not yet sufficiently
advanced to pronounce an effective veto — will its

Commercialism & Imperialism 153

growth be arrested. The task is not a light one,
for the economic factors are numerous and involved ;
and a partial survey or presentation readily leads to
erroneous conclusions, so that plausible appeals to
self-interest can be made. There are, however, not
wanting signs that the actual truth is at length
being realised, less by force of argument than by
object lessons. Our latest Imperial enterprise, upon
which we entered with such a light heart, has proved
so costly and has so enormously added to our
burdens as to be alone calculated to give us pause ;
and in his last desperate appeal to racial pride, the
reckless gamester who has been so largely instru-
mental in squandering our treasure has overreached
himself, for the logic of a dear loaf can be grasped by
the meanest intellect. It may be that this will
prove the one benignant episode in his sinister later
career ; and if so, it can only be said — would that
it had come earlier.

Since the foregoing was in type the Board of Trade Returns for
1904 have been issued ; and they indicate that this was a record year
as regards external trade, exports (of home produce) being over 300
millions, and imports over 551 millions. As these figures are some-
what higher than those quoted at pages 97-8 (re-exports, however,
remain at 70 millions) the calculations based on the latter call for
corresponding variation, but this is very slight and the general con-
clusions are unaffected. The fact that this record year synchronizes
with an increase in the ranks of the unemployed further illustrates the
fallacy (see page 96) of gauging commercial prosperity principally by
external trade, and emphasizes the need of a just appreciation of the
rationale of trade (see pages 104-115 and 148-151).

IV
ECCLESIASTICISM AND IMPERIALISM

THE CHURCH MILITANT

AMONG the forces which make for Empire, the
influence of the Church is so potent and so unique
in character as to render it peculiarly conspicuous
and to suggest special comment. Great Britain is
a professedly Christian country ; her religion is " by
law established " ; upon her national deliberations
" the blessing of Almighty God " is periodically
invoked. She maintains a huge hierarchy with the
avowed object of proclaiming the teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth ; in every village and in every corner
of every town her sacerdotal servants are to be seen.
Outside this State-appointed and State-controlled
ecclesiastic body, but of not less national significance,
are various other religious organisations, which
equally exist for the presumed purpose of uphold-
ing the Christian faith and for promoting Christian
life within the community ; and here again, in every
village and every corner of every town the ministers
of such organisations are found. No doubt, neither
church nor chapel commands the adherence of vast
numbers of the population, probably not of a
majority ; and pathetic inquiries are frequently
made as to why the masses exhibit absolute indiffer-
154

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 155

ence to the rites of religion. But, whilst it is not
within the scope of the present investigation to seek
an answer to such inquiries (although incidentally
some light may be thrown upon the subject) the
substantial fact remains that we boast of being a
Christian nation, and that the Church — using the
term in its widest sense — wields a powerful sceptre
and exercises an enormous influence. And the
preponderance of that influence is exerted in the
cause of Imperialism.

Now, to those who stand outside the Church,
and yet have some conception of the teachings of
Christ — possibly a conception which is clearer for
the precise reason that they are outside the Church,
and are not therefore bound by official interpreta-
tion or priestly dogma — and who at the same time
have some conception of the nature of Imperialism,
with its claim to supremacy, its spirit of aggression,
its stifling of independence, and its promotion of
alien rule ; the fact that war and racial predomi-
nance command the countenance, and even the
blessing, of the Church, is one of the most melancholy,
and, on the surface, most inexplicable of phenomena.
The burden of the teaching of Christ was the brother-
hood of man, irrespective of race ; Imperialism is
the subjection of man, based on the distinction ot
race. The office of religion is to ennoble life ; war
is the wanton destruction of life. The mission of
the Church is to subdue men's passions, to promote
amity, to preach peace ; the lust of power means
the unbridling of passion, the fostering of hatred,
and the worship of brute force. When, therefore, we
witness professing Christians proclaiming the doctrine

156 Racial Supremacy

of national supremacy, religion identifying itself with
a crusade of slaughter, and the Church enthusiastic-
ally encouraging the vices of patriotism, we are face
to face with what is apparently so gruesome an
anomaly that it may well induce grave disquietude.

Obviously a Church which not only fails in its
mission, but runs counter to it, instead of being an
instrument for good is an instrument for evil — the
community would be better without it. If it not
only fails to ennoble and purify, but actually debases
and makes gross, blank Agnosticism is infinitely
preferable. For morality still remains ; and though
this may not exercise its legitimate influence, men
are at any rate in less danger of regarding immoral
conduct as moral. But to an individual of religious
convictions, such convictions are paramount to
morality ; that is to say, if there is a conflict between
religion and morality, religion carries the day ; he
does not even realise that there is a conflict, for the
reason that to him religion embodies the highest
conceptions of morality. Thus, when the Church
tells its faithful adherents that their country is
engaged in a holy war — there is great virtue in the
word " holy " — he feels perfectly satisfied. The
patriotic bias generally induces men to regard as
righteous any national enterprise in which their
Government embarks ; but if they are left to the
domain of pure ethics, they may be able to subdue
this bias, and endeavour to look at the matter
impartially and dispassionately. When, however,
their religion is enlisted in the cause of aggression,
and they are told by their accredited pastors that
the Deity is on their side and that they have been

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 157

chosen to fulfil his beneficent behests, they are only
too happy to find their own predilections so com-
fortably confirmed. " Spiritual guides," therefore,
when they are blind, inevitably lead their flocks into
the mire ; they are not simply useless but are
pernicious.

The Church, whether or not it justifies in a
spiritual sense its not uncommon designation of
" militant," undoubtedly justifies it in a material
sense. It has almost invariably defended the harsh
and illogical arbitrament of the sword, and it has
substantially contributed to the growth of the
modern Imperialist spirit. If we look to its past
history, we everywhere see that it has allied itself
with physical force. It has approved of war, it has
incited to war, it has waged war; and recent revelations
show that its character is by no means changed. Byso-
called civilised nations, probably more human lives have
been sacrificed and more cruelty has been practised,
either in the name or with the sanction of religion or
through the direct or indirect influence of sacerdotal-
ism, than from any other cause ; and the bayonet
has always commanded the blessing of the pulpit.
With regard to our latest gigantic Imperial enter-
prise, Mr Chamberlain proclaimed with satisfaction
that the ministers of religion, those " gentlemen
whose profession inclined them to peace, to what-
ever denomination they belonged," l were heartily on
the side of the Government ; and although he
alluded only to the clerics of South Africa, this was
possibly because he thought it superfluous to remind
his hearers of the attitude of the clerics of England.

1 Speech at Birmingham, May II, 1900.

158 Racial Supremacy

In fact it seems that, so far from those who pose as
the followers of the Prince of Peace being ardent
opponents of war, they are actually more militant
than the men who make no such profession ; and
that, whilst happily some exceptions may be found,
it is not to the Church but to those outside its pale
that we must look for ethical guidance in times of
national passion — it is they who are the strongest
advocates of a pacific policy. Says Tolstoy, " War
will exist so long as we not only profess, but tolerate
without anger and indignation, that distortion of
Christianity which is called the Christian Church,
and according to which such things are admissible
as a Christ-loving army, the consecration of guns and
the recognition of a Christian and righteous war." l
The dictum of an extremist, it will be replied ; the
view of one who preaches the doctrine of non-
resistance, who interprets literally the injunction to
turn the other cheek when smitten on the one.
Well, it is just possible the extremist is right, that
the doctrine of " non-resistance," as it is termed
(though it might, as has been pointed out,2 be more
accurately described as the doctrine of " moral
resistance "), is taught in the Gospels, and that its
injunctions were intended to mean what they
apparently mean ; but, however this may be, the
dictum itself is certainly not far from the truth, for
this much is clear that until the Church ceases either
to exist or to countenance war, war there will be.
That a moral justification for drawing the sword may

1 Letters on War. Maldon, The Free Age Press, 1900, p. 7.

2 By Mr G. H. Ferris, Life and Teaching of Leo Tolstoy. London :
Grant Richards, 1904, p. 25.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 159

sometimes (though not often) be established, at any
rate so far as one of the belligerent parties is con-
cerned, it is not necessary to dispute ; but for the
vast majority of wars — and this is the verdict of
history — no such justification can possibly be found.
Yet the Church has supported such wars ; it is not
that she has occasionally defended some particular
war, not that she has acted in accordance with pure
ethics and merely ignored the letter of the possibly
stricter mandates of Christianity ; it is that she
has almost always ranged herself on the popular side,
that she has invariably been the advocate of force
majeure ; and that where, quite apart from any
question of religious duty, ethics has pronounced
condemnation and history has confirmed it, she has,
nevertheless, given her approval and her benediction.
In a word she has ever been a Church militant in
the literal interpretation of the term ; and whilst
her Master proclaimed that his kingdom was not of
this world, else would his servants fight, she has
ever been ready to fight, or to exhort others to fight,
for kingdom in this world.

Reflections such as the foregoing are not so likely
to be aroused in times of peace, but they have been
irresistibly provoked in the minds of many by the
attitude of the Church towards Great Britain's recent
Imperialist campaign in South Africa. In the
subjugation of the Boers, the destruction of their
independence, the annexation of their territory and
the forcible expansion of the Empire, and in the
" methods of barbarism " by which these results
have been achieved, Ecclesiasticism has materially

160 Racial Supremacy

" aided and abetted " ; and once more we have
had promulgated the doctrine, vox populi, vox Dei.
Patriotism has been preached as the " duty of the
hour," as though (assuming it to be a duty) that
duty was not sufficiently congenial to prevent any
risk of its being neglected. In the English nation
it has been discovered that there exists the modern
Israel, called of God — that is to say, the Church's
tribal Deity — for a special purpose. We were
justified, said one priestly oracle, in invoking the
blessing of the Most High on the English arms, and,
to use the magnificent imagery of the Hebrew
prophet, in speaking of the sword of England as
' bathed in heaven/ to carry out the work entrusted
to the Anglo-Saxon race. A worthy Canon, to
whom the Deity had apparently made a special
revelation, informed us that a war which prevented
this country being broken to pieces, and made it a
great nation, was God's scourge. A still higher
dignitary expressed the pious belief that by our
praying and fighting we were spreading His precious
gift of good government throughout the world. The
war, we were informed by another confident prelate,
was waged in the eternal interests of justice and
truth, and was a blow at the tyrant, the oppressor,
and the murderer. In picturesque language we
were told by yet another reverend gentleman that
we must strike for life and honour such a blow as
should make all Boerdom reel, and that Oom Paul
would " swim through seas of blood upon his belly,
psalm-singing with every stomach-stroke, and not
the least bit off colour all the while." Then the
Nonconformist pulpit chimed in, amidst the loud

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 161

applause of a delighted congregation, with the intima-
tion that those who wished to stop the war were
either imbeciles or traitors, imbeciles if they thought
it could be stopped, traitors if they thought it ought
to be stopped. From other inspired sources we
learned that the Boers were a brutal and degraded
race ; that they were utterly devoid of truthfulness,
honour or honesty ; that they had a lower concep-
tion of the character of God and a lower interpreta-
tion of his word ; that we were fighting for higher
ideals, which were breathed by the Holy Ghost ;
and that from the bottom of our hearts we could
invoke the blessing of Almighty God on our arms.
Were attempts made to bring some of these bellicose
clerics back to the teachings of Christ by sending
them peace literature, the response was, for example,
" I regard you as one of the greatest enemies of
your country, and I shall ever pray that Almighty
God will punish you both here and hereafter " ; or,
" Your effusions brand you as a traitor to your
country, and while they ought to be burned, you
ought to be shot or imprisoned for life." l And finally
— no not finally, for the sorry utterance was made
at a comparatively early stage of the war, when we
fatuously thought we had conquered — it was con-
fidently proclaimed that all was for the best in the
best of all possible worlds, and that Jehovah had
triumphed, his people were free.

Quotations might be multiplied ad nauseam, but
sufficient indication has been given of the attitude
and spirit of the " ambassadors of Christ " at a
period when the nation was demoniacally possessed,

1 Letters to Mr W. T. Stead.
L

1 62 Racial Supremacy

and when all the forces of evil were in the ascend-
ency. There were honourable and noteworthy
exceptions ; there were not wanting men who resisted
the popular passion, who fought against it — in some
cases amidst contumely and scorn and at great
personal sacrifice — and who even, with diminishing
following or compulsory resignation of their pulpits,
effected enough good to demonstrate what a potent
instrument for righteousness the Church might have
proved if it had only been true to its profession. But
the vast majority of those whose sacred duty it is to
preach peace on earth and good-will to man, were
either openly and enthusiastically ranging themselves
on the side of war on earth and ill-will to man, or else
preserving that pitiful silence which gave consent.

The phenomenon might have been less striking,
though sufficiently painful, if it had been confined to
the clergy of the Established Church. For it is one
of the incongruities of such an organisation that its
officials owe a divided allegiance. A monopolist
Church, a Church buttressed by the State, possessing
special privileges and supported by State revenues,
is impelled to approve a State war and to counte-
nance State interposition in the interests of monopoly
and privilege ; and if the State embarks in war —
well, it is the business of such a Church to demon-
strate that the war is holy. At any rate, judging
from its past history, it is vain to look to the
Establishment to stem the tide of popular passion,
or to range itself on the side of the victims of
oppression. Through all the long centuries it has
been a persecuting body, guilty of the most flag-
rant cruelty when it had the power, and invariably

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 163

using its influence in the cause of despotism ;
in every crisis in the growth of English liberties,
to quote Mr Morley (and he might have added,
in the foreign struggle for freedom from English
domination), the one when its own purse and
privilege were threatened alone excepted, it has been
the ally of tyranny, the organ of social oppression,
and the champion of intellectual bondage.1 These
facts alone pronounce the most scathing condemna-
tion, from the religious point of view, of the un-
natural union between Church and State ; and
had the clerical stimulus to aggressive Imperialism
been confined to the episcopal pulpits, it would have
been a striking object lesson which might have
considerably accelerated the advent of disestablish-
ment. But the opportunity was lost ; the Non-
conformist pulpits were scarcely less belligerent,
the doctrine of racial supremacy was not less con-
fidently proclaimed ; and the very men who had
identified themselves with the cause of domestic
liberty became supporters of the cause of alien
coercion ; the very men who gloried in their own
independence, and in their country's independence,
joined in depriving other men and another country
of an independence not less highly prized. A furious
wave of patriotism burst over the land — as it always
does in time of war — and submerged the Church
and conventicle alike.

But it may be urged — it has been urged — that
the clergy are as much entitled to their opinions

1 The Struggle for National Education. London : Chapman & Hall,
P. 3-

1 64 Racial Supremacy

as the laity ; that they merely shared the common
belief as to the war being righteous ; that they
conscientiously held that belief; and that they
cannot, therefore, be censured even if the belief
were erroneous. Such a contention, however, not
only fails to recognise that the moral justification
for an opinion depends upon how it is arrived
at, but ignores the peculiar responsibility which
attaches to the clergy. The tendency for most
men is to jump to conclusions, especially if they
are conclusions which are palatable ; it avails them
little to say that they are conscientious if they
have shirked the labour of investigation, or have
allowed themselves to be swayed by prejudice.
And whilst we may properly condemn the ordinary
man for the looseness and partiality with which he
forms his opinions, the condemnation must fall far
more heavily upon public teachers who exhibit
similar characteristics, more especially when they
claim to be ethical teachers and the opinions in
question relate to questions of conduct. Ministers
of the Gospel have a special obligation imposed
upon them. They have chosen of their own free
will to become the exponents of the Christian
religion, to make it their endeavour to follow the
teachings of Christ, to labour to induce other men
to obey the injunctions of Christ. They have taken
upon themselves the onerous duty of seeking to lead
their fellows into higher channels ; they claim to
be ethical specialists who devote themselves to the
study of conduct. If, therefore, they are simply to
be judged by the same standard as the average
individual, who does not profess to be " converted," still

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 165

less to aim at converting others, and who may even
repudiate Christianity altogether, their raison detre
disappears. We do not exonerate a doctor for
unskilful treatment because the patient could not
have done better himself ; we do not acquit a
lawyer of negligence because his client is a fool.
And if the clergy, notwithstanding their " saintly
office " — and none appear to attach more importance
to it than they themselves do — are to appeal merely
to the criterion which the " unregenerate " man
recognises, then we may well ask for what object
the pulpit exists. It is perfectly true that in matters
of conduct every one ought to be a law unto himself,
that the responsibility is imposed upon all of honestly
and carefully arriving at convictions and of acting
in accordance with them. As a matter of fact,
however, very few make that scrupulous analysis
of belief and conduct which they should make ;
impulse and inclination lead men astray ; but it is
precisely at a time when a whole nation is acting on
impulse and in accordance with inclination that its
public teachers should step in to admonish and
rebuke. No doubt the vast majority of those who
supported the South African War, and of those who
are imbued with the spirit of Imperialism, thought
the war was righteous and believe that it is a
grand thing to extend British supremacy ; and the
gravamen of the charge against the clergy is, not
that they hypocritically profess the popular belief,
but that they, in fact, share such belief; that when-
ever the nation embarks on an immoral or disastrous
enterprise — and nothing can be more immoral or
disastrous than war — they are always able to

1 66 Racial Supremacy

discover a justification for such enterprise because
it is national.

War as a rule stands condemned by ethics, and
a fortiori by Christianity ; but whilst that condemna-
tion finds pronouncement in the pulpit as an abstract
proposition in times of peace, let a responsible
Government but once threaten or engage in
hostilities, and it will be supported by the Church.
The general populace is easily persuaded that when
their country quarrels with another, their country
is right ; there is a natural bias in that direction,
and this bias is almost always stimulated by false-
hood and distortion of facts, by unwarranted
deductions from premises whether true or false,
by blinding the eyes to the drastic nature of a remedy
which is generally worse than the disease (where
the latter exists), by appeals to passion and prejudice,
and by the fostering of the spirit of hatred and
uncharitableness. And no more formidable indict-
ment can be brought against the clergy than to say
that they, too, exemplify these common vices,
frequently in an intensified form ; and, above all,
that they publicly encourage them and give to them
the sanction of religion and the impress of divine
authority. They of all men ought to make it their
one strenuous effort to free themselves from bias,
to examine into facts and give credence to nothing
calculated to provoke war which is not irrefutably
established, to make their deductions rationally and
dispassionately, to exhibit a due sense of proportion,
to realise that a drastic remedy can never be justified
save for the most desperate disease, to discountenance
appeals to passion and prejudice, and to sternly

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 167

rebuke the spirit of hatred and uncharitableness.
And it is because the bulk of them have once again
failed in this obvious duty, and sunk to the level of
the impetuous and unreflecting populace whom their
special mission is to aim at uplifting, that they
have demonstrated anew what a miserable failure
is the so-called Christian Church, or rather what a
sinister success it achieves in the promotion of anti-
Christian sentiments. Insincere or hypocritical they
were not ; would that it were left to insincerity and
hypocrisy to foster and support an aggressive war,
for mankind is fortunately not so largely permeated
with these vices that they can be considered dominant
characteristics. The priests of the Inquisition, for
aught we know, were honest in their profession that
bodily torture was instrumental in saving souls ; and
more cruelty has been perpetrated by fanaticism
than by deliberate malice. Indeed, the recognition
of a debased standard of morality is calculated to
result in far greater evil than the failure rigidly to
adhere to an exalted standard.

" His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

To be falsely true — to what demoralisation does it
not lead ! To be falsely true to the belief that the
universal Father has appointed some of his children
to shoot down others of his children, and authorises
one imperfect fallible human being to act as an
avenging scourge towards another imperfect fallible
human being ; to be falsely true to the belief that
racial supremacy and despotic rule are noble things
to strive for, and that peace, prosperity, and happi-

1 68 Racial Supremacy

ness are promoted by war, devastation, and misery ;
to be falsely true to the belief that our little systems
are so vastly superior to other little systems as to
make it righteous and Christian to extend ours by
destroying those ; to be falsely true to the belief that
the liberty, independence, and autonomy, which we
so highly prize, and an attack upon which we should
resent to the death, can be legitimately stamped out
when attaching to another race, whose men, women
and children will die ere they submit ; to be falsely
true to the belief that it is wrong for a foreigner to do
what it is right for an Englishman to do, and that
vice is condoned if it is thought that virtue will
result ; to be falsely true to the belief that the
religion of love and the gospel of brotherhood
marks with its approval the fulminations of hatred
and a fratricidal crusade, and that the life and death
of the " meek and lowly one," who suffered martyr-
dom for humanity, can be invoked in defence of a
spirit of arrogance and vainglory and of the martyr-
dom of others ; to be falsely true to the belief
that ethics approves of immorality doing its worst
in the name of morality, and that Christianity
countenances everything that is un-Christlike — this
it is which drags us down to the lowest depths of
ignominy, and almost suggests whether it were not
better that we had no moral faculty whatsoever.
To man is given the power to distinguish between
right and wrong; at his best he struggles nobly, if
intermittently and painfully, to attain to high
ideals ; at his worst he forsakes all ideals, and does
what he knows to be wrong ; but he never presents
a more sorry spectacle than when, through the

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 169

eclipse of reason by passion or through the perver-
sion of judgment by prejudice, he fails to distinguish
between right and wrong, and by the creation of a
false ideal actually deludes himself into the belief
that wrong is right.

THE CHURCH'S APOLOGIA

Of course, however, the clergy would vehemently,
and no doubt indignantly, repudiate any suggestion
of apostasy. They would scout the idea that they
had acted inconsistently with their religious pro-
fession, or had mistaken wrong for right ; they
would deny that their opinions had been hastily
formed without impartial investigation, or that their
judgment had been perverted by prejudice or
passion ; and they would claim that they had been
guided alike by reason, religion, and morals. And
in justification of this they would assert, not merely
that they believe Imperialism makes for the welfare
of humanity, but that they have solid grounds
for their belief; not merely that they consider a
particular war to be righteous, but that it can be
demonstrated to be righteous.

We must, therefore, bring this matter to the test
of actual facts and of dry logic. Let it be investi-
gated in the light of recent events and of the modern
Imperialist spirit ; for it is such events, and the
evidence they afford of the growth of such spirit,
which has prompted to this examination ; and
although the attitude of Ecclesiasticism in the past
has been the same as it is to-day, the investigation can
reasonably be limited — and even then it is tolerably

i 70 Racial Supremacy

wide — to the justification it is sought to establish
for the support given to the South African Imperial
diplomacy and the South African Imperial war.

The Christian Church has once again been on its
trial ; it has joined in painting the map red ; it has
given its countenance to the expansion of the
Empire by means of the destruction of two free
Republics ; and it is entitled to be heard in its own
defence. Further, it can fairly demand that it shall
be heard at its best ; that it shall not be judged
merely by detached utterances or rhetorical flourishes,
such as have already been quoted ; but that the most
sober, dispassionate and exegetical apologia that can
be found should be chosen for examination.

These various requirements seem to be most
nearly met if the published volume of sermons by
the Rev. Bernard Snell, M.A., B.Sc. 1 be taken as
embodying the case for the War and for Imperialism
from the point of view of the Christian Church. Of
course it may be argued that each pulpit speaks only
for itself, and that it is open to others to disown the
utterances or to regard them as inadequate. The
contention, however, is, at any rate broadly speaking,
not admissible ; for when a man of position speaks
from a common platform and in the exposition of a
common cause, others who occupy the same platform
and advocate the same cause are more or less in-
volved ; and whilst mere community of interest and
purpose does not bind all to every argument or
opinion formulated by each, it can at least be assumed
that accord exists as to leading principles laid down.

1 Sermons on the Boer War. By the Rev. Bernard Snell. London :
James Clark and Co. 1902.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 171

In any case, all that the critic can do, beyond refer-
ring to the prevailing general sentiment and tone, is
to select for investigation the best detailed exposition
he can find ; and this particular one commends itself
for a variety of reasons. In the first place, the volume
consists of not less than five sermons, preached at
intervals before and during the war, all specially de-
voted to the particular subject ; and it is in this
respect probably unique. In the second place, the
fact that the sermons were collected and published
indicates that they represent mature convictions and
are intended to appeal, not merely to a particular
congregation, but to the public at large. In the
third place, they emanated from a Nonconformist
pulpit, and are therefore the pronouncements, not of
a State but of a free cleric ; an examination of the
case in the light of Christianity, not as " by law es-
tablished " or as presented by Convocation, but as
subject to no such restraint, and as interpreted by
the individual conscience. In the fourth place, their
author is a politician of advanced views who has
laboured strenuously in the cause of progress, and
cannot therefore be said to have any traditional sym-
pathy with or predilection for a Conservative govern-
ment. In the fifth place, he is a man of scholarly
attainments, of high reputation, and of widespread
influence. And lastly, he speaks with obvious
sincerity and earnestness, and with certainly a
minimum of that inflammatory rhetoric which has
characterised some pulpit utterances and gained for
them the applause of the congregations. It is ex-
tremely doubtful, therefore, whether any selection
could be made which would do, even approximately,

172 Racial Supremacy

the same amount of justice to the Church ; and it
may not unfairly be suggested that if this apologia
does not disclose an unanswerable case for the war
from the Christian standpoint, such a case cannot be
established.

The volume has a curious little preface, which
leads at the outset to the suspicion that the author's
customary ratiocinative power will not be strongly
in evidence. He tells us it has seemed to him
expedient that those who have lost relatives and
friends should have the advantage of knowing that
their countrymen who occupy pulpits are not without
a sense of sympathy with them in their loss, and that
they have spoken out their minds frankly to their
congregations in the assurance that those lives have
not been laid down in vain nor for an unrighteous
cause. There seems a twofold suggestion in this
statement, namely, that sympathy with the bereaved
can be entertained either only or more fully by those
who share the opinions of the preacher with regard
to the war, and that there is some intimate connec-
tion between the duty of a soldier and the righteous-
ness of the cause for which he is called upon to
fight. The author would, probably, not be prepared
to commit himself to these propositions in express
terms ; but unless he is, his observation is pointless.
He knows full well that sympathy with the bereaved
was common to practically all men ; and it might
not unreasonably have occurred to him that that sym-
pathy would be more intense on the part of those
who regarded the war as unnecessary and unrighteous,
and who therefore felt that the lives need not have

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 173

been laid down, than on the part of those who felt
that the sacrifice was being made for a great end.
And he also knows full well that the soldier, having
once enlisted, has no choice but to obey orders, and
would not be allowed to judge, even if he had the
means of judging, as to the righteousness of the cause
(whether or not he is justified in thus uncondition-
ally surrendering the right of private judgment is, of
course, another question), and that the responsibility
for war rests upon those who make and support it.
One cannot suppose that this Christian minister had
no, or less, sympathy with the Boer widows and
orphans, or that because he presumably thought the
Boer cause an unrighteous one he had nothing but
blame for the men who were fighting for their in-
dependence; and there is no doubt he would repudiate
this not altogether unnatural inference from his ob-
servations. The fact seems to be that these very
opening remarks indicate bias, foster bias, and appeal
to bias ; and by a suggest io falsi^ of which the author
is evidently quite unconscious, tend to obscure the
real issue and to prejudge the question to be
determined.

As we proceed with the sermons bias becomes
more manifest, and takes the distinct form of racial
prejudice and racial pride, colouring the argument
and investing it with a specious sophistry. Let a
few illustrations be cited :

" I am afraid that I have too little sympathy with those
anaemic people whose one political axiom appears to be
that whatever is British is wrong, to do them justice in
characterising their attitude."

" Do let us have a little more self-respect and respect for

174 Racial Supremacy

our so dearly beloved country than to fling around cheap
accusations of evil intent. I believe in my fellow-country-
men, and am jealous of the good name of my people."

" I need no convincing that in the maintenance of our
Empire are involved the interests of peace, justice and
humanity to hundreds of millions of human beings."

" It is true that Israel had a mission. So has England
a mission."

" All the vagabonds of the world are against us — all the
extremists, the absolutists no less than the revolutionaries."

" After all, it matters less to us what the outside world
says, seeing that our own family is staunch. Our own
people understand. By instinct they felt that we were
right, and they stood beside us in our need."

Now what is all this but throwing dust in the eyes
of the people ; patriotic dust which has got into the
preacher's eyes, and with which he and his congrega-
tion alike no doubt enjoyed being partially blinded ?
It is tolerably safe to say he never met the anaemics
to whom he refers, and if he did they are certainly
entitled to justice — especially as to assert that what-
ever is British is wrong is, whilst not more stupid
and arrogant, less mischievous than to assert that
whatever is British is right. Presumably the indi-
viduals he had in his mind were not the mythical
personages to whom he refers, but the men who
thought that their country was more or less re-
sponsible for the war ; in which case he would have
to include such men as the Bishop of Hereford, Dr
Clifford, Mr Herbert Spencer, Mr Frederic Harrison,
and many other " anaemics " of eminence who could
be named. Respect for one's country, and jealousy
for its good name, are no doubt admirable qualities ;
and it so happens they are shared in even by wicked

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 175

pro-Boers, and partly impelled them to their in-
effectual efforts to prevent what they regarded as a
national crime ; but such qualities are strangely
perverted if they induce the belief that one's own
nation cannot possibly commit a crime. As to the
maintenance of our Empire in the interests of peace,
justice and humanity, this raises the vast question
which is elsewhere discussed,1 as to whether alien
rule is consistent with such interests ; and the only
observation which need here be made is that the
substantial issue was whether the Empire should be
forcibly extended, and that by means of a war which
seemed to some to involve injustice and not a little
inhumanity. The comparison of England to Israel
with its " mission " was, of course, inevitable in any
sermon in defence of Imperialism ; but to those who
assert a divine mandate for their actions the short
reply is a challenge to establish a dictum which
strikes at the very root of morality by shifting
responsibility on to a super-mundane Power. To
intimate that all the vagabonds of the world were
against us, including extremists and absolutists,
seems rather unkind to our friend the Sultan of
Turkey ; but whilst the observation is calculated to
foster prejudice, there is a great deal of truth in it,
seeing that a great part of the civilised world (which
unfortunately contains some vagabonds) was against
us, with the exception of men of our own race.
Opinions may differ as to whether or not this
matters, but the nai've statement that our own
people " by instinct felt we were right " introduces a
kind of canine standard of morality which clearly
1 See Articles I. and V.

176 Racial Supremacy

removes the question from the region of conventional
ethics.

Of course, this strong patriotic bias produces its
characteristic and natural results when the facts come
to be dealt with. If we start, whether consciously or
unconsciously, with a conviction that we are in the
right, the inevitable tendency is to overlook what
would tell against us, and to discover what would
tell in our favour. Throughout these sermons there
is not the slightest attempt to regard the matter
from the Boer point of view ; we get no hint of
their case beyond a casual reference, such as that it
was said by some the Boers were but defending their
homes, and that they were struggling for independ-
ence ( " fatally wrecked by their own stupidity " ! ) ;
although allusions to them as " a people essentially
pacific and religious," and as doubtless having " fine
qualities " and with " better stuff than the wasp's sting
in their character," are calculated to suggest that
after all they might have had a case. On the other
hand, no difficulty is experienced in conscientiously
finding premises for the conclusion that our action
was justified, even down to the final stage of annexa-
tion and the destruction of independence. By
failing to ascertain facts arid giving credence to
fictions, the most honest investigator will be led
astray.

The contentions — if the attempt to weed them
out and summarise them has been successful —
resolve themselves into these : that England was
fighting ( i ) to relieve her sons from grave oppression,
(2) in self-defence, and (3) to prevent slavery. Of
course, if these contentions were valid, an unanswer-

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 177

able plea for the war, at any rate up to the point of
ensuring the desired results, would be established ;
but there is scarcely a vestige of evidence called in
support of them, and the absence of any reference to
the rebutting evidence seems to indicate that our
author simply shared the popular belief, without
making full independent research to ascertain whether
it was well founded or was not born and fostered of
ignorance, pride, and passion.

Let us examine the contentions in detail.

With regard to oppression, we are told that the
position of our kinsmen was intolerable, that no
Englishman can permanently suffer the treatment
meted out to pariahs, that our children were the prey
of the stranger, that it is the duty of our Empire to
protect its subjects, that we determined to end the
wrongs of the Outlanders, and that war in destruction
of oppression is approved by the universal conscience.
Why the position was intolerable, who were the
pariahs, in what the prey consisted, and what were
the wrongs of the Outlanders, are, however, as difficult
to discover as Lord Milner's historic " helots." Not
a single fact is adduced in support of these grave
allegations, not a suggestion offered that any answer
to them had ever been made. No doubt it would
be said that the grievances of the Outlanders were
notorious, but there is a blissful unconsciousness of
any obligation to ascertain whether such alleged griev-
ances were fictitious or not, and whether, if real, they
were of so terrible a nature as to justify a prolonged
war and the ultimate destruction of two Republics.
Probably no one now believes in Lord Milner's bogie

M

178 Racial Supremacy

" helots," or in Mr Snell's bogie " pariahs " ; but even
at the time there was ample evidence, for those who
chose to investigate impartially, to have effectually
destroyed these bogies. Let a few facts be quoted ;
as, for example ; that Captain March Phillips, who
lived and worked among the Outlanders (many of
whom Mr Snell himself describes in terms of scathing
contempt and condemnation), and who fought with
the British, has intimated the grievances were a most
useful invention which had a hand in the making of
many fortunes, and the London newspapers were
read with roars of laughter to find out what these
precious grievances were ; l that Mr E. B. Rose,
formerly president of the Witwatersrand Mine
Employe's' and Mechanics' Union, has declared that
after twelve years' residence in the Transvaal he

1 With Rimington (London : Edward Arnold. 1902), pp. 105-6.
It may not be uninteresting to quote in full Captain Phillips' observa-
tions on the subject: "As for the Uitlanders and their grievances, I
would not ride a yard or fire a shot to right all the grievances that
were ever invented. The mass of the Uitlanders (i.e. the miners and
working men of the Rand) had no grievances. I know what I am talk-
ing about, for I have lived and worked among them. I have seen
English newspapers passed from one to another, and roars of laughter
raised by the Times' telegrams about these precious grievances. We
used to read the London papers to find out what our grievances were ;
and very frequently they would be due to causes of which we had never
even heard. I never met one miner or working man who would have
walked a mile to pick the vote up off the road, and I have known and
talked with scores and hundreds. And no man who knows the Rand
will deny the truth of what I tell you. No ; but the Uitlanders the
world has heard of were not these, but the Stock Exchange operators,
manipulators of the money market, company floaters, and gamblers
generally, a large percentage of them Jews. They voiced Johannes-
burg, had the Press in their hands, worked the wires and controlled and
arranged what sort of information should reach England. As for the
grievances, they were a most useful invention, and have had a hand in
the making of many fortunes. It was by these that a feeling of in-

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 179

returned to England without a grievance ; l that the
testimony of the miners (who formed the bulk of the
" Outlanders ") shows that they had no complaint
against the Boer Government, and were never so
well off in their lives ; that when the celebrated
petition to the late Queen (the methods of obtaining
signatures to which have long since been disclosed)
was sent in, a counter-petition with a larger number
(23,000) of signatures of Outlanders of various
nationalities, including British, was addressed to the
Government of the Republic, expressing perfect
satisfaction with that Government and its administra-
tion ; that although the Outlanders were of all
nationalities, not a single Government other than
the British, even made diplomatic representation
with regard to the alleged grievances ; and that
several thousand Outlanders had such a curious
sense of their wrongs that they actually fought for
the Boers.

security was introduced into the market, which would otherwise have
remained always steady ; it was by these that the necessary periodic
slump was brought about. When the proper time came, "grievances,"
such as would arrest England's attention and catch the ear of the people
were deliberately invented', stories, again, were deliberately invented
of the excitement, panic, and incipient revolution of Johannesburg,
and by these means was introduced that feeling of insecurity I have
spoken of, which was necessary to lower prices."

1 Mr Rose, after a detailed expost, writes : " I could take every one
of the numerous grievances which we Uitlanders were alleged to be
suffering under, and could show in much the same way how hollow
were the pretences, how flimsy were the grievances which had any basis
at all in fact, and how in the main these so-called grievances were
simply part and parcel of the crusade of calumny upon the Boers, hav-
ing for its object eventual British intervention and destruction of Boer
independence, an object which has now only too successfully been
accomplished." — The Truth about the Transvaal. (Footnote, p. 73),
P- 154-

180 Racial Supremacy

It has often been said that taxation was oppressive,
but we have never been told what distinction in this
respect was made between Boer and Outlander ;
and, as an actual fact, the taxation compared most
favourably as regards amount with any other mining
State, whilst the incidence was sound, since the
mine-owners paid more for the simple reason that
they were the more wealthy and were drawing a
large revenue from the State. Ah ! but it was
taxation without representation. Even so, where is
the justification to be found for rushing a Government
into granting representation to aliens who voluntarily
take up their residence for their own purposes, and
simply for what they can get out of the country,
without otherwise exhibiting the slightest interest in
its welfare ; and especially when they are so numerous
that to do so might (as Mr Chamberlain pointed
out1) result in the extinction of that Government?
And, above all, does it constitute a legitimate griev-
ance that the franchise is refused to men who are
unwilling to renounce their foreign allegiance or to
assume the responsibilities of citizenship ?

"If the Boers," we are told, " had given a solitary
sign that they would treat our settlers as their
kindred are treated at the Cape, peace would have
been certain, for no Minister of the Queen could
have persuaded his colleagues to decree war." Well,
their kindred at the Cape have been treated as rebels,
that is to say, as men who were subject to the
Government under which they lived ; it was not
permitted to them to plead a divided allegiance ;
and amongst other penalties they have suffered

1 Speech in the House of Commons ', February 13, 1896.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 181

disfranchisement — with the result that the hero of
the Raid is now Prime Minister of Cape Colony.
But was ever a more fatal doctrine preached ?
Peace would have been certain if the particular
treatment accorded to the Cape Dutch had been
accorded to the Transvaal English ; so that the case
for war is made to rest on the bare circumstance
that a foreign nation did not choose to adopt our
particular rtgimel As a matter of fact, in England
no alien can claim the franchise as of right ; he can
apply for it after five years' residence, but the
Secretary of State has an absolute discretion as to
granting or witholding it, without assigning any
reason.2 The point, however, is not whether the
Boer Government compared unfavourably or
favourably with ours — as to which something more
hereafter3 — but that the simple existence of a
difference is seriously regarded as a justification for
the destruction of that Government. Moreover, the
fact that we had distinctly agreed by Convention to
abandon all claim to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Transvaal is absolutely ignored — obligations
undertaken by us evidently do not count — and even
had no such agreement been made, the exponent of
this remarkable doctrine may be challenged to cite
any principle of international law by which one
nation is entitled to dictate to another as regards its
franchise or its fiscal policy. Opinions may differ
as to the wisdom or expediency of some of the

1 With some apparent inconsistency, however, it is elsewhere stated
that but for the invasion of Natal, English opinion would never have
tolerated the war.

2 See Naturalisation Act, 1870, sec. 7.

3 See footnote, page 206.

1 82 Racial Supremacy

Transvaal laws (as they do with regard to British
laws), but the onus is upon those who assert " intoler-
able oppression " to prove, both that oppression
existed, and that it was so intolerable as to justify
recourse to arms ; and had this preliminary duty
only been realised and its performance attempted, it
is more than doubtful whether this particular defence
of the war would ever have been put forward.

The next contention elicited is that we were
righting in self-defence — " war became a necessity,
imposed by the inexorable law of self-preservation."
Doubtless there is no gainsaying this law, nor are
there many who will challenge the proposition
(somewhat elaborately urged) that defence is a
duty ; and if it could only be shown that the case
came within this law and that the duty had arisen,
there would be nothing more to be said on the
subject. The marvel, however, is that it is not seen
what a two-edged weapon is being brandished, and
that the very justification of the Boers consisted in
the fact that they foresaw all too clearly they were
threatened with the deprivation of their liberty, the
loss of their territory, and the destruction of their
independence. To any one who could seriously
maintain that our own action was traceable to the
inexorable law of self-preservation, it should surely
have been additionally evident that the very doctrine
enunciated can never be more operative than when
submission involves national extinction ; and further,
that, when a war is originally defensive, it can be
converted into an aggressive one.

Of course the crucial question that is here raised

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 183

is as to the origin of the war ; and this is calmly
ascribed to the Boer ultimatum. It is true there is
some indication of knowledge that this was not the
first act of the grim drama ; there is a passing
reference to the Raid as a " deplorable mistake "
and an " unprincipled procedure " (one wonders if
this description would have been found adequate
had the position been reversed), and there is even
an admission of failure to appreciate some of the
steps of the controversy ; but we are told that there
is no need to unravel the tangled skein, for the
Boers cut through all controversy by their utterly
unexpected ultimatum and immediate invasion of
our Colony. This, it is evidently considered, cleaned
the slate ; all previous records are sponged out, and
there is not the slightest apprehension that the vital
issue is whether these records did not indubitably point
to war, and whether the Boers did not and were not
obliged to issue their ultimatum in pursuance of the
inexorable law of self-preservation and in the per-
formance of the sacred duty of self-defence. There
seems, however, to have crept in some lingering doubt
as to whether the case did not require an additional
buttress ; and we are informed that the contest was
precipitated by the imprudent dreaming of our
opponents that they might drive us from the land,
and that their aspiration for years had been to
extrude us from South Africa and secure the
ascendency of the Dutch race.1 Not a scrap of

1 Mr Snell does not favour the term " conspiracy," so that theory need
not be combated ; but any reader who still doubts the truth of Mr Bryce's
statement that the much-advertised Dutch conspiracy to expel British
power from South Africa was a baseless fable is recommended to read
Captain March Phillips' With Rimington^ chap. xvi.

184 Racial Supremacy

evidence is called in support of these " cheap ac-
cusations of evil intent," no doubt for the very
adequate reason that evidence as to dreams and
aspirations is not very readily obtainable, and if
obtained is not of much value, seeing that pheno-
mena of this description have not yet been penalised.
As to the ultimatum itself, we are told that it was
the last insult from a little Republic which owed
its existence to us ; but we get no clue to what
were the previous insults, or why the Republic
should be chastised by a big State for being " little " ;
and apparently the circumstance that it had an in-
dependent existence before it was annexed by us
in 1877 was unknown or forgotten.

It is indeed upon the ultimatum that the whole
case is made to hang ; the basis of this theory of
self-defence is that the Boers struck the first blow ;
they had, it is stated, prepared themselves for the
eventuality, they had accumulated tremendous war-
material for this one only purpose, and when they
were conscious of a magnificent military strength
they chose the moment and " raided " our Colonies.
Of the fact that they had as much right as any
other nation to accumulate war material ; that after
the Jameson Raid, and more especially after the
Report of the English House of Commons and the
public whitewashing of Mr Rhodes by the Colonial
Secretary, they were in doing so only acting as
any prudent nation would do, in recognition of the
inexorable law of self-preservation ; that the moment
they chose was not selected until they had for months
made bootless efforts to preserve peace, by offering
concessions we had not a vestige of right to demand,

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 185

and far beyond anything short of the greatest anxiety
to prevent hostilities would have prompted, only to
be met by threats, and eventually by a despatch
withdrawing all proposals (accurately described by
a Tory newspaper as the English ultimatum — to
an actual " ultimatum," Sir Conan Doyle intimates,
" our Government was cautiously and patiently lead-
ing up,"1) by the concentration of troops on their
frontier, the shipment of strong reinforcements from
India, the mobilisation of the reserves, the organ-
isation of an army corps, and other warlike pre-
parations— of all these things we get not the slightest
hint. Dr Karl Blind (who will scarcely be regarded
as one of the "vagabonds" or "extremists," especially
as he has always been friendly to England) has tersely
and forcibly put the case when he says :

"You drive a man, forsooth, into a corner; you hold
your fist before his face ; you threaten him by saying that
the sand of the hour-glass is running out, and that, unless
he makes haste to kneel down, you will use other measures
against him ; you hold your sword and gun ready to attack
him, and then, when he strikes a blow, he is, of course, the
guilty party!"2

What the actual attitude of the English Govern-
ment was has since been revealed to us by Lord
Lansdowne, when he stated3 that in June 1899
(four months before the Boer ultimatum) Lord
Wolseley wished to mobilise an army corps, and
suggested the occupation of Delagoa Bay ; that he
pressed those measures upon the Government with
an expression of his desire that the operations might

1 The Great Boer War. London : Smith, Elder & Co. 1902, p. 78.

2 North American Review, December 1899, p. 765.

3 Speech in the House of Lords, March 15, 1901.

1 8 6 Racial Supremacy

begin as soon as possible, in order that they might
get the war over before November; but that, although
the idea of forcing the pace in such a manner as to
complete the subjugation of the two Republics (poor
Orange Free State — what had it done ?) by then did
not commend itself to the Government, let it not be
supposed that all this time they were sitting with
their hands folded ; they did not contemptuously
brush on one side the advice given to them by their
recognised military advisers ; their policy was a
policy of peace and not of provocation ; they
earnestly desired to have the country with them,
and believed the country was not ready for war
in the months of June and July 1899, and they
therefore contented themselves with taking those
measures they were advised were sufficient to ensure
the safety of the Colonies in the meanwhile. Of
course, the preacher is not to blame that, speaking as
he did prior to this revelation, he failed to discover
the actual mind of the Government or their military
advisers ; but it might have occurred to him that
the war was the direct outcome of our arrogant
demands and bellicose diplomacy. One Government
organ, haunted long afterwards by the nightmare
that we were threatened with the loss of South
Africa, has intimated that had a Liberal Ministry
been in power " the war would not have been begun
at all " (there is the gracious qualification, " or it
would have been ended with a worse Majuba ")1 ;
and the admission seems a somewhat tardy recognition
of the fact that the responsibility for hostilities lay
with Great Britain.

1 The Standard, March 18, 1903.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 187

Perhaps, however, it is the persistent demand of
the Boers for arbitration which makes us marvel
most at the evolution from the miasma of hypo-
thetical dreams and aspirations of this theory that
" our position in South Africa was assailed." Arbi-
tration is not the creed of conspirators ; and in con-
tinuously (almost piteously), from the time of the
Bloemfontein Conference to the ultimatum, urging
this mode of settling all differences, the Boers, had
they desired to extrude us from South Africa, or to
secure the ascendency of the Dutch race, could not
have taken any course more fatal to that object. Yet
throughout these sermons, the one solitary indication
that their author was aware of this absolute answer
to his indictment is the bland (and in this connection,
irrelevant) statement to the effect that he was unable
to see " arbitration was more admissible than it was
when Abraham Lincoln declared that he could not
admit the existence of the Union to be a subject for
arbitration " — whilst the men who from the first
vainly looked to us to act in the spirit of the
Convention we had recently signed at the Hague
are calmly told that " if they had been bent on
peace, they might easily have had it." And this
taunt (which sounds very much like adding insult to
injury) emanates from one who quotes with approval
the statement that the great triumph of civilisation
has been the substitution of judicial determination for
the cold, cruel, crude arbitrament of war, and who
actually concludes one of the sermons with the
following apt appreciation of Christianity : —

" Do not be judge, advocate, jury and executioner in
one. Refer it to impartial equity to decide. Be patient

1 8 8 Racial Supremacy

under injury. Rather suffer wrong than do wrong. That
is the spirit of Christ's teaching and of Christ's life."

The remaining contention is that we were fighting
to prevent slavery ; and the first observation to be
made as to this is that of all the demands we
presented to the Transvaal Government not one of
them had reference to an amelioration of the
condition of the natives. The plea is a belated one,
put forward by many after hostilities had commenced,
and eagerly seized upon by devout individuals who
perhaps felt a little shaky as to the other pleas ; but
even if it had been based upon fact it would have
been invalid as a justification for a war brought about
by totally different causes. Still, to rescue the natives
from tyranny is a noble thing ; and if the war, however
it orginated,had been attended with that result,it would
at least have been a mitigating feature. But even this
consolation is denied us; the allegation no more squares
with the facts than do those pleas already examined.

We are told that the conflict was one between two
opposing ideals, the English ideal which includes
no slavery, as opposed to the Boer ideal which
is for racial supremacy — that they are for privilege
and we are for equality. This, in part, is a peculiar
inversion of the truth, for racial supremacy is the
one thing for which we fought. It was laid down as
indisputable that we must be the dominant Power
in South Africa ; this was the one reason assigned
for annexation ; and the establishment of British rule
was throughout represented as the noblest of objects.1

1 Mr Snell somewhat curiously seems to think that the destruction of
independence does not involve racial supremacy, and propounds a
theory of " racial equality in consonance with the recognised traditions

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 189

And as for " equality " as opposed to " privilege,"
when and where, it may be asked, have we treated
native races as equals, and does not privilege in
various forms far more largely prevail in England
than it ever did in the Transvaal ? 1 For a charming
paradox, however, it would be difficult to surpass the
statement that the Boers " have not yet learnt that
they who prize their own independence should prize
that of others " ; and it is marvellous that there
should be no perception of the rich irony of such a
statement, as made in defence of a war which we
were determined should be arrested on no terms
short of the destruction of independence. That was
at length achieved, and the substantial question
which arises, in connection with the present con-
tention, is — will the natives as the result be
better off?

The allegations apparently amount to this, that
the Kaffirs were treated as slaves by the Boers, but
by the British will be treated as equals ; the former,
we are told, seem to be as convinced as were the
Confederates that slavery is an institution ordained of
God, and but for England South Africa would lapse

of our Colonies," whilst at the same time he is resolute against the
concession of independence. But, as Mr Chamberlain has told us, our
Colonies are "absolutely independent States; there is nothing to
prevent their separating from us to-morrow ; we could not, we would
not, attempt to hold them by force ; it is a voluntary bond." (Speech
at Rochester, July 26, 1904). If then the Transvaal is to be placed on
the same basis as Canada and Australia, the reductio ad absurdum
is reached that we spent 250 millions in depriving it of an independence
which we are prepared to regrant for the asking. Of course we have
no intention of doing anything of the kind ; the bond is not voluntary
but compulsory, and "racial equality" is a myth : we fought for racial
supremacy and we mean to maintain it.
1 See footnote, page 206.

Racial Supremacy

into semi-barbarism. It is a patriotic picture, which
many artists have sketched, and which never fails to
command that popular admiration accorded to Mr
Chamberlain's highly lurid daub, when, with a big
splash, he portrayed the natives of the Transvaal as
having been subject to treatment which was dis-
graceful, brutal, and unworthy of a civilised Power.1
And now that the vile accusation has done its
deadly work, and we are called upon to give
practical indication of our own regard for the Kaffirs,
we have had the following remarkable recantation : —

" There is one thing I am bound to say in justice to our
late opponents. I was led, as probably the majority of this
House were, by statements which were made, to believe
that the treatment of the native by the Boer was very bad ;
and in that belief we expressed a hope that when the war
came to an end we should be able to improve it. Now
the war itself is evidence that this charge against the Boer
was exaggerated. I freely make that admission. If it had
not been exaggerated it is impossible to believe that the
Boers could, as I know they did in hundreds and thousands
of cases, leave their wives and children and property to the
care of the few natives they had previously on their farms.
Very few outrages took place ; and undoubtedly in many
cases the natives gave assistance to the Boers during the
war, just as in many other cases they gave assistance to us.
And therefore, although the conception of the native by the
Boer is something totally different to the conception which
has been put before the House in the course of the present
debate, and which represents, no doubt, the British idea of
the relations between the races, yet of real brutality, violent
misconduct, or ill-treatment, I think that, in the majority of
cases at any rate, they must be absolved. The Boers do
repudiate entirely any idea of equality; they regard the
native as little better than an animal, and certainly in no

1 Speech in the House of Commons, October 19, 1899.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 191

case as deserving different treatment from that which we
would give to a child. They do not hesitate to apply
corporal punishment for very slight offences ; and in other
respects they act in a way which would undoubtedly be
reprobated in a British subject. But it remains that they
seem somehow or other to have understood the native
character ; they have not been regarded on the whole as
hard or severe masters by the natives, and no great amount
of ill-feeling has ever sprung up between the two." l

So that the Boer treatment of the native was
not after all disgraceful, brutal, and unworthy
of a civilised Power, as Mr Chamberlain and
the majority of people were led to believe (alas !
how many things were they " led to believe " which
were not true), and this slander having served its
purpose disappears. Still, the Boers' conception of
the native is so totally different from ours, that they
actually repudiate any idea of equality, whilst we,
as all the world knows, regard him as a brother ;
" they," the preacher, as we have seen (voicing the
sentiment of the statesman), appropriately reminds
us, " are for privilege ; we are for equality." But
then comes the Government organ, and after com-
menting on the new discovery of the late Colonial
Secretary, considerately tells us that " if this was
the situation of the Kaffirs before the annexation,
it will assuredly be no worse under British rule." 2
So that we are rather perplexed, and have to ask
which is it to be — are the natives to be treated as
"equals," or are they to be thankful for the small
mercy of finding that they are really no worse off
than they were when equality was repudiated ?

1 Speech in the House of Commons, March 19, 1903.
3 The Standard^ March 20, 1903.

192 Racial Supremacy

A third alternative presents itself. Will there be
a change, but not for the better? Will the un-
fortunate Kaffir, whom we were supposed to rescue
from a slavery now found to be purely mythical,
be reduced to a condition which shall lead him to
sigh for the days of the Republic ? The question
is forced upon us, both by our past history and by
current events. Whilst the Boers are at length
absolved from the charge of gross ill-treatment, our
own record has been accurately described by Mr
Morley as most abominable ; x and one gentleman,
whose testimony should carry some weight with
the Church, the Rev. J. S. Moffat, intimated during
the war that whilst the Boer without affectation
treats the native as an inferior being, the European
Uitlander has adopted the Boer view with alacrity,
and is quite willing to go one better, and that the
native had little to hope for from Colonial Govern-
ments and Colonial public opinion in the time then
coming.2 Ah ! but the Home Government will over-
ride the Colonial Government ; nay, such Government
does not at present independently exist in the con-
quered provinces, and before establishing it we shall
take good care to secure improved treatment of the
natives. Shall we, dare we, can we ? Or are not
the men whose one solid grievance against the Boer
Government was that they were not permitted to
have a free hand with the native, and who so largely
fomented the war in the interests of cheap labour,
masters of the situation ? Here, again, we may
usefully see what Mr Chamberlain has had to say

1 Speech at Oxford, June 9, 1900.

8 The Nineteenth Century, June 1900, article on «« The Native Races."

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 193

upon the subject ; for he has given us an explicit
intimation as to the attitude of the Government.
And that attitude is, that this is not a question in
which we can force our Colonies against their will,
if they differ from us ; that, whilst they are at
present for certain purposes Crown Colonies, it is
the policy of the Government to treat them, with
regard to legislative action, as if they were a self-
governing Colony ; that we must try and find out
what they would do if they were already self-
governing, and then act upon that basis ; and that
there is no idea of using our theoretical supremacy
against the feeling of the vast majority of the people
of South Africa.1 Nor was this laid down in
ignorance of what that feeling was (or was supposed
to be) or of the course proposed to be taken ; for in
the same speech we have an intimation to the effect
that there was a very general belief throughout
South Africa that the natives should, in their own
interest as in the interest of the country, be " induced
to work " ; and amongst the methods of inducement
are instanced the holding out to them of the prospect
of satisfying their needs and desires, including a
weakness for extra wives and a love of finery. So
that it was apparently hoped that, through the in-
strumentality of polygamy, amongst other things,
the Kaffir would cheerfully consent to withdraw
himself from the light of heaven, and spend a great
portion of his waking hours in the congenial atmos-
phere of the mines. And this he is to do in his own
interest and in the " interest of the country " (for
which the mine-owners have such solicitude), and

1 Speech in the House of Commons, March 24, 1903.
N

194 Racial Supremacy

if the love of finery is not sufficiently strong, well
it is only one of the modes of inducement, and
other modes can be found — such, for instance, as
" the gentle stimulus of cowhide " 1 — for it is all
essential that the mines should be made to " pay " ;
and hitherto some dozen of the more important of
them have, it appears, only yielded dividends on the
average of from 20 to 179 per cent., or on the collective
average the paltry return of about 60 per cent.

Yet one hope there is for the Kaffir — he may be
rescued by the Chinese coolie. The resources of
civilization are inexhaustible ; and the discovery has
now been made that it is cheaper after all to import
labour than to obtain it on the spot. The experi-
ment was first tried of drafting 1000 natives from
Central Africa, but unfortunately the change from
a hot to a cold climate proved so disastrous as to
involve considerable wastage ; and, although another
5000 may be recruited, it has been felt that this
source required to be supplemented ; and China is
now regarded as the happy hunting ground. It is
true the bulk of the inhabitants of the Transvaal
have not taken kindly to the idea ; but then that
does not matter, as they have no votes — the war,
which was to extend the franchise, has resulted in
wholesale disfranchisement ; and it is fortunate that
this is so, since under popular government the
labour problem could never be solved (although,
curiously enough, the Standard plaintively confesses 2
that " somehow the problem was solved, and appar-
ently in a fairly satisfactory fashion, under the Boer

1 Blue Book, Cd. 2025, p. 12. "Almost without exception the
compound police carried sjamboks." Ibid, z February 17, 1904.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 195

regime "). Originally it was thought there would
be an increased demand for white labour ; but the
English miners l have an extravagant idea as to
their legitimate share of the gold they win from the
bowels of the earth ; and, moreover, they would by
combination " become so strong as to be able to
more or less dictate, not only on the question of
wages, but also on political questions by the power
of their votes when representative government is
established," so that the supremacy of the Randlords
would be seriously threatened ; and, of course, they
have the first claim to our consideration. Thus
although, as another divine tells us, " God has added
to this Empire a diamond field, a land whose
harvest is pure gold, or whose rich mines are of
ruby, rocks of opal," these are not for the British
workmen, but are the preserves of the cosmopolitan
capitalists, who, recognising little allegiance either
to Europe or to Africa, look with benignant im-
partiality to Asia for their serfs. Our new territory,
therefore, has witnessed an influx of Chinese
labourers, allured by the wage of a little over a
penny an hour, with food, housing, and (the all-
important) medical attendance thrown in, to swallow
a Labour Ordinance with a good round dozen
penalties. They are duly " indentured," prohibited
from leaving the scene of their congenial employ-
ment unless a " permit " is graciously accorded
them (which must not authorise absence for more

1 "The war was in a certain sense a miners' war — that was to say,
it had been undertaken in order that justice might be done to the
British miners of the Transvaal." — Mr Chamberlain at Chase Town,
October 8, 1900. As to the effects of the Chinese invasion, see Yellow
Labour, by Thomas Naylor, London, New Reform Club, 1904.

196 Racial Supremacy

than forty-eight hours), liable to imprisonment if
they desert (as some of them have done after a few
days' experience, suffering the penalty, whilst
others shortly afterwards mutinied) or refuse to
work ; and any person harbouring or aiding or
abetting a "deserter" can be fined £50 and in
default sent to gaol.1 Such is one of the results of a
war which we were told was fought to prevent
slavery — a slavery since discovered to be non-
existent— and the only high ecclesiastic to record a
vote of protest is the courageous Bishop of Hereford,
the notable dignitary who from the dark days of the
war downwards has been the consistent exponent
of Christian principles. It seems a rather gloomy
outlook ; but the Church, which is fertile in resources,
can still brighten the horizon ; for will there not be
a glorious opportunity to convert the " heathen
Chinee " ? — so glorious that it is confidently hoped
" to see many of them sent back to their country
good practising Christians " !

To return however to the respected author of the
sermons we are considering — to whom the course of
events, suggesting the foregoing digression, has been
rather unkind — we read that

"The natives will be regarded as wards of the Govern-
ment, and guarded against exploitation of conscienceless

1 See The Labour Importation Ordinance, Blue-book, Cd. 1941.
The Standard's frank observation is again worth noting: " There is
something extremely repellent to English notions in this immigration
of a draft of labourers, under precautions and restrictions which would
seem better suited to convicts than to free working men." June 21,
1904. It is now reported that the Chinese are subjected to sjambok-
king by the mining officials, and to imprisonment and lashes by order
of magistrates.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 197

companies or money-makers, be they miners or liquor-
sellers. We cannot afford to lose the respect of the
civilised world by attempting less than that, nor can we
afford any better to alienate such sections of our own
people as are not able to regard the war without grave appre-
hension, but who glory equally with ourselves in England's
record as the fear of the oppressors and the hope of the
oppressed. Nor can we afford to lose our own self-respect."

This is what we were to " attempt " ; it is a very
modest thing, for men who are " for equality " to
attempt, or even to accomplish — merely to make the
natives wards of the Government and to guard them
against exploitation. But now we have it on
authority that the attempt will not be made ; our
" theoretical supremacy " is not to be exercised — a
most virtuous decision but for the trifling omission
first to grant full representative institutions — and it
looks as though the natives are after all to be left
to the tender mercies of the " money-makers " (to
whom the natives of another land are also to be
delivered), and as though the loss of the respect of
the civilised world and of our own self-respect, is to
be visited upon us. To glory in England's record
as the fear of the oppressors and the hope of the
oppressed is no doubt a virtuous protest against
oppression, but it should make us more resolved to
see that England does not herself play the part
of the oppressor or authorise oppression. The Boers
did to some extent interpose barriers to the gratifica-
tion of the greed of the capitalists ; and surely there
is an unconscious irony in the suggestion that we are
to guard the natives from exploitation — we who have
not yet learned to renounce exploitation ; we who
exercise arbitrary rule over some 300 millions alien

198 Racial Supremacy

peoples ; we who " bleed " India 1 and sanction the
deportation of human chattels from China ; we who
grant charters to " conscienceless companies," and
strike bargains with mine-owners whose chief con-
cern for the native is what they can get out of him.
Yet the prognostication was confidently made as a
justification for the forcible suppression of the Boer
regime of " inequality " and " privilege." We who,
having been " led to believe " that the treatment
meted out to the natives was unworthy of a civilised
Power, and having now uttered our recantation, are
appealing to the Kaffir's love of finery and extra
wives as one mode of inducing him to spend his
days in the bowels of the earth for the white man's
benefit, or are allowing him to escape (with a capita-
tion tax on himself and his wives) by the vicarious
sacrifice of another race — we it was who were to
protect the native from exploitation, and thus
vindicate the war to that section of our people who
regarded it with grave apprehension.2 What can

1 Mr Snell, with characteristic Imperialist courage, cites India as
bearing witness that our rule is just. The facts are stated at pp. 17-30
and 238-245.

2 The testimony of native chiefs is that " the treatment now is worse
than it was before the country was under British rule," and that
" native labourers are being sjamboked and beaten and ill-treated in
many other ways by their European overseers and indunas ; so much
so that the boys wish to call back the days of the Republic, when the
Boers dominated, stating they were better treated then and received
better wages for their work." Blue Book, Cd. 2025, pp. 25-27.

Even with regard to our Indian subjects in the Transvaal, the same
general conclusion is reached. Here again the conduct of the Boers
was held up to reprobation — "Among the many misdeeds of the
South African Republic, I do not know that any fills me with more
indignation than its treatment of these Indians." (Lord Lansdowne,
Speech at Sheffield, November 2, 1899.) And now it appears that for
the Indians also British rule is harsher than Boer rule, and even the

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 199

equal the calm complacency which sits in judgment
upon others, and fails to see in ourselves delin-
quencies attributed to them ?

And this is the defence — selected, as has been
said, at its best — which the Christian Church has to
offer for its support of an aggressive war and its
encouragement of the modern Imperial spirit. It is
a defence which, built up by inconclusive deductions
from false premises, and having no solid foundation
in reason or in fact, ignominiously collapses the
moment it ceases to be buttressed by prejudice.
The offspring of patriotic bias, it consists in the
main of a number of bare asseverations, of course
fully believed to be true, but in support of which no
evidence is called, none of which can be established,
and all of which can be refuted. May it not
be asked, was ever a cause fraught with such
momentous issues more lightly espoused ? This is
no mere question of " parochial politics " ; it is the
policy of Imperialism which is being weighed in the
balance, that is to say, a policy which bears upon
the destinies of millions of human beings of every
race in all parts of the globe ; a policy the latest
episode of which has entailed the loss of more than
20,000 British soldiers, with some 70,000 wounded
or invalided, has cost us 250 million pounds, and has
resulted in the devastation of a territory larger than

Colonial Secretary is constrained to write Lord Milner with regard
to certain proposals "His Majesty's Government holds that it is
derogatory to national honour to impose upon resident British subjects
disabilities against which we had remonstrated, and to which even the
law of the late South African Republic rightly interpreted did not
subject them." Blue Book, Cd. 2239, p. 45.

200 Racial Supremacy

Great Britain, the slaughter of 4000 men of another
race and — saddest of all — the sacrifice from pest-
ilence and famine of 20,000 of their women and
children. Such is the policy which it is essayed to
vindicate before Him who is regarded as the judge
of all the earth, and by the teaching of Him who is
reverenced as the saviour of mankind. And the
vindication, stripped of the misconceptions in which
it is clothed, amounts briefly to — what? A plea of
self-righteousness !

THE CHURCH PATRIOTIC

There is one explanation, and one only, of the
strange phenomenon we are considering. As has
been said, it is not to be found in dishonesty, it is
not to be traced to insincerity ; there is no cant
about it. The pulpit utterances ring with convic-
tion ; but it is the conviction of passion and not of
reason. And the passion which leads to the eclipse
or perversion of reason, the passion which induces
the Christian Church to support slaughter and
rapine, is the same passion as that which impels
statesmen to formulate and carry out a policy of
aggression, and which leads the people to shout for
war. It is, as has already been incidentally pointed
out, the passion of patriotism — from which springs
the spirit of empire. Pride is at the bottom of the
whole miserable business ; that pride which the
pulpit is so ready to denounce in the man, but
which it extols in the community ; that pride which
attaches to nationality ; that pride which fosters
the belief, not simply that one^race is superior to

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 201

other^races (if it stopped short at this, it might be
a harmless conceit, and might even rest_upon a
substratum of trultLJ_though in that case the fact
should rebuke pride, and engender thankfulness,
humility, and modesty) but that, as the result, there
is a justification for and positive good in the
subjugation of other races, in bringing them
under the sway of this superior race and ex-
tending its dominion and enlarging its Empire.
A modern patriotic - imperialist song l which has
become increasingly popular, after melodiously apos-
trophizing our native land, continues (with the in-
evitable pious invocation) : —

" Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set ;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet ! "

and then proceeds to eulogise its fame and pro-
claims : —

" A pride that dares, and heeds not praise,

A stern and silent pride ;
Not that false joy that dreams content

With what our sires have won ;
The blood a hero sire hath spent
Still nerves a hero son."

And it is because this feeling of pride is encouraged,
glorified, and elevated to the rank of a virtue, that
nations in their dealings with other nations run
amuck of their moral codes. Patriotism subverts
ethics and subverts Christianity ; it is for the
particular purpose made the supreme standard of
morality, and by a strange inversion regarded as
the embodiment of Christianity. The Church falls

1 Land of Hope and Glory. By Mr Arthur C. Benson. Music by
Sir Edward Elgar. London, Boosey & Co.

202 Racial Supremacy

down and worships the tribal deity, it exhorts its
adherents to prostrate themselves before him
(although exhortation is scarcely necessary), and
priests and people alike mistake a fetich of their
own creation for the God of the Gospels. It is
because the Church is a patriotic Church and not a
catholic Church, it is because it is falsely true to a
base ideal, that it is a Church militant in the literal,
gross, and demoralising sense.

A most striking illustration of this truth is seen
in the way in which moral and Christian men regard
the sentiments, the aims, and the actions of other
countries, as compared with those of their own
country. When not prejudiced by national interests,
and when not biased by national pride, they can
form fairly accurate judgments on questions of
morals ; but when so prejudiced or biased, they
either see manifested in other races vices which are
not specially manifested, or exaggerate those which
are ; and they are either blind to the vices mani-
fested by their own race, or regard them as positive
virtues. If foreign critics condemn us, it never
suggests to us the possibility that our conduct is
worthy of condemnation, but an explanation is
sought in their envy or malice ; if other people cry
" shame " we find consolation in the reflection that
" our own people understand us," and " by instinct
feel that we are right " ; and for the rest — well, of
course, " all the vagabonds of the world are against
us," and nothing matters so long as we are assured
of our own integrity. And yet one of the greatest
statesmen we ever possessed — one who never allowed
his patriotism to run away with him, one whose

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 203

desire for the welfare of his own country was
scarcely greater than for the welfare of all countries,
and who strove, according to opportunity, to ad-
vance the cause of humanity irrespective of race —
has left on record some oft-quoted sentiments,
from which if even those only who profess to follow
him had sought inspiration, we might have been
saved much humiliation : —

" I, for my part, am of opinion that England will stand
shorn of a chief part of her glory and her pride if she
should be found separating herself, through the policy she
pursues abroad, from the moral support which the con-
victions of mankind afford; if the day shall come when
she may continue to excite the wonder and fear of other
nations, but in which she shall have no part in their
affection and regard." l

Had any other nation acted as we have acted in
South Africa what a cry of indignation would have
been raised from one end of the country to the
other ; what pulpit declamations would have gone
forth ! When we are not ourselves the aggressors,
we are loud in condemnation of aggression ; when
not ourselves engaged in subduing small nationalities,
our sympathies are on the side of those engaged in
a struggle for freedom. If we could, not only see
ourselves as others see us, but see ourselves as we
see others, apply to ourselves the standards we apply
to others, and purge ourselves from racial pride, how
much inconsistency and how much moral turpitude
should we not be spared ? We boast of our great-
ness, we boast of our prowess, we boast of our
rectitude of purpose, we boast of everything national

1 Mr Gladstone, Speech in the House of Commons^ June 27, 1850.

204 Racial Supremacy

(except perhaps our debt) ; we are eaten up with
vanity ; and it never occurs to us that what we
regard as absolutely snobbish in the individual is
not less snobbish in the race. The Church de-
nounces pride as a deadly sin ; but when it is
exhibited collectively, it is condoned as patriotic, or
rather exalted into a sign of grace. If we could
only be imbued with the spirit of humanitarianism
instead of the spirit of patriotism ; if our priests
could only substitute the catholicity of the Gospels
for the exclusiveness of the Pentateuch ; if the
nation would only play the part of the good
Samaritan instead of regarding itself as the modern
Israel ; then might Britain be " Great " in the
noblest sense of the word. But so long as we
are dominated by pride we are in truth " Little
Englanders."

•

The marvel is that men do not realise the
glaring inconsistencies into which they are betrayed,
when they vainly seek to harmonise two incom-
patibles. It is a vivid picture which Herbert Spencer
has drawn for us — one which presents this incon-
sistency in bold relief — in the following passage : —

" Throughout a Christendom full of churches and priests,
full of pious books, full of observances directed to foster-
ing the religion of love, encouraging mercy and insisting
on forgiveness, we have an aggressiveness and a revengeful-
ness such as savages have everywhere shown. And from
people who daily read their Bibles, attend early services,
and appoint weeks of prayer, there are sent out messengers
of peace to inferior races, who are forthwith ousted from
their lands by filibustering expeditions authorised in
Downing Street ; while those who resent are treated as

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 205

'rebels,' the deaths they inflict in retaliation are called
1 murders,' and the process of subduing them is named
'pacification.'"1

The fact is, no actual Christian can essay to defend
the policy of Imperialism without constantly tripping
himself up. This, as was inevitable, is abundantly
manifested in the volume of sermons which has been
selected as the Church's apologia. We have only to
contrast such portions of them as are inspired by
the Gospels with those which are prompted by the
dictates of patriotism, to marvel how both could
have emanated from the same pulpit. Thus, we
are told, on the one hand, that there is no escape
from the position that war is barbarism, the business
of barbarians, and its sanction is due solely to the
survival of the savage in us ; and, on the other,
that war, though horrible, is a providential fact, one
of God's judgments in the world, and that " carnage
is God's daughter " ; from which combined pro-
positions we can arrive at the conclusion that the
survival of the savage in us is a providential fact, and
that barbarism is God's daughter (and, therefore, as
has been irresistibly suggested, Christ's sister). Then
we are informed that in war reason is all in abey-
ance, might displacing right ; whilst elsewhere it is
intimated that England was making a great effort
in what she deemed a righteous cause ; from which
one seems to learn that the displacing of right may
properly be deemed to be righteous. Again, it is laid
down that evil can be overcome only by good, and
that if evil is employed to overthrow evil, the victory
is only temporary and in appearance ; but then we

1 The Principles of Ethics, 1893, Vol. ii. chap, xxvii. p. 257.

206 Racial Supremacy

come across the statements that perhaps it was
worth a war to secure for South Africa a century
of peaceful development, and that an English
triumph means the increase and not the diminution
of the reign of beneficence and rectitude.

Even where there is any superficial reconciliation
of conflicting doctrines, it is based upon a mis-
apprehension or ignoring of facts. Thus the inquiry
is gravely put whether there is a man who did not
know that if God gave us the victory the Transvaal
would be more of a Republic than she had ever
been, more truly self-governed (there is a convenient
omission of any reference to the Orange Free State) ;
and this concerning a country which, by almost
every test of democratic institutions, was in advance
of Great Britain, and in which poverty, the blight
of our fair land (now introduced in an acute form
into the former prosperous States) was practically
unknown. l Ignorance, however, concerning the

1 It is probable that not one in ten thousand of those who were so
fond of referring to the Boer " oligarchy " has ever read the Grondwct,
or Constitutional Law of the Transvaal. A translation is to be found in
the Appendix to Mr E. B. Rose's The Truth about the Transvaal
(see footnote, supra, p. 73) and the author, who lived in the country
for twelve years, gives no less than thirty-two comparisons, in parallel
columns, of the laws and institutions of the Transvaal and Great
Britain respectively (varying from matters of the highest importance
to comparatively minor concerns), nearly every one of which, from the
democratic point of view, tells in favour of the Transvaal, pp. 36-43.

The patriotic conceit above expressed, that British victory meant
more real self-government, is of course merely the common delusion
to which racial pride gives birth. As a matter of fact every vestige of
self-government has been banished from the Transvaal, and it is under
oligarchic rule (although some form of representative government seems
to be contemplated now that the position has been rendered so acute as to
make it desirable to shift responsibility) ; whilst its former prosperity has
disappeared (except that the Randlords are flourishing), and the country

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 207

Transvaal becomes less surprising when it is
exhibited with regard to British sentiment ; for we
are told that to speak of " revenge " (which it is fully
realised is anti-Christian) as a motive-force is too
transparently ridiculous, too mean and despicable
to deserve rebutting ; whereas the fact was that the
country was simply ringing with shouts of vengeance,

generally is in a most pitiable condition. The usual parasitism has set
in, and the salaries of the principal officials which under the Boer regime
worked out at less than ,£26,000 a year figure at more than £64,000,
and altogether the head civil servants receive ,£184,000 per annum.
The country is loaded with a debt of about £80 per head of the popula-
tion (more than four times the amount per head of our own National
Debt), the taxation is appalling, and the situation most serious. " The
people would to-day but ask one favour of Lord Milner, and that is to
send once again to the people of England his dispatch of May 4th, 1899,
which ran as follows : — ' The spectacle of thousands of British subjects,
kept permanently in the position of Helots chafing under undoubted
grievances, and calling vainly on Her Majesty's Government for redress,
does steadily undermine the influence and reputation of Great Britain
and the respect for the British Government within the Queen's domin-
ions.' " — Lord Milner^ s Record, by R. L. Outhwaite, pp. 14, 15, London,
Office of The Echo. Small wonder that General Smuts should long
since have written (February 21, 1904) : — " Will it not yet be with this
South Africa as it is to-day with the British population on the Rand ?
To-day they are imploringly stretching forth their hands to the Boers
to save them from the consequences of their evil work in the past. But
the Boers, like Rachel's children, are not. Similarly I see the day
coming when ' British ' South Africa will appeal to the ' Dutch ' to
save them from the consequence of their insane policy of to-day, and
I fear — I sometimes fear with an agony bitterer than death — that the
' Dutch ' will no more be there to save them or South Africa. For
the Dutch, too, are being undermined and demoralised by disaster and
despair, and God alone knows how far this process will yet be allowed
to go." In short, as Mr Morley told us more than three years ago,
(Speech in the House of Commons, May 23, 1901) — and time has only
confirmed his verdict — the war has brought ' ' material havoc and ruin
unspeakable, unquenched and for long unquenchable racial animosities ;"
and can only be regarded as " a war insensate and infatuated, a war
of uncompensated mischief and irreparable wrong."

208 Racial Supremacy

and that the first substantial victory was to be hailed,
from the Prime Minister downwards through the
Press to the man in the street, with the cry of
" Majuba avenged." l Anon, as though with some
perception of the difficulty of reconciliation, and in
blank despair at rational explanation, the preacher
takes refuge in sheer fatalism, and intimates that
it seems as if the Anglo-Saxons were the children
of what the Greeks called " Necessity," and were
doomed in their own despite to be a fighting people ;
and that he knew nothing more deplorable or pitiable
than that England, whose pride it had ever been
to befriend small nationalities, should feel " laid upon
her " the odious business of crushing those two
southern Republics. And this continuous conflict
of ideas is fittingly capped by the final incongruity,
in which, as the closing words of a series of sermons
in defence of the war, we get the loftiest injunction,
conceived in the unalloyed spirit of Christianity, an
absolute recoil from the militant advocacy : —

" Let us keep down pride and envy, let us repress greed
and hatred, out of which grows enmity. Let us uphold
things honourable and generous, for such things ingeminate
peace. Let us exalt the beatitude to its fitting place,
in these days no less than in those — ' Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.'
So shall we do our part in hastening the day when men
shall not learn war any more."

1 "The death of Gordon has already been avenged. . . . That
great blunder has at last been erased. There was another blunder,
another humiliation, even greater than that of Khartoum, the humiliation
which is connected with the name of Majuba. Perhaps it is too soon to
say that that great humiliation has been erased, or that that great wrong
has been avenged, but we feel that we are on the road to accomplish that. "
(Loud cheers.) — Lord Salisbury at the Albert Hall, May 9, 1900.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 209

Imperialism is the deadly foe of Christianity — an
insidious foe because professing to be an ally, and
thereby capturing the very priests of the Church.
And this is accomplished by playing upon the patriotic
sentiment, by converting racial pride and prejudice
into virtues, and making blind devotion to country
synonymous with devotion to truth ; thus eliminating
the moral code as regards collective conduct, and
testing righteousness simply by nationality. " I am
altogether," says the preacher, " in favour of ' that
salutary prejudice we call country >M; and then,
seeking a Christian warranty for the prejudice, finds
it, mirabile dictu, by intimating that our Lord bade
us love our neighbour, our neighbour whom we have
seen and know, and exhibiting a fatal obliviousness
of the pregnant answer to the question a Who is my
neighbour ? " "A man," we are told, " should be
very sure that his country is wickedly in the wrong
before he abandons the duty of loyal and patriotic co-
operation." He need not be sure that his country is in
the right before the duty is imposed upon him, the
ordinary ethical obligation does not arise in the case of
country, patriotism is not concerned with a positive
justification for conduct, it is content with a negative ;
nay, it is not sufficient to believe that the conduct
is wrong before withholding co-operation, the belief
must be that it is wickedly wrong. Perhaps, how-
ever, it does not much matter, for the majority of
people go further even than this, and either act upon
the principle of " my country, right or wrong," or
else (it comes to the same thing) have never any
difficulty in feeling that their country is right

In this way is the spirit of Imperialism fostered,
O

2 i o Racial Supremacy

and Ecclesiasticism now, as always, carefully nourishes
it, and encourages conquest and subjugation in the
name of Him who declared that his kingdom was
not from hence. And so bloodshed is condoned ;
and the pulpit proclaims the virility of war and the
effeminacy of peace, but generally with paradoxical
utterance as Christian duty clashes with patriotic
ardour. Says another clerical Imperialist of celebrity,
the Rev. R. J. Campbell :—

" We have heard a. great deal of late about the horrors
of the war in which we were recently engaged. It is all a
question of imagination. The horrors of war — and war is
always hell — are nothing to the devastations of peace.
John Ruskin 1 might well say that nations have been saved
by war and destroyed by peace. One cannot be too care-
ful in guarding one's phrases, lest when you go from this
place you may misquote me by misunderstanding me. The
day will come, is coming, is at hand, we trust, when war
shall be no more ; but for all that the quality which enabled
our sea-dogs to win their victories, which sent the Ironsides
sweeping in triumph over Naseby Field and Marston Moor,
the grit and the honour and the unselfish loyalty to a
national ideal which gave us Trafalgar and Waterloo — that
which has been nourished in war time may be lost amid
the allurements, enticements, and voluptuous influences
of peace time. Are Englishmen — were Englishmen just
recently — equal to the men who followed Drake and
Raleigh and Cromwell and Nelson and Wellington ? I
trow not, and I speak at first hand. In South Africa one
noted again and again with sorrow and something approach-
ing shame a certain deterioration in the spirit and the
quality of the men who were fighting our battles. Here I
speak with the utmost reserve, respect, and discrimination.
Nothing could have been finer than to witness the spirit

1 Concerning Ruskin 's views of war, the reader may be referred to
Patriotism and Ethics (footnote, supra, p. 112), p. 274.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 2 1 1

and the courage of some of our soldiers amid discouraging
scenes and frequent defeats in that far-off land. But the
leaders ! I saw them, knew them, at first hand ; those
were not the men who won on Naseby Field, nor could
they seem by any stretch of imagination to be the
descendants of such." l

Consistently with the prevailing inconsistency, the
most numerous and most elaborate of the monuments
erected in our national cathedrals are those of
warriors ; the success of arms is celebrated by services
of thanksgiving ; and for the General returning from
a triumphant crusade of slaughter the church bells
are set ringing in harmony (or, to speak more accur-
ately— both in a literal and a metaphorical sense — in
discord) with the strains of martial music. To quote
Herbert Spencer again — when he asks us to consider
what might be said of us by an independent observer
living in the far future, on a discovery of the
chronicles of our race : —

" The records show that to keep up the remembrance of
a great victory gained over a neighbouring nation, they held
for many years an annual banquet, much in the spirit of the
commemorative scalp-dances of still more barbarous peoples;
and there was never wanting a priest to ask on the banquet
a blessing from one they named the God of Love. . . .
Though they were angry with those who did not nominally
believe in Christianity (which was the name of their religion),
yet they ridiculed those who really believed in it ; for some
few people among them, nicknamed Quakers, who aimed
to carry out Christian precepts instead of Jewish precepts,
they made butts for their jokes. . . . We think it almost
impossible that, in the same society, there should be daily
practised principles of quite opposite kinds ; and it seems

1 Sermon on Some Signs of the Times. London : The Christian
Commonwealth Office, 1903.

212 Racial Supremacy

to us scarcely credible that men should have, or profess to
have, beliefs with which their acts are absolutely irreconcil-
able. . . . Yet the revelations yielded by these ancient
remains show us that societies could hold together, not-
withstanding what we should think a chaos of conduct and
of opinion. Nay more, they show us that it was possible
for men to profess one thing and do another, without
betraying a consciousness of inconsistency. One piece of
evidence is curiously to the point. Among their multi-
tudinous agencies for beneficent purposes, the English had
a * Naval and Military Bible Society ' — a society for dis-
tributing copies of their sacred book among their professional
fighters on sea and land, and this society was subscribed
to, and chiefly managed by, leaders among these fighters.
It is, indeed, suggested by the reporter, that for these
classes of men they had an expurgated edition of their
sacred book, from which the injunction to 'return good for
evil ' and ' turn the cheek to the smiter ' were omitted. It
may have been so ; but, even if so, we have a remarkable
instance of the extent to which conviction and conduct
may be diametrically opposed, without any apparent
perception that they are opposed."1

Said Charles Bradlaugh ; —

" There was the progress they were told Christianity had
made. Progress ! when the whole of Europe was an armed
camp, and the priests on both sides were blessing their
cursed weapons. Progress ! They preached peace and
practised war, and then wondered that I was an
unbeliever." 2

Christianity has been a potent factor in the de-
velopment of the race, but it has never yet conquered
Imperialism ; and after the lapse of nineteen centuries,
during the greater part of which it has been the

1 The Study of Sociology, chap. vi. pp. 141-4.

2 Speech at Newcastle t September 10, 1889.

Ecclesiasticism & Imperialism 2 1 3

dominant creed of the western world, we find that
men are actuated by the ideas, the ambitions, and
the aims of the so-called pagan nations of old.

Had the Church only been true to the principles
upon which it is founded, had it preached catholicity
and not patriotism, universal brotherhood instead of
racial supremacy, it is not too much to say that, with
the enormous influence it can exercise, we might
now, in lieu of witnessing the eternal struggle for
dominion and empire, be approaching the realisation
of the poet's dream of the federation of the world.
But so long as the Church remains a power in the
land, and at the same time embodies that " distortion
of Christianity " by which the spirit of ascendency is
assiduously fostered and aggressive warfare is recog-
nised as a divine mandate, the era of peace on earth
and goodwill to man will never be inaugurated.
Hitherto protests against the lust of conquest and
the love of predominance have mainly come from
pure ethicists — those who seek no superhuman
sanction for morality — and there are not wanting
signs that Ecclesiasticism is adding to their ranks,
and is itself becoming a waning force. However
this may be, before the demon of Imperialism can be
exorcised, one of two things must happen ; either the
Church will be dethroned, or — it is a significant
alternative — the Church will find her Lord.

V

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

" BENEVOLENT DESPOTISM "

THE British Empire comprises some 13 million
square miles of territory, with a population of over
400 millions.1 Of this the territory of the United
Kingdom forms less than a hundredth part, and its
population is approximately ten per cent, of the total.
The inhabitants of the more or less self-governing
Colonies account for, say, a further four per cent,
(although, of course, of these there are many who do
not enjoy complete political freedom), the Colonies
without self-government constitute something less
than two per cent. ; and the remainder, that is about
eighty-four per cent, or some 350 millions, are
members of subject races, the bulk of whom are
practically ruled by the officials of the dominant race.
This rule is arbitrary ; it is commonly supposed
to be benignant ; and it is not unfrequently referred
to as " benevolent despotism." The adjective may be
taken to express that apology which, it seems to be
intuitively felt, government by an alien race demands.
For the principle of liberty, with its resulting
principle of self-government, is so firmly established

1 This includes the Indian Native States, Egypt and the Soudan,
and various Protectorates.
«4

The Ethics of Empire 215

in the mind of the average Englishman, that when
he sanctions or approves despotic rule he is driven
to formulate some moral justification for it, and this
he thinks he does by calling it benevolent. Naked
despotism is repugnant to him, but " benevolent "
despotism — when exercised by a " superior race,"
such as that to which he belongs — sounds re-
assuring.

That the rule, if arbitrary, is beneficent (for this
is, presumably, the sense in which the term
" benevolent " is used, rather than in its strict etymo-
logical sense of " well-wishing ") he has not the
slightest doubt, for the simple reason that he seldom
knows anything of its exact nature ; and when he
does, although he may deplore some incidents
attending it, he always finds consolation in the reflec-
tion that the condition of the governed would be
infinitely worse if they were left to their own
resources. The subject peoples are some thousands
of miles away ; of their actual condition only a com-
paratively small number of British citizens have any
personal knowledge ; the official reports are generally
of the most roseate character ; the unofficial
investigations command but limited attention ; the
press, as a rule, assiduously reflects, or rather to
some extent creates, the prevailing optimism ; and
'the general conclusion is that it is a positive boon
for any body of men to be brought within the sphere
of " British influence."

The popular defence, then, of the arbitrary rule of
subject races — if there can be said to be a popular
defence of that which the vast majority, when they

2 1 6 Racial Supremacy

chance to think about the matter at all, regard
simply as part of the established order of things
— rests upon two hypotheses ; the first that
benevolence justifies despotism, and the second that
benevolence characterises despotism. Can either of
these hypotheses be verified? The one raises a
question of ethics, the other a question of fact ; and
hence the method of investigation must be different.

That such investigation is one of paramount
importance is self-evident, when we recall to mind
the enormous area of the territory and the vastness
of the population, both positive and relative, over
which our dominion extends, and remember also
how rapidly that dominion has spread. Of this
territory and population it is calculated that one-
third of the first, or one-fourth of the second, has
been added to the Empire since the year I87O:1
it is the outcome of modern Imperialism — the
new Zeitgeist. The freedom enjoyed by English-
men is denied to vast dependencies which are about
eight times as populous as the United Kingdom ;
and the work of subjugation has been going on
apace.

A heavy responsibility thus rests upon the
dominant race ; there must be an absolute justification
for their domination and expansion, or they stand
convicted of a colossal wrong. Unless the Imperialist
can actually verify both the hypotheses referred to,
he is condemned by the principle of liberty to which
he professes allegiance, and his rule resolves itself
into tyranny pure and simple.

1 See Imperialism, a Study. By J. A. Hobson (footnote,
p. 123), pp. 18, 19.

The Ethics of Empire 217

THE PROCESS OF SUBJUGATION

Now alien dominion has almost invariably to be
preceded by conquest. Coloured races do not
intuitively perceive the advantage of relinquishing
their freedom, and voluntarily submit themselves to
a foreign yoke ; and before we can govern them we
have to subdue them. The question, therefore, of
whether despotic rule is justifiable must, in the first
instance, take the form of an inquiry as to whether
subjugation is justifiable. No doubt, whatever be
the result of that inquiry, it does not dispose of the
problem ; since the fact remains that we have
(rightly or wrongly) compelled innumerable tribes
to recognise our supremacy ; and that being so, we
must accept the responsibilities of the situation, and
the question of whether or not we are properly
discharging those responsibilities has in any case to
be faced. But the nature of those responsibilities
must in part be determined by the answer we give
to the preliminary inquiry ; whilst the modern
development of aggressive Imperialism raises such
question to the first rank.

Is there, then, a moral basis for the subjugation
of one race by another race ? The material basis, is
of course, superior force : but it is impossible to
extract from this any moral basis. What we have
to discover is, whether or not superior force can be
legitimately employed for the purpose indicated ;
and, if so, what are the conditions which make its
employment legitimate.

In considering this initial problem we are, in the

2 1 8 Racial Supremacy

first place, confronted with the fact that various
races are, or were, in almost exclusive possession of
definite portions of the globe,, and that unless we
are prepared to elevate the maxim beati possedentes
into an ethical axiom, this points to at least the
theoretical possibility of recourse to force being
justifiable. For access to the soil is essential to
man's existence, and if a comparatively scanty
population, roving possibly over immense tracts of
land, should assert absolute territorial rights and
refuse admittance to any outside, it might be
equivalent to denying the latter the right to exist.
If a claim to the absolute individual ownership of
the soil is untenable (and, anomalous as are our
English land laws, even they stop short of recognis-
ing this) as being inimical to the general interests of
the community, such a claim on the part of a group
of individuals might prove inimical to the interests
of the rest of the world. Possession may be nine
points of the law, and it may also be several points
of morality, but it must in the last instance yield to
the common necessities of the race ; and v/hilst a
large group welded together undoubtedly acquire
definite rights in respect of the territory they
occupy and have developed, they did not create that
territory and can establish no title to its exclusive
and unqualified appropriation. Morality is con-
cerned with the conduct of man to man, and this
presupposes the existence of man, and therefore
recognises, in the first place, a common right to
obtain the necessaries of existence ; and, since the
absolute ownership of land for all purposes and
under all conditions, whether by an individual or by

The Ethics of Empire 219

a group, may mean the power to determine whether
others shall exist, if this is conceded morality
disappears. To take two extremes ; in one given
area population may be so dense as to render
healthy existence impossible ; in another given area
population may be so sparse as to allow of almost
limitless expansion. If, then, mere possession of
territory conferred the right of unqualified monopoly,
the many might starve whilst the few were plethoric ;
and, yet, such an unqualified monopoly might be
claimed, and only by force be successfully disputed.
Hence, that it is within the bounds of possibility for
circumstances to arise which should justify recourse
to subjugation is manifest.

But the argument may be carried a stage further,
and illustrations of a different character selected.
If morality is concerned with the conduct of man to
man, not only does it presuppose the existence of man,
but its supreme function is to secure such freedom
and opportunity to enjoy that existence as shall be
consistent with the like freedom and opportunity of
others. This may be infringed in a variety of ways.
Not only may life itself be ruthlessly destroyed, but
such torture or cruelty may be practised as may
even render death preferable to life. Men may live
in a state of terrorism under some tyrannical ruler
or despotic body and be almost powerless to help
themselves. Or a race may itself be the tyrant —
a veritable hostis humani generis — inflicting revolt-
ing barbarities upon other races. To assert that in
these cases a foreign Power, if one exist with the
will and capacity to arrest the inhumanity, must be
content to play the part of passive spectators, in the

220 Racial Supremacy

name of national or racial rights, would once more
exhibit a strange ethical misconception. It is true
that there are some who discover in Christianity the
proclamation of an absolute doctrine of non-physical
resistance to evil, and they at least offer a valuable
protest against the converse extreme doctrine of the
lex talioniS) and are entitled to all honour in a world
where the latter doctrine finds ready acceptance, not
less by so-called Christian than by other nations.
But to withdraw all restraint upon individual licence
would speedily reduce society to anarchy — using the
term in its popular and worst sense and not in its
academic and best sense. And if society is justified
in seeking to prevent individual crime, it is difficult to
see why nations should not be justified in seeking to
prevent racial crime ; and it is possible that this can
only be effected by subjugation. Lest, however, this
statement should lead to hasty generalisation in
accordance with pre-conceived opinion, let it be
stated that all the argument as thus baldly enunci-
ated, can establish, is the indefensibility of laying
down a general rule to the effect that conquest must
be necessarily and always inherently vicious. A
positive principle has yet to be arrived at.

Without further multiplying illustrations as to the
possibility of circumstances amounting to justification
for subjugation — illustrations which are little needed
in an age when the spirit of conquest is in the
ascendency, and which have, indeed, partly been
cited as affording some clue to the nature of the
positive principle referred to, and as suggesting that
the justification must be of a more solid character
than that usually advanced — the other side of the

The Ethics of Empire 221

case must now be examined for a moment. Ob-
viously subjugation is in itself a bad thing. It can
only be brought about by the employment of
physical force, or in other words by war. And war,
in the first place, means the destruction of life, and
to that extent is an acknowledgment of the impo-
tence of morality. Nor can it be regarded in the light
of moral retribution, since, though we assume that
life may be justly forfeited to the community, the
penalties of war are seldom visited upon the guilty,
and are in no case confined to them. Indeed, one
of the most damning features of war, even if it can
be contemplated as punitive, is that there is in-
variably vicarious atonement ; that its pains to a
greater or less extent (generally greater) are borne
by the innocent. Nor do its horrors stop at the
destruction of life, for those who are suddenly cut
down are spared the prolonged physical agonies
which it inevitably brings to numbers of the living
— here again not, as a rule, to the actual culprits.
And, once more, war for the time being is subversive
of liberty ; and, when it results in subjugation, means
the permanent arrest of liberty ; whilst liberty is the
one thing which is dear to man all the world over,
the one thing not to be lightly tampered with.
Hence, an evil which can only be remedied at the
cost of life or poignant physical and mental suffer-
ing, and at the cost of liberty, must be grave indeed.
We are in fact driven to find refuge in a paradox,
and to say that the only justification for the destruc-
tion of life and liberty is to prevent the destruction
of life and liberty. There are many wrongs in this
world which, if no peaceful remedy for them can be

222 Racial Supremacy

discovered, moral men must be content to endure,
lest in seeking to remove them by force they commit
a greater wrong. The sword is a two-edged weapon :
it may be typical of justice, but it must result in
injustice ; and justice is dearly bought at the cost of
a greater injustice.

If, then, a moral basis for the subjugation of one
race by another race is to be found, it can only be in
that principle which, for want of a better name, may be
called Humanitarianism. The term is one to which
different significations are attached, but it is perhaps
the best word that can be selected to indicate the
promotion of the general welfare of mankind. It
imports a recognition of the solidarity of the human
race ; it means that the good of the individual or of
the group must yield to the common good, and
that only by promoting the common good can the
maximum individual good be secured ; it implies
that the progress of the world, without distinction of
race, colour, or nationality, should be the paramount
object of human effort. And when this principle
demands — and only when this principle demands —
the subjugation of an alien race, and when in pur-
suance of that principle (and of no other) the work
of subjugation is undertaken, the ethical justification
is established. Personal or national gain on the
part of the conquering race (other than such as shall
accrue to mankind in general) must be neither sought
nor obtained ; an honesty of purpose is essential, and
the pursuit of selfish interests (as distinct from self-
preservation) is absolutely forbidden. There must
be an actual benefit, eventually if not immediately,
conferred upon the subjugated peoples, and a con-

The Ethics of Empire 223

tribution made towards the advancement of civilisa-
tion. Unless these essential conditions are complied
with, no ethical case can be established for the
withdrawal of liberty, or for the enormous evil which
is consequent on the process.

Theoretically, then, this particular problem, difficult
though it is, seems to admit of solution. If we
have not arrived at its actual solution as it presents
itself in varying forms in national experience, we
have, it is submitted, an unimpeachable guiding
principle for men who claim to be governed by
moral considerations, in the application of which the
solution should be found in each particular case.
Practically, however, it is to be feared we have made
little appreciable progress. For when we look at
the question from the historical point of view, we
find that the essential conditions are never complied
with, and that as a matter of fact subjugation does not
proceed from humanitarianism ; and to demand that
it should, seems to " ask more of human nature than
human nature is capable of giving."

Of course the common belief is that the welfare
of the conquered race will undoubtedly be promoted
and the cause of civilisation advanced ; and to this
constant expression is given in defence of conquest ;
thereby, at any rate, recognising the necessity of
a justification, and in part the validity of the principle
laid down. But on the other hand there is perfect
candour as regards the pursuit of national interests ;
the advantages of expansion and need for new
markets are frankly, if inconclusively, proclaimed ;
and although to this extent it may seem that the

224 Racial Supremacy

validity of the principle is challenged, yet it is
scarcely so in fact, for it is generally sought to
reconcile the pursuit of national interests with the
promotion of the good of mankind as a whole.
However this may be, it is safe to say, that selfish
considerations of some character are invariably
present, and that they generally preponderate, if
they do not constitute the sole motive. Whatever
attempts may subsequently be made to temper
despotism with benevolence, subjugation itself is
determined upon almost entirely from patriotic
considerations. Certainly no instance can be cited
of the conquest of another race having been under-
taken without regard to the interests of the
conquerors, and solely with a view to promote the
welfare of mankind ; and the dominant consideration
is the acquisition of territory. As regards conflicts
between white races, perhaps a rare illustration may
be found of benignity both of purpose and of result
in the American Civil War, but it cannot be said
that the liberation of the slaves was the only motive
which inspired the North. And in modern history,
the two occasions when humanitarianism not only
justified but strenuously demanded intervention on
the part of the great Powers for the purpose of
arresting the most abominable tyranny — recourse to
physical force would not have been necessary had
they presented a united front — no such intervention
took place ; and Armenia and Macedonia presented
scenes of horror which were a disgrace to Europe.
The contention, however, usually takes the form
that (whatever be the motives animating the
subjugating race) good must result, because such

The Ethics of Empire 225

race is a superior one, representing a higher civilisa-
tion ; and their supremacy, therefore, necessarily
contributes to the progress of the world. But then
this contention is put forward by the subjugating
race itself; its members make themselves the sole
judge of what constitutes superiority ; and whilst
other " superior races " would concede that all stand
upon a higher plane than that occupied by the
coloured races, each regards itself as facile princeps.
And since, if subjugation is to be undertaken on the
mere ground of superiority, it is eminently desirable
that it should be undertaken by the most superior,
or at any rate in accordance with some consensus as
to fitness, there seems to be a preliminary question
to be fought out amongst the competing claimants
for the honour. Mere superiority, however, affords
no moral basis for subjugation ; assuming for the
riiomeriFtEat the conquerors 3o

^tf cTdes, not follow that their aggressive-actions
contribute to the progress of the world Such a
contention ignores the evils attending upon conquest,
and in particular the grave evil of the withdrawal of
liberty. It is in reality the growth of collective
freedom that constitutes one of the main indexes
of a progressive civilisation ; and to assert that
civilisation is advanced by the destruction of free-
dom comes perilously near to a contradiction in
terms. Pushed to its logical conclusion, the conten-
tion means that, having first settled the knotty point
as to which is the most superior race, that race
should be absolutely supreme, and hold . the liberties
and destinies of the world in _its hands.

But Ts the claim to superiority, which is so
p

226 Racial Supremacy

complacently postulated, one that can be readily
established by any of the numerous claimants ?
That the white racps have a grp^r brain capacity
and have attained, a higher degree of intellectual
development is not to be denied ; although the state-
mentwould probably be challenged by repre-
sentatives of the coloured races, some of whom
certainly exhibit the very highest mental qualities.1
Superiority, however, is not to be determined simply
by facial angles or philosophical achievements ; the
moral factor is all important, and the ethical
standard to which a race has attained is very largely
indicated by the extent to which it is imbued with
the principle of humanitarianism. And here we
come back to the fact that subjugation never is
undertaken in pursuance of thaT principje, that the
motives are almost invariably selfish ; whilst the
national morality of the conqueror is often inferior,
and seldom superior, to that of the conquered. At
the heart of the campaign against what we term
" backward races " is the principle of national
aggrandisement ; and the cruelty which is exhibited
towards them, if different in kind, is not less
defensible than that which they exhibit. Says
Herbert Spencer : " The inhumanity which has beerr~ j
shown by the races classed as civilised, is certainly (
not less, and has often been greater, than that j
shown by the races classed as uncivilised." 2 And
we have only to read the details attending the
process of subjugation, by whatsoever people
and in whatsoever period, to realise that this

1 See pages 269, 270.

2 The Principles of Ethics. Vol. i. p. 394.

The Ethics of Empire 227

statement is absolutely accurate. The acquisi-
tion, extension, and maintenance of our Indian
Empire have been characterised by cruel wrongs ; l
the treachery and brutality displayed towards the
aborigines of South Africa have been calculated to
imbue them with the idea that Christianity is a re-
ligion, not of love, but of hate ; whilst amidst the
revolting butchery of the Soudan, the heroic
characters which are seen in lurid relief are not the
victors but their Dervish victims. And if we look
to other victorious nations, we find they point the
same moral. Nowhere can we discover that the
process of subjugation gives signs of the higher
civilisation or indicates that it is inspired by altruistic
motives. Nay, if we take the most recent instance
pertinent to ourselves, where in the whole history of
"savage" warfare shall we find a parallel to the
ghastly characteristic of our South African campaign
— a characteristic which shall surely render it in-
famous for all time — of five women or children being
doomed to die of pestilence or privation for every man
slain in the ranks of the enemy ?

We reach, therefore, this general conclusion that,
whilst theoretically it is possible to make out a case
for the subjugation of one race by another, in practice
the essential condition, namely, humanitarianism as
the dominating factor, is invariably wanting ; and
conquest never has possessed, and probably never
will possess, complete ethical justification.

1 For an admirable historical resum£ see British India and England *s
Responsibilities. By J. Clarke, M. A. London: Swan, Sonnenschein &
., Ltd. 1902.

228 Racial Supremacy

If it is conceded that there must nevertheless be
a balancing of good and evil, and that a partial
justification may exist, determined by the approxi-
mation which is made to the principle of humani-
tarianism, we unhappily find that, whilst subjugating
races inferentially recognise the validity of the
principle and always pose as benefactors, they not
infrequently by their conduct absolutely ignore such
principle, and in any case it occupies quite a subsidiary
position. That not a tittle of good has ever resulted
from conquest, or that it always partakes of un-
mitigated vice, would of course be an extravagant
and wholly indefensible contention ; and if it were
necessary to establish that, the case against alien
coercion would break down. But that good to the
extent to which conquering nations, in their pride or
ignorance, so confidently consider to be attendant
upon their actions, or that (whether in motive, aim,
or result) beneficence largely figures, is a pernicious
delusion. The pursuit of self-interest as the conscious
or unconscious spring of action, the failure to re-
cognise the solidarity of the race or to promote the
welfare of mankind in general, the absence of any
marked superiority of a moral character, are all con-
demnatory of the destruction of liberty involved in
subjugation, as stultifying the only valid plea for
that destruction.

Hence, the growth of the modern Imperialist
spirit, so far from being pronounced a boon, must be
regarded as a bane. Whatever conclusion may be
arrived at with regard to the theory of u benevolent
despotism " as applied to our actual rule of subject
peoples, benevolence is assuredly not characteristic

The Ethics of Empire 229

of the preliminary process ; and our responsibility
towards those peoples is considerably enhanced by
the circumstance that their conquest has invariably
lacked adequate moral defence.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SUBJUGATED

The existence of the British Empire, however,
remains a stupendous fact. Whether we ought or
ought not to have acquired dominion over a quarter
of the globe, we have acquired it ; and the problem,
therefore, of how it should be exercised is most
momentous, and is not to be summarily disposed of
by demonstrating that the problem is one which, to
a great extent, should never have arisen, and that
alien rule has been unjustifiable ab initio.

Of course, it is easy to say that if wrong has been
done, our duty consists in remedying it without
delay ; and that if liberty has been unwarrantably
taken away, it should be restored. But breaches of
the moral law are not to be repaired by a stroke of
the pen ; and if a governing race, exercising sway
over millions of people, could be induced to believe
that it ought to cease to govern, it would only give
rise to chaos by abruptly acting upon that belief,
and would thus be perpetrating another grave injury.
The status quo ante can never be re-established ; nor
can habits of self-reliance, if once weakened or de-
stroyed, be restored otherwise than gradually. When
a race has been robbed of its freedom ; when it has
been rendered more or less dependent upon another ;
when its own form of government, however crude,
has been replaced by alien government ; when it

230 Racial Supremacy

has been deprived of the means of self-defence ;
and when opportunity for natural development has
been denied it — when, in short, it has been re-
duced to the position of helpless children — for it
to be suddenly abandoned and left to its own feeble
and unorganised resources, would merely mean that
it would become a speedy prey either to other
aggressive nations or to roving piratical adventurers
or, at the best, would succumb to internal feuds or
tyranny. This, then, is a course which would be
absolutely forbidden us, though the nation should be
miraculously converted to a policy of unselfishness.

It does not, however, follow that our present rule
is satisfactory, or that a solution of this momentous
problem of government is found in the theory of
benevolent despotism. The popular defence of
arbitrary rule rests, as was intimated at the outset,
upon two hypotheses — namely, that benevolence
justifies despotism, and that benevolence characterises
despotism ; and the main inquiry as to whether
these hypotheses are valid has yet to be undertaken.

Does, then, benevolence justify despotism ? No one
will deny that, if we are to have arbitrary rule, it is better
it should be benevolent than otherwise. But, assum-
ing for the moment it to be benevolent, is it vindicated?

With regard to the preliminary process of sub-
jugation, it has been sought to establish that this
is only defensible when it proceeds upon the principle
of humanitarianism, and if that is so, then the con-
tinuing process of government is only defensible
upon the same principle. The one prominent
feature of conquest is the denial of liberty ; the one

The Ethics of Empire 231

prominent feature of arbitrary rule is the persistence
in that denial ; it is a repetition of the original act.
Whatever justification, therefore, the preliminary pro-
cedure requires is a fortiori required by the con-
tinuing procedure. There must be the same re-
cognition of the solidarity of the race, the same
donation to the common good, the same promotion
of the progress of the world. There must be the
same disregard to purely national interests, the same
benefit conferred upon those who have been sub-
jugated, the same contribution towards the advance-
ment of civilisation. In short, there is only one
moral basis for coercion, whether definite or indefinite
in point of time, and whatever the nature of the
coercion may be.

Now, although benevolence is an admirable and
to some extent a redeeming quality, it is not (even
when regarded as comprising beneficence) synony-
mous or co-extensive with humanitarianism, for it
lacks many of the attributes intended to be connoted
by the latter term. Well-wishing or well-doing is in-
volved in that term ; but, as we have seen, much more
is also involved. If humanitarianism includes bene-
volence, it goes far beyond it ; its vista embraces the
whole race, and not simply a particular section, and it
is more penetrating. This is no verbal quibble ; the
justification which the defenders of despotism postu-
late is a mere kindly regard for the welfare of the
governed ; and even as to this there is no quanti-
tative measure, and a very little is made to go a long
way. It is quite sufficient that some benefit should
be conferred, or should be intended or supposed to
be conferred ; the extent of the positive benefit may

232 Racial Supremacy

be very small, whilst its relative bearing on humanity
as a whole is not necessarily taken into account.
The conception is generally limited to the subject
race, the assumption being that particular good
contributes to universal good. That this is so in
some cases is, of course, perfectly true ; but it is
a very dangerous generalisation to make. For not
only may particular good be done to some to the
injury of others, but even as regards those upon
whom particular good is conferred it may be far
outweighed by the particular evil involved in the
process. To seek to promote benevolence through
the medium of despotism is, to say the least, a very
delicate undertaking ; to point to some benefit con-
ferred whilst ignoring the mischief inherent in the
despotism is a mere evasion ; and even to establish
that in the special instance the benefit is greater
than the mischief is very far from conclusive. Our
survey must take a wider range : despotic govern-
ment is primd facie antagonistic to progress ; it is
at the best a choice of evils ; and, in seeking to
justify it in special cases, we must regard its in-
fluence and effect upon humanity as a whole and
not simply upon one section. And here we are
met with the fact that the pursuit of self-interests
is invariably largely characteristic of despotism, and
that the mere tempering of despotism with bene-
volence does not eliminate the selfish factor. More-
over, the theory involves the idea of continued, if
not permanent, arbitrary government ; for to assert
that such government is beneficial to the governed
is inferentially to assert that it should be indefinitely
prolonged ; and, indeed, this is the conclusion which

The Ethics of Empire 233

is consciously or unconsciously deduced. But if
despotism is a bad thing in itself and only defensible
as an alternative to something worse, then, assuming
this justification can be established at a particular
time and in particular circumstances, that justification
cannot be permanent, but demands periodical re-
newal. The principle of humanitarianism enforces
this demand, it will be satisfied with nothing less,
it must be progressive ; whereas the principle of
benevolence does not enforce the demand, it is less
exacting, and is content to be stationary. Briefly,
beneficence at the best can only be a mitigating
feature of arbitrary rule ; it can never amount to
a complete vindication.

It is very common to compare the control of a
" lower " race by a " superior " race to the control
of children by parents, and this analogy is con-
fidently regarded as an effective answer to the
critic. Just as children on account of their im-
maturity stand in need of discipline and guidance,
and cannot without courting disaster be left to their
own feeble resources, so (it is urged) the undeveloped
man is incapable of self-government and cannot be
safely left in the enjoyment of freedom. The analogy
sounds plausible, but if examined it will be found
to fail in several important respects, as is generally
the case when an analogy is employed to establish
a proposition. In the first place, without denying
that marked differences may exist between two
races, it is an un provable assumption that the one
exhibits the characteristics of children and the other
the qualifications of parents. The " inferior " race
may be far removed from the incapacity of infancy,

234 Racial Supremacy

and the " superior " race may often show unequivocal
signs of puerility ; indeed, if the right to freedom
is to depend upon its being invariably used without
injury to oneself or to others, where is the nation to be
found that could establish such a right or is entitled
to occupy the judgment-seat? In the next place, it
is to be observed that a natural responsibility attaches
to a parent ; the helpless infant whom he calls into
being has a claim upon him so indubitable that by
neglecting it he is grossly culpable ; he is in duty
bound to provide food, clothing and education for
his offspring. But no such responsibilty is imposed
upon one race as regards another, although no doubt
mutual obligations exist ; and whilst a nation may
add to its own obligation by placing itself in quasi
loco parentis, it never in fact assumes, still less
discharges, the responsibility of a parent. Again,
the bond which unites father or mother with son
or daughter is one of mutual affection ; the true
parental characteristic is self-sacrificing love and a
constant endeavour to promote the welfare of the
child. But the bond which unites a dominant and
a subject race is not one of mutual affection, and (as
we shall hereafter more fully see1) so far from
self-sacrifice on the part of the dominant race being
present, the opposite characteristic is manifested,
and there is certainly no constant endeavour to
promote the welfare of the putative child. The
most serious flaw in the analogy, however, has reference
to the main purpose of control. For the primary
object of parental rule of children is to develop
their faculties, and that for their own benefit ; it is

1 Pages 249-254.

The Ethics of Empire 235

a temporary and not a permanent rule, devoted to
the purpose of rendering the child a self-governing
person, capable as manhood is reached of exercising
similar rule. The primary object of racial rule is
not to develop the faculties of the governed ; even
if some development takes place, it is not for their
own benefit ; the rule is regarded not as temporary,
but rather as permanent ; and it is not devoted to
the purpose of rendering them capable of exercising
similar rule. No doubt in point of time, the infancy
of man is incomparable to the infancy of a race, and
a far longer period is requisite for development.
But a dominant nation does not work for or con-
template the abrogation of its power, even in the
distant future ; its rooted idea is that of its own
supremacy ; its constant aim is to secure the
maintenance, and generally the extension, of that
supremacy ; its fundamental conception of the
relations which exist is subjective and not objective.
Hence, on almost all points the analogy is absolutely
false and misleading. One, and one only, of the
many parental functions is selected, and the rest
are implicitly or explicitly ignored. The maturity
of the parent and the immaturity of the child are
at the outset assumed to respectively distinguish the
two races ; and then from a distorted simile, an
attempt is made to convert the temporary and
qualified and specialised control which a parent
exercises into a justification for the permanent and
unqualified and general control which a nation claims.

We pass to the consideration of the second
hypothesis of the Imperialist, namely, that bene-

236 Racial Supremacy

volence characterises despotism. The question which
this raises is, as has been intimated, one of fact ; but
before examining into the actual features of arbitrary
rule, it may be observed that to render it possible
for despotism to be beneficent, at least one condition
seems essential, namely, that the power should be
vested in a single individual : whereas the rule of
one race by another is collective, generally bureau-
cratic. Of course omniscience would really be
necessary to secure perfect rule, but it is at any rate
possible to conceive of an autocrat (though not
easy to discover him in history) who, so far as his
knowledge extended, should exercise dominion solely
in the interests of his subjects. The moment, how-
ever, power is vested not in one individual but in a
number of individuals, the obstacles to a beneficent
sway are enormously increased, for the beneficence
then depends not upon a single will but upon a
number of wills. Even if it be assumed to be true
that in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom,
it is infinitely more difficult to find a body of men,
brought together by a variety of circumstances, who
shall have a high moral ideal, than it is to find one
man possessing such an ideal ; and even on the wide
assumption that all will be actuated by the best
of motives, the conception of duty will inevitably
differ. Government, whether democratic, oligarchic
or bureaucratic — in short, of any form other than
autocratic — must be based on compromise ; and
compromise, whilst perfectly valid as between men
having a common interest, means when it relates to
the destinies of others that full justice cannot be
done. For one nation to govern another with pure

The Ethics of Empire 237

benevolence it would be necessary that there should
be absolute unanimity both as to what constitutes
benevolence in given circumstances and as to how
it is to be reduced into practice ; but, as the old
maxim has it, quot homines^ tot sententia. Hence
the joint decision must be the result of a give and
take process ; and, granting for the sake of argument
that all are honestly desirous of doing the best for
the subject race, seeing that they will inevitably
have different ideas, the more noble will have to yield
something to the less noble — whilst, with fallible
men, it will perhaps in the result be found that what
had the appearance of being beneficent in fact
proved the reverse. In other words, the limita-
tions of human nature are such that arbitrary rule,
however well intentioned, can only be tempered with
a certain amount of benignity. Whilst despotism
need not be (although it often is) the same thing as
pure tyranny, whilst it may stop somewhere short
of this, the exact halting place depends upon the
will, intelligence, prescience and agreement of a
number of persons of varying individuality, tempera-
ment, wisdom and rectitude.

So far then as ratiocination goes it seems
to be clearly established that there can be no
such thing as benevolent despotism. But it is
sometimes intimated that an ounce of fact is
worth a pound of theory, and it has already been
granted that the question of whether or not
benevolence does characterise despotism is one of
fact. To arrive, therefore, at a conclusive answer to
the question we must look at alien rule as it actually
manifests itself. Of course, however, it is here

238 Racial Supremacy

impossible to do more than briefly glance at the
more prominent illustrations ; and, indeed, probably
little injustice would be done if the survey were
limited to our Indian Empire, seeing that this is the
most conspicuous instance of Imperialism, and is
usually regarded as exhibiting it in its most favour-
able aspects.

As to the nature and effect of our rule in India,
this has already been portrayed,1 and need not be
recapitulated ; but some additional testimony from
competent authorities may be here appropriately
adduced.

Says Sir William Wedderburn, who served in the
Indian Government for nearly thirty years : —

"Unfortunately the people of this country have never
properly realised their responsibility as proprietors of so
vast a national joint-stock concern. Like careless share-
holders they leave everything to their directors, who
constantly assure them that all is well. True it is that
India is devastated by famine and plague, that her people
are suffering, and her resources overstrained. But, never-
theless, once a year, at the statutory meeting, known as
the Indian Budget, our high officials, past and present,
assure us that in reality she is growing more and more
prosperous. From one side of the House Lord George
Hamilton chants his own praises, dwelling on the Indian
taxpayer's marvellous powers of recovery ; and to him Sir
Henry Fowler responds from the other side, his deep voice
choked with emotion, as he contemplates ' the unspeakable
blessings of British rule.' The scene would be farcical if
it were not such a tragedy for 250 millions of our fellow-
creatures. What makes the case so hopeless is the low
ideal displayed by the House of Commons, which is con-
gee pages 18-30.

The Ethics of Empire 239

tent to applaud such vain and vulgar boastings. If, in the
matter of India, we say that we have no sin we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ... It is the system
that is at fault. For vital defects must necessarily exist in
a highly centralised system of administration, by a close
service of officials, mostly foreigners, differing from the
people in language, race, and religion. In such a case the
interests of the rulers and ruled are not at all identical,
Indeed, in certain most important respects the interests of
the bureaucracy are in direct antagonism to those of the
people over whom they rule. The primary interests of the
people are peace, economy, and reform ; which mean for
them freedom from the waste of militarism, reduction of
taxation, and redress of grievances. On the other hand,
the professional interests of the services are to be found
not so much in peace as in territorial expansion and
military aggression, with their natural accompaniments of
titles and decorations, and the multiplication of highly-
paid appointments. To officials economy and reform are
naturally distasteful, as representing reduction of emolu-
ments, and curtailment of authority. What is the inevitable
consequence of such a state of affairs? Of course, the
weakest goes to the wall. . . . The tax-spender is absolute
master, and the only duty of the tax-payer is to pay what
is demanded from him. The results we must expect are
those which usually flow from unchecked despotism. . . .
The absence of all popular control gives free scope to
autocratic methods, and the evil effects show themselves in
every branch of the administration ; and especially in
legislation, which is invariably initiated by the great
centralised departments for the purpose of increasing their
own resources and consolidating their authority. Take for
example the Salt Department. . . . The poorest coolie
must pay to the Government twenty pence for leave to eat
one pennyworth of salt.1 The Salt Department naturally
calls for, and readily obtains from the Government, stringent

1 Since reduced by one-fifth.

240 Racial Supremacy

laws to check smuggling, and preserve this lucrative
monopoly ; and I have known poor women sent to jail for
picking up the salt left by evaporation among the rocks by
the sea-side, while others were punished for seasoning their
food with salt mud taken from the creeks. . . . Mischiefs
of an analogous character arise in each of the other great
centralised departments : Police, Forest, Excise, Public
Works, Survey, Irrigation, Sanitation, Registration, Vacci-
nation, and so on : their name is legion. Each of these
departments is represented in the rural districts by a swarm
of ill-paid and hungry native subordinates, who prowl
about the villages, and gradually fatten themselves by
plunder and extortion. Among all these departments, and
among all these petty oppressors, the life of the poorer
cultivator may be likened to that of a toad under a
harrow, so jarred is he and upset in all his dearest
interests and prejudices. And it is the increasing irrita-
tion and unrest produced throughout the country by
years of such a system that constitutes the real danger
to our rule."1

Mr S. S. Thorburn writes : —

"The root cause of the increasing poverty and self-
helplessness of the Indian peoples may be most compre-
hensively expressed by the term our ' system.' . . . Each
famine that has occurred has submerged more and more
of the peasantry, and as famines have of late years been
increasing in frequency and intensity, more than half of the
agriculturists of British India — a few favoured localities ex-
cepted — are now in about as miserable a plight as human
beings not officially designated slaves or serfs can be. Our
'system' has disintegrated their ancient village common-
wealths, involved a majority of the members in hopeless
indebtedness, and transferred the proprietary or cultivating
right in their best fields — the worst are worth little to
usurers — to their creditors. ... To the sympathetic dis-

1 Indian Policy; Pamphlet No. 14 of the League of Liberals against
Aggression and Militarism. London : The Reform Press.

The Ethics of Empire 241

cernment of the disinterested statesman, the man who
considers producers as well as production, India contains
not one unit, but 300 millions of units, each a struggling
atom of humanity, lying prostrate and bleeding under the
wheels of the Juggernaut Car called progress on Western
lines. If a country's prosperity is measured by the material
volume of its wealth, a people's depends on the width of
that wealth's diffusion. India, for an agricultural country,
has wealth, but as our ' system ' has accumulated most of
it in the hands of a comparatively small number of persons,
the people, the masses, are poor sweated creatures." l

Mr W. C. Bonnerjee intimates : —

" Say what they would India was not governed in the
interests of the people of India, but in the interests of the
middle class and aristocratic class of this country. It was
a place to which were sent the boys with whom it was a
great difficulty to know what to do. They were sent
there for the civil service, the forest service, the military
service ; as tea planters and indigo planters — anything to
put those sons out of sight. . . . Up to the present time
the natives had been mere hewers of wood and drawers of
water for their English conquerors. No real attempt had
been made to sympathise with the people or to govern
them as they should be governed. . . . Englishmen were
bound hand and foot to certain persons who were called
their agents, were satisfied with everything they told them,
and if a native Indian got up and told a different story they
would remark that the natives of India were accustomed to
draw the long bow and say things which were not absolutely
accurate. Englishmen forgot that they were the rulers of
nearly 300 millions of human beings. If England could
not discharge the duties that her responsibility threw upon
her she ought to say so openly and retire from India, leaving
the Indians to shift for themselves." 2

1 Problems of Indian Poverty. London : The Fabian Society, 1902,
pages 9, 10.

2 See footnote, p. 240.

242 Racial Supremacy

Sir Henry Cotton writes : —

" There is no great harm in saying that the land belongs
to ' the State ' when the State is only another name for the
people, but it is very different when the State is represented
by a small minority of foreigners, who disburse nearly
one-third of the revenues received from the land on the
remuneration of their own servants, and who have no
abiding-place on the soil and no stake in the fortunes of
the country. It is because we have acted on this principle
all over India, with the exception of the permanently
settled districts, that we have reduced the agricultural classes
to such poverty." 1

" Not a year passes in which the local officers do
not bring to the notice of the Government that the
manufacturing classes are becoming impoverished. The
most profitable Indian industries have been destroyed
and the most valuable Indian arts have greatly
deteriorated." 2

" No more complete type of a bureaucracy exists than
the Indian Government, and like all other bureaucracies,
its members are driven to justify their own existence by
extending the sphere of their activity." 3

" The period of Lord Ripon and his immediate successors
has been well described as the Golden Age of Indian re-
formers, when the aspirations of the people were encouraged,
education and local self-government were fostered, and
the foundations of Indian nationality were firmly laid. The
natural trend of Anglo-Indian opinion has been to assert
itself in a reactionary outburst against this development,
disparaging the vantage-ground acquired in the past. In
the Imperialism of Lord Curzon these reactionary tendencies
have found a too willing mouth-piece." 4

" Legislation designed to curtail the liberty of the press
and speech ; the crusade against so-called sedition, which
has wisely been allowed to die out ; the attempt to abolish

1 New India (see footnote, p. 24), pp. 82-83.

2 Ibid. , p. 93. 8 Ibid. , p. 69. 4 Ibid. , p. 177.

The Ethics of Empire 243

trial by jury ; the forcible introduction of harsh plague
regulations, subsequently withdrawn ; the blows that have
been dealt at local self-government, especially in Calcutta,
where, in utter disregard of repeated and emphatic expres-
sions of public opinion, a long-standing and successful
system of municipal administration has been swept away ;
the systematic discouragement of popular institutions ; the
deliberate encouragement of provincial segregation ; the
practical declaration of race disqualification for public
offices; the proposals for fettering unaided colleges and
schools, and the general sinister drift in favour of officialis-
ing all branches of education — these and other measures
have had their effect in galvanising the opposition [of the
press] into fresh life." 2

Commenting on the Delhi Durbar, the Kdiser-i-
Hind wrote : —

" The time has passed by when a mere pageant, cal-
culated to dazzle and astonish, can hide from the natives of
India the corroding influence of British rule. For years
past this has been apparent. . . . Our rulers have taken a
new but most unstatesmanlike departure, the principle of
which seems to be to deprive the people of their national
heritage, to forge new chains of bitter bondage by means of
unwise and unpopular legislation, to abridge the bounds of
freedom instead of widening them, to render justice a huge
mockery in the land, to propagate the figment of the
prosperity of the masses when the facts are the very
opposite, as he who runs may read, to grind them down
with unseen taxes and to repress the nascent national spirit
which their own free boon of higher education has uni-
versally aroused in the land. This is the reverse of the
glittering shield of the Durbar. Will the British people
read it and endeavour to understand its meaning before it
be too late ? "

Alluding to the same subject, Mr Lai Mohun Ghose,

1 New India, pp. 6, 7.

244 Racial Supremacy

in his presidential address to the Indian National
Congress said : —

"A year has now rolled by since the great political
pageant held at Delhi after the almost unanimous protest of
our public and representative men both in the press and on
this platform. On what ground did they protest ? They
protested not because they were wanting in loyalty to the
Sovereign whose coronation it was intended to celebrate,
but because they felt that if His Majesty's Ministers had
done their duty, and had laid before him an unvarnished
story of his famine-stricken subjects in India, His Majesty,
with his characteristic sympathy for suffering humanity,
would have been the first to forbid his representative in this
country to offer a pompous pageant to a starving population.
... If even half of the vast sum spent in connection
with the Delhi Durbar had been made over for the purposes
of famine relief, it might have been the means of saving
millions of men, women, and children from death by
starvation. ... A country in which a large portion of the
people did not get more than one meal a day, and that in
insufficient quantities, could not be called an El Dorado.
Agriculture starved under repeated and increased revision
of rents, and the people famished under a grinding
taxation."1

That the pictures here presented — and a whole
gallery might be furnished — are faithful delineations
is, if not beyond controversy (for anything may be
disputed), beyond confutation. No unbiassed in-
dividual can peruse the voluminous treatises of Mr
Naoroji, Mr Digby and Mr Dutt,2 based as they largely
are on official statistics and authoritative statements,
without dismay, and probably not without disgust.
The ignorance and supineness, combined with
complacency, which is exhibited with regard to its

1 At Madras, December 28, 1903.

2 See footnotes, pp. 19 and 26.

The Ethics of Empire 245

largest dependency by a nation that boasts of being
an Imperial race with a special aptitude and mission
for government, is simply colossal. And yet India
is, after all, better than a typical instance of alien
rule ; it is in India probably that Imperialism is
seen at its best !

In the government of the numerous tribes of
South Africa, who have been subdued by us or by
men of our race, we see the same keen alertness to
the interests of the rulers, coupled with even a
greater disregard to the welfare of the ruled.
" Benevolent despotism " seems to mean benevolence
for the whites and despotism for the blacks ; and
the principle has been pursued with cunning,
treachery and cruelty. The facts cannot be here
detailed, but they are writ large in the chronicles of
despotism, and those who run may read — if they
care to do so (which as a rule they do not). " The
history of our treatment of the natives in South
Africa," as Mr John Morley has told us, " is one of
the most abominable chapters in the history of our
times." 1 And even the late Lord Salisbury was con-
strained gently to enjoin (without, however, indicat-
ing how the injunction was to be performed) that
due precaution must be taken for the philanthropic
and kindly and improving treatment of those count-
less indigenous races, of whose destiny he actually
feared we had been too forgetful.2

Concerning our new territories in the Transvaal and
Orange River district, all that need here be said 3

1 Speech at Oxford, June 9, 1900.

2 Speech in the House of Lords > October 17, 1889.

3 See footnote, pp. 206-7.

246 Racial Supremacy

is that, whilst they at present forcibly illustrate
the old maxims " vce victis " and " the spoils to the
victors," it is tolerably certain we shall never be
able to permanently govern a vast white population
in a spirit of despotism ; and there is little doubt
we shall eventually see an autonomous South African
Confederation. Egypt, however, which we entered
more than twenty years ago under pledge of speedy
evacuation, and in which we were supposed to
develop representative institutions, is not yet within
measurable distance of popular government ; and,
according to a past dictum of Lord Milner, the
people neither comprehend nor desire it, would come
to singular grief if they had it, and nobody except
a few silly theorists thinks of giving it to them.1 As
regards our smaller colonies and dependencies,
although not endowed with absolute autonomy and
not in some cases possessing representative institu-
tions at all, they can scarcely be regarded as typical
instances of Imperialism ; but whether they are only
partially or are wholly controlled by the Home
Government, they certainly do not testify to that
control being conspicuously benevolent. Trinidad,
which appears to have improper aspirations for
complete representative government, revolts against
an Ordinance, and indulges in rioting in the course
of which several men are killed and wounded.
Malta, with strange perversity, sends members to its
little Parliament who are anxious the children should
be taught Italian ; with the result that " benevolent
despotism " recasts the legislative body so that the
elected representatives can be out-voted on all

1 England in Egypt. London : Edward Arnold, 1893, pp. 378-9.

The Ethics of Empire 247

questions by official members. North Borneo
witnesses " friction " between the Governor and the
Chartered Company anent the taking over by the
Government of further territory. Hong Kong is
graphically described as " a plague volcano, ever
belching forth the flames and the fumes of that
terrible disease which is the highest expression of
human neglect of natural health laws," and as a
place where " a most vigorous and virile Chinese
race, full of energy, sobriety, splendid working
power, and an intelligence capable of any develop-
ment is, under our retrograde rule, placed in shock-
ingly degrading conditions." * And even little Fiji
has its narrative of woes concerning a " poll tax,"
" legalised slavery," and the " deportation of high
chiefs." Somehow it seems that our sway never
commands that appreciation it deserves.

If this brief survey has been limited to the British
Empire it is not because any suggestion is made
that English rule is worse than other alien rule ; on
the contrary, it is generally better. The character-
istics of despotic government are, more or less, the
same everywhere ; if they were exhibited by one
nation only, that would be an indication that the
fault lay with the nation and not with the system,
whereas it is the system that is arraigned. Im-
perialism is invariably bred by, and also breeds,
national selfishness ; and it matters not by whom
despotism is exercised, benevolence is never its

1 Surgeon-General GJ.H. Evatt, M.D., C.B., late Principal Medical
Officer H.M. Troops, Hong Kong and China. The Daily News,
March 25, 1904.

248 Racial Supremacy

dominant trait, if indeed benevolence is present at
all. Whether we regard the Spaniard in Cuba, the
Russian in Finland, the German in South- West Africa,
the American in the Philippines, or the Belgian in the
Congo, the arresting feature of the scene is unabashed
tyranny, if not diabolical cruelty. In almost every
case the mere juxtaposition of names immediately
calls up a tale of horrors so familiar as to need no
repetition ; let a few details be supplied in one only.
The comparatively recent revelations with regard
to the Congo " Free " State — thus named surely in
grim irony — are calculated to make even a hardened
Imperialist stand aghast. Twenty years have
elapsed since the territory was ceded to the King of
Belgium, who has made the usual boast in the usual
self-complacent style ; " Our only programme is
that of the moral and material regeneration of the
country " ; and the result has been the creation of a
" hell upon earth." Primitive barbarism has given
place to " civilised " torture ; slavery of the most
hideous description has engulfed a whole population
numbering many millions ; government by individuals
who recognise neither rights of property nor of person
has been maintained by cannibalist subordinates, who
have massacred and devoured their victims. If the
required quantity of rubber (the chief product of the
country) has not been forthcoming, flogging, mutila-
tion (notably by cutting off the wrist), and death have
been amongst the penalties. One object, and one only,
seems to have been steadily pursued, namely, the
acquisition of money ; and there has apparently been
scarcely any atrocity too gross by which to achieve
the desired end. " Like the Sultan of Turkey, King

The Ethics of Empire 249

Leopold has done his utmost to suppress the facts
referring to the appalling system by which he and
his officials have grown wealthy ; but no process of
law can be called into action for the quashing of a
State paper, and the infamy now stands exposed for
all the world to shudder at." l

We may be shocked by this illustration of the
length to which despotism will go, or at some of the
other manifestations which from time to time force
themselves upon our notice ; but the truth is that,
whilst it does not necessarily or always give rise to
revolting acts of cruelty, so far from its ever being
largely tempered by benevolence, it has invariably
one prominent characteristic, namely, the exploitation
of its victims. The primary object and result of
alien government is not to confer benefits upon the
subject races but to obtain benefits from them. This
indeed is by implication recognised in the pre-
tentious phrases by which the extension of empire is
so frequently defended, such as that trade follows the
flag, that new markets must be secured, and that it
is essential commercial supremacy should be main-
tained ; and, although these fine utterances betray
an ignorance of economic laws, they sufficiently
exhibit the spirit in which conquest is pursued and
dominion exercised, and offer an interesting com-
mentary on the theory of benevolence. That the
nation as a whole benefits by the extension of empire
is demonstrably false, that trade follows the flag is a
ridiculous delusion, that new markets are required
in the general interests of the home community

1 The Daily News, February 15, 1904. And see White Book, Africa,
No. I, 1904, Cd. 1933.

250 Racial Supremacy

(with its millions of poor, who would be only too
happy to increase their consumption), and that new
markets are best obtained by conquest, are miserable
fallacies.1 But that a certain number of adventurers,
capitalists, parasites, Government officials, and others,
as distinct from the proletariat, derive considerable
gain from Imperialist expeditions and Imperialist
rule is undoubtedly true; and in this is seen an
explanation of why they are so loud in defending
and advocating the growth and maintenance of
empire, whilst the working classes are deluded into
shouting for the same policy.2 The spirit is one of
exploitation, and the outcome is exploitation. India,
as we have seen,3 is mulct to the extent of millions
per annum to the enrichment of the favoured
members of the favoured race. In South Africa the
native question substantially resolves itself into a
question of what can be got out of the natives : and
the recent war was engineered largely with the object
of obtaining cheap labour. If the believer in the
doctrine of benevolent despotism could be induced
to read Professor Gilbert Murray's essay on the
Exploitation of Inferior Races* and Mr Fox Bourne's
works on Blacks and Whites in South Africa? The
Bechuana Troubles? and Civilisation in Congoland?
— and most of them would not make serious inroads
on his time — he would, it is to be hoped, be both
a sadder and a wiser man.

What does exploitation mean ? It is tolerably

1 See Commercialism and Imperialism, supra, pp. 89-96 and
106-115.

2 Ibid., pp. no- 1 1. 3 Pp. 22-24.

4 Liberalism and the Empire. London : R. Brimley Johnson. 1900.
6 London : P. S. King & Son. e Ibid. 7 Ibid.

The Ethics of Empire 251

rife at home, and is carried to considerable lengths
when unhappy sempstresses, for example, toil night
and day for a pittance that will not long keep body
and soul together. But when it is exercised towards
an inferior race there is no disguising the fact that it
reduces that race to a condition akin to serfdom.
Theoretically, at any rate, the sempstress is free ;
that is to say, if she does not like the wages of a
monopolist system she has the alternative of either
starving or going to the parish union. But the
exploited native has in many instances not even this
freedom ; during the period of his contract (into which
he is often induced to enter by misrepresentation) at
any rate, he is little less than a slave, taken from
his primitive life by the processes of the "higher
civilisation " and set to work for the benefit of the
" superior race." Of course it is part of the civilising
process that he should be "taught the dignity of
labour " (sometimes of a subterraneous character) —
a process for which more might be said if he were
allowed to have the fruits of the labour he is to
be taught is so dignified ! He receives " wages " — if
a few pence a day can be called such — but not un-
frequently is compelled to buy his food of the em-
ployer on the truck system. All this points in the
direction of slavery ; but as slavery is abhorrent to
the British mind, specious euphemisms are found ;
and we are told that what prevails is the indenture
system, or the corvte system, or the compound system,
or the location system — terms which convey little, if
any, meaning to the average Englishman, although in
some cases he is at length beginning to have a slight
conception of what they signify. Or the same result may

252 Racial Supremacy

be brought about by means of taxation, and this sounds
perfectly innocuous ; for is not the British citizen
himself pretty smartly taxed, and has not the native
the same privilege of grumbling when he pays ?
Yet when we read of the Bechuana " rebels," as they
were termed, being brought down in batches and
" indentured " for five years to farmers anxious to
secure cheap labour, we cannot profess much surprise
at the caustic reference to our " Slave Mart." When
we find laws imposing taxation for the admitted
purpose, not of providing revenue, but of obtaining
labour, with power to imprison for non-payment, the
thought occurs that this to a certain extent is merely
a less barbarous substitute for the overseer's lash —
which latter, indeed, seems to be still somewhat in
vogue.1 And one mildly wonders what the liberty-
loving Briton, who suggests that every one is free
beneath his flag, thinks of the following advertise-
ment, stated to have appeared in a Natal newspaper :

"ABSCONDED, an indentured Indian named 'MUNUSAMY';
discoloration of skin on left side of chest and left cheek.
Also indentured Indian named ' PONUSAMY ' ; scar on right
shoulder-blade, mole on right palm. — Anyone harbouring
same will be prosecuted." *

Perhaps, however, the most striking testimony to
the virtues of " benevolent despotism " is seen in the
employment of native races to fight our battles
for us. Wild animals are sometimes lured to
their doom by means of one of their kind trained to

1 See footnote, p. 194.

2 The Colonial Secretary stated in the House of Commons, in reply
to an inquiry as to the number of suicides by Indians in Natal, that the
rate among free Indians was 157 per million and among indentured
Indians /uw per million. June 30, 1904.

The Ethics of Empire 253

act as a decoy, and we occasionally hear of setting a
thief to catch a thief. The process has been adapted,
with a magnificent effrontery and a grim sense of
humour, to the needs of aggressive Imperialism ; and
having extended the Empire by bringing the " inferior
races " under our sway, by a masterstroke of genius
we utilise them to still further extend and also to
defend the Empire, and convert them into instru-
ments for bestowing upon their brethren the boons
which they themselves have obtained. It is very
largely in this way that our Indian Empire has been
built up ; it is very largely in this way that we have
won our Egyptian campaigns ; and more recently in
South Africa we improved upon the process by not
disdaining the aid of the natives in the subjugation
of another white race. Possibly it is this fact which
explains why " methods of barbarism " are occasion-
ally characteristic of " civilised warfare " ; but at any
rate the arrangement has its distinct advantages. It
is using up the less valuable material, whilst the
purpose is served equally well, if not better ; it is
cheaper from the monetary point of view, and quite
as, if not more, efficient ; it permits the work being
faithfully done without any foolish scruples ; it affords
an outlet for the pent-up pugnacity of savagedom
(so eminently distasteful to civilisation) which might
otherwise burst loose at inconvenient seasons and
with awkward consequences ; and it makes all parties
happy. Decidedly there is a benevolence about this
kind of despotism which is most refreshing, and must
certainly vindicate it, if anything can.

Here this cursory investigation into Imperialist

254 Racial Supremacy

rule must close. Those who are desirous of extend-
ing it have ample means in the works of many able
writers, to some few of whom reference has been
made. The more it is extended the better, for then
the more irresistible will be the conclusion that the
government of subject peoples is pervaded by a
desire to promote the interests of the dominant rather
than of the servient race, and that arbitrary rule
never is purely or even preponderatingly beneficent.
The stern logic of facts, not less than the ratio-
cinative process, proclaims that benevolent despotism
is not possible. There may be — there frequently,
although not invariably, is — exhibited a certain
varying amount of benevolence ; for the majority of
men, whilst largely swayed by selfish considerations,
are not wholly bad, and pure and unredeemed ruth-
lessness is fiendish rather than human. But the
benevolence is relatively small ; it is never the pro-
minent feature of alien rule ; and in an absolute
sense it cannot, in the nature of things, distinguish
alien rule. It neither characterises despotism, nor
justifies despotism, and both the Imperialist hypo-
theses fail. Says John Stuart Mill :—

" The government of a people by itself has a meaning
and a reality; but such a thing as government of one
people by another does not and cannot exist. One people
may keep another as a warren or preserve for its own use,
a place to make money in, a human cattle farm to be
worked for the profit of its own inhabitants. But if the
good of the governed is the proper business of a govern-
ment, it is utterly impossible that a people should directly
attend to it. The utmost they can do is to give some of
their best men a commission to look after it ; to whom the
opinion of their own country can be neither much of a guide

The Ethics of Empire 255

in the performance of their duty, nor a competent judge of
the mode in which it has been performed. . . . Real good
government is not compatible with the conditions of the
case. There is but a choice of imperfections. ... To
govern a country under responsibility to the people of that
country, and to govern one country under responsibility to
the people of another, are two very different things. What
makes the excellence of the first, is that freedom is prefer-
able to despotism ; but the last is despotism. The only
choice the case admits is a choice of despotisms ; and it is
not certain that the despotism of twenty millions is neces-
sarily better than that of a few, or of one." *

THE PROBLEM OF EMPIRE

We have seen, then, that the attempted vindication
of despotism on the score of benevolence breaks
down at every point. Despotism never is and never
can be benevolent in the full signification of the
term ; and if it could be and were, that fact alone
would not vindicate it. All that is theoretically
possible is that it should be characterised by some
amount of benevolence ; whilst in actual practice,
where benevolence is exhibited at all, it is compara-
tively small, and the dominant feature of despotism
is almost invariably the promotion of selfish interests
operating by means of exploitation.

Only when Humanitarianism calls for the subjuga-
tion of other races is an ethical justification for it
established. And since — although no instance can
be cited in which conquest has been undertaken
solely or mainly to promote the cause of humanity —
men when engaged in the work of subjugation
generally delude themselves into the belief that they

1 Representative Government, chap, xviii.

256 Racial Supremacy

are in fact promoting such cause, let it be said that
there is one principle by which they can test the
righteousness of their action ; and that is the prin-
ciple of unselfishness. If they can truthfully say
that they seek no personal or national gain, that
they are influenced by no sordid motives, that
they look for no material reward ; if they can
honestly acquit themselves of any feeling of hatred,
malice, animosity, or revenge ; if they can sincerely
assert that they have purged themselves from the
lust of conquest, the love of power, and the pride of
race ; if they can conscientiously plead that they have
dismissed from their minds all sense of their own
superiority, all conceit as to their fitness for supremacy,
all desire for national aggrandisement ; if they can
before the solemn tribunal of ethics unequivocally
declare that their one and only aim is to do good to
others and to promote the cause of peace, progress,
and brotherhood ; then, and then only, let them
engage with a light heart in the destruction of
liberty. They may, even after passing through such
an ordeal, be mistaken — for they are but fallible — and
the results they looked for may not be achieved ;
but they shall at least have multiplied a hundred-
fold the chances of success, and they shall at least
have found that justification they now invariably
postulate but woefully fail to establish.

In this light must we regard the problem of
Empire. For, as has been indicated, that problem
remains ; a stupendous problem, which the theory of
benevolent despotism fails to solve. Great Britain,
let it be recalled, has acquired dominion over a

The Ethics of Empire 257

quarter of the globe, and the fact that it was not
acquired in a spirit of humanitarianism or unselfish-
ness does not demand (and, for cogent reasons
previously pointed out, does not even justify)1 the
abrupt termination of that dominion ; and if it did,
the proposal would only be regarded as evidence of
lunacy. The crucial question therefore remains —
How is this vast Empire to be governed for the best ?

Crucial, however, though the question is, it can
scarcely be said to command appreciable attention —
and for the obvious reason that, according to
popular belief, the Empire is already governed for
the best. The first step, therefore, towards any
reform is to shatter this belief; iconoclasm is an
essential preliminary, and it is this which in the
main has been here attempted. The man who is
eaten up with self-conceit will not be conscious of
any need for improvement, and the nation which is
eaten up with pride of race will think that it can do
no wrong. Unless it be possible to destroy the
haughty conviction that in imposing her rule upon
other races Great Britain is conferring upon them
an inestimable boon ; unless it be possible to bring
home to her the fact that such rule, instead of being
a grand success is a lamentable failure, and that
so far from altruism being its dominant feature it is
characterised by gross egoism ; it is hopeless to look
for any improvement, and somewhat futile therefore
to propound any scheme of reform.

This preliminary task is herculean ; it is one
which has for some time engaged the attention of a
few earnest men, but their voices have been almost

1 See pp. 229, 230.
R

258 Racial Supremacy

as those crying in the wilderness ! Vanity is the
besetting sin of all great nations ; and in this they
differ from great men, the fact being that whilst the
latter are frequently the most modest (for the
reason that they are great) a nation is largely com-
posed of individuals who are little, and who seek a
reflected glory in the achievements of the race. It
is not the great men of the nation, the men who
most contribute to the greatness of that nation, whom
we often find indulging in heroics and acting as
though their country could do no wrong ; but it is
the men whose chief offering to the common cause
consists of a vicious and demoralising patriotism,
under guise of which they can glorify themselves
without rebuke, who are the national braggarts.
And this vanity, if the besetting sin, is the one
which it is the most difficult to curb, much more to
eradicate. On all hands it is exalted into a virtue ;
it is utilised by the unscrupulous, it is exploited by
the mercenary, it is tickled by the statesman, it is
fostered by the pulpit. Until men can be led to
see that conceit and braggadocio are as priggish in
a race as in an individual and productive of far greater
evil, we may seek in vain for any change in their
attitude towards alien races, or for an application to
other nations of the same amount of justice as that
which they practise towards men of their own
nationality.

Nevertheless, mere destructive criticism can never
be regarded as a wholly satisfactory performance ;
and whilst to demonstrate that a proffered solution
of a problem is unsound (if such it be) is to clear
the ground, this, essential though it is, merely creates

The Ethics of Empire 259

a void unless it helps to the true solution and
suggests the nature of the edifice to be erected.
Further, there is more probability of destructive
criticism accomplishing its mission if it be accom-
panied by constructive effort ; whilst it may also be
forcibly urged that it is incumbent upon those who
think the wrong road is being traversed to point out
a more excellent way. Hence this dissertation
may not inappropriately be brought to a conclusion
by contemplating for a moment the problem of
Empire, and suggesting in what direction lies the
answer to the crucial question before referred to.

Not that there is scope or need for any original
solution of the problem, so far as the principle of
government is concerned ; whilst the method of the
application of that principle to the various parts of
the Empire, the examination into the structure and
function of machinery and the evolution of an
efficient system, are tasks for the skilled investigator
and practical statesman, and tasks as formidable as
they are grave. But the goal to which all effort
should be directed is sufficiently indicated, if not
expressly stated, in what has been already laid down.

If despotism is a bad thing, if benevolence
neither justifies nor characterises it, obviously the
only legitimate general aim is to secure its abroga-
tion ; and interim administration must promote this
object. In other words, the best way to govern
another race is to teach it to govern itself; to
educate it (if not already sufficiently educated) up to
the point of autonomy ; to develop in it the capacity
to appreciate, utilise and justify free institutions ;
and gradually to accord to it greater liberty until

260 Racial Supremacy

the last vestige of alien rule shall disappear.
" Gradually " is a vague word, but it is the only one
that can be employed in a generalisation, since no
arbitrary rule can be laid down as to the length of
the process, and this must depend upon a variety of
circumstances. In some cases the result might be
achieved comparatively speedily, in others the pro-
cess must be slow and require steady and persistent
nurture. It is only within the last century that
any approach to self-government has been made
in England, and we are yet far from having attained
to a true democracy : although if plutocracy was
formerly all powerful and is still potent, the rule
has at least not been that of an alien race. The
essential point is that the government should be
directed to the restoration or procreation or exten-
sion of collective liberty, for this is the prime factor
in progress ; and although a people may have to
be assisted to acquire a just appreciation of freedom,
this will never be accomplished so long as they are
kept in absolute bondage. If liberty is the end,
it is also very largely the means ; the granting of
the franchise is in itself a potent educational in-
fluence.1 No doubt suddenly to withdraw all re-
straints upon men who have long been kept in
subjection might, and probably would, prove
disastrous ; but it is by gradually relaxing the
parental hand that the child eventually learns to

1 " Every year and every month," said Mr Gladstone, referring to our
Colonies (more than half a century ago), "during which they are
retained under the administration of a despotic government, renders
them less fit for free institutions." See Lift of William Ewart
Gladstone. By John Morley. London : Macmillan & Co., Ltd.
1903. Vol. i. pp. 360-1.

The Ethics of Empire 261

walk. Nor must we demand too much, or presume
that because a race has not attained to our own
standard, it is not entitled to freedom. Despite
our boasted superiority, our own shortcomings and
moral delinquencies are sufficiently grave to debar
us from being too exacting with others. If we
were once to apply the highest test of fitness for
liberty, namely the capacity to use it without im-
perilling general liberty, we should not emerge
from the ordeal with remarkable credit. No race
in fact is in a position to rigidly scrutinise the
weaknesses and failings of another race, or even
the crimes of other races ; and whilst we can only
advance by stages, there is not the slightest excuse
for remaining stationary or for perpetuating des-
potism. In short, in the principle of humanitarianism
we have an adequate guide ; if we once choose to
act upon that principle the battle is three parts
won, for the practical difficulties in connection with
the problem are very largely of our own creating.

Of course, as has already been suggested, all this
means a revolution in our ideas of government and
our system of rule — ideas which are nurtured by
the theory of benevolent despotism, and a system
which that theory tends to stereotype. We must
recognise that hitherto we have to a great extent
retarded growth and development, that we have
in the main been governed by selfish considerations,
that we have studied the good of ourselves rather
than the good of our subjects, that we have pre-
sumptuously considered the loss of independence as
involving no injustice if accompanied by the establish-
ment of British rule, and that we have been led by

262 Racial Supremacy

conceit to regard the promotion and maintenance of
our own supremacy as equivalent to advancing the
progress of the world. If we would obtain a closer
insight into our responsibilities, we must come down
from our lofty pedestal ; and then only shall we
realise that, unless we are to occupy the throne
of pure usurpers, we must stand in a fiduciary posi-
tion ; and that if we desire faithfully to discharge
our obligations, the power we exercise must be
directed to the single purpose of promoting the
cause of humanity, and in the pursuit of this our
constant aim should be the emancipation of those
who are subject to our control. Only in this way
can we discharge the grave responsibilities to which
empire gives rise, and offer, it may be, some atonement
for the grievous wrongs which in so many instances
were perpetrated in the creation of empire, and which
in so many instances have attended its continuance.
Whilst, however, the abrogation of despotism
should be our ultimate goal, it is to be observed that
the complete emancipation of subject races does not
necessarily mean a lowering of the flag or a sever-
ance of connection. In our self-governing Colonies
we have an admirable model ; and they point to
the establishment of autonomous institutions within
the geographical area (which, of course, is not to
be regarded as immutably fixed) and the conversion
of the bond of force into the bond of affection. It
is true we cannot legitimately say that to this the
stamp of finality is definitely to be imparted ; for
complete political freedom involves the right to
absolute severance, unless in any given instance
such an act would endanger general liberty. If

The Ethics of Empire 263

the Colonies should desire to snap the silken cord
that binds them, there would be no ethical justifica-
tion for the Mother Country seeking to prevent
them by force ; and certainly, in the case of her
large Colonies, she would not make the attempt.
The merit of the union consists in the fact that it is
a voluntary one, that it is due not to the denial but
to the exercise of freedom ; and when that stage
is reached in the history of those now subject to our
rule, our task will have been accomplished. That
the newly emancipated States would then wish for
total separation there is little reason to suppose ; but
if they did we must still adhere to the principle
of liberty, and it would then become a question
of whether total separation would in the particular
case accord with or would be detrimental to that
principle. Liberty, however, does not mean the
isolation of races ; as has already been pointed
out, no nation has a right to the exclusive and
unqualified appropriation of any portion of the
earth's surface ; and under any circumstances
Englishmen will be found in all parts of the
globe, whatever the conditions of government may
be, and wherever they settle in numbers will by
force of character exercise a powerful influence on
that government. A community to be free need not
consist of only one race ; a despotic government
can, and does, exist amongst men of the same race ; a
democratic government can, and does, exist amongst
men of different races. The point is, not that every dis-
tinct section of the great human family should have the
power to detach itself from the rest of the world, but
that all those, whether belonging to one section or

2 64 Racial Supremacy

several sections, who are domiciled under a common
government should eventually have an equal voice in
that government, subject to a common responsibility.
Men will never willingly submit to despotism, but if
they enjoy the same political rights they can, though
of varying nationalities, live happily together. No
doubt the ties of kinship are strong, and, cceteris
paribus^ there is more cohesion between members
of the same race ; and hence federation between
Great Britain and an alien race might not be so
readily attainable as between Great Britain and her
own children. But federation is the natural, it
might almost be said the inevitable, result of
gradual emancipation and nurtured development ;
whilst in our own South African Colonies we have
had a striking illustration of the fact that it is
possible not only for free institutions to be worked
in common by men of different nationalities, but
for the numerically stronger nationality to evince
the warmest loyalty to an alien and distant superior
Power. It is only because these free institutions
were ruthlessly overridden, only because the superior
Power deliberately disregarded the wishes of the
majority, only because it called into play the dor-
mant racial instinct and compelled men to choose
between the ties of kinship and the ties of allegiance,
that the loyalty ceased. Of the egregious blunder-
ing and criminal folly which characterised our South
African diplomacy, one of the most significant
features is that it led not merely to war but to
civil war — or rebellion as it is usually termed. It
affords a remarkable object lesson as to how
despotism fails where liberty succeeds.

The Ethics of Empire 265

If we are willing to make a practical step in the
direction of emancipation, we could most appropri-
ately commence with India. That vast country
possesses men who in mental equipment are certainly
not inferior to British statesmen of the present
generation, although this perhaps is not taking a
specially exalted standard. The cultured Indian is
often superior to the cultured Englishman, and com-
petes successfully with him at his own examinations ;
and one can scarcely contend that even the masses
of the people would display less capacity for self-
government than the maffickers of Fleet Street.
Moreover, a practical programme has been formu-
lated for us in the moderate demands of able Indians,
which might be adopted without any difficulty, and
would prove a good start. The leaders of Indian
opinion, as Sir William Wedderburn tells us, always
place their best advice and support at the disposal
of the Government.

" Year after year, in the great Indian National Congress,
they bring together representative men, freely elected from
all the provinces, and, after careful deliberation, respectfully
submit to the Government their resolutions, which contain
the matured conclusions of Indian public opinion."

Why should not their resolutions be accepted ?
Why should not the matured conclusions of Indian
public opinion be acted upon? Nay, more. Why
should not the men who thus place their advice at
the disposal of the Government be part and parcel of
the Government ? Why should not some approach
to autonomy be made ? Continues Sir William : —

" Up to the present time no Indian has ever been
appointed a member either of the Viceroy's Executive

266 Racial Supremacy

Council, or of the Council of the Secretary of State. No
wonder, therefore, that the central Government is usually
out of touch with popular feeling. Since 1860, indeed,
there have been nominated Indian members of the
Viceroy's Legislative Council ; but their functions were
very limited, until the Indian Councils Amendment Act
of 1892, which provided that the non-official members
should be nominated by the Viceroy partly on the re-
commendation of certain representative bodies in India.
This Act also gave these non-official members the right of
interpellation, and power to discuss the Budget. It is now
proposed in order to give genuine Indian public opinion
an opportunity of being heard that the non-official members
should be made more directly representative of the tax-
payers ; and that they should be empowered to move
amendments and take divisions upon the various pro-
visions of the Budget ; also that the Budget should be
passed item by item ; the points thus raised being formally
brought under the cognisance of the India Office, and
afterwards of Parliament. It was further recommended
that a sufficient number of representative Indians of
position and experience should be nominated to the
Council of the Secretary of State, on the recommendation
of the elected members of the Viceroy's and Local Legis-
lative Councils ; also that there should be at least one
Indian in the Executive Council of the Viceroy. Finally,
in order to maintain the controlling authority of the
House of Commons, it was recommended that the salary
of the Secretary of State for India should be placed upon
the British Estimates ; and that the salutary practice,
under which a Parliamentary enquiry into the whole
administration of India used to be held every twenty years,
should be revived, and established by Statute. It will be
admitted that these proposals are of a modest and
practical kind. No one can regard them as revolutionary
or dangerous. Why not grant them ? " 1

1 Indian Policy ; Pamphlet No. 14 of The League of Liberals against
Aggression and Militarism. (See footnote, supra, p. 240.)

The Ethics of Empire 267

In other words, why not make some attempt to
enable India to work out her own salvation ? In
the civil administration natives have been freely
employed ; although it is significant that of the total
salaries and expenses of the departments for 1898-
99, 8000 Europeans received more than half and
130,000 Indians less than half, and that the average
works out at £66 7 for each European and £36 for
each Indian.1 As judges, whether in the High
Court or in the lower grades of the judicial service,
Indians acquit themselves with credit and distinc-
tion ; yet any proposal to appoint natives to the
higher executive offices, or as district officers, is
greeted with an outcry of disapprobation.2 With
regard to local government, as already indicated,
there has been retrogression ; and it is one of the
items in the impeachment of Lord Curzon's rule
that, whereas at his advent the municipality of
Calcutta consisted of fifty elected and twenty-five
nominated members, he reduced the elected mem-
bers by half, so that the official chairman controls
the body, and by a stroke of the pen repre-
sentative government in the capital of India was
destroyed.3

Proposals are from time to time forthcoming as
to what the Imperial Government should do in the
way of reforming the land system, reducing taxation,
and so forth ; but no solid progress will be made
until the people themselves are permitted to have,
through accredited representatives, a gradually in-

1 The Ruining of India (footnote, p. 29), p. 4.

2 New India (footnote, p. 24), pp. 121-123.

3 The Failure of Lord Curzon (supra> p. 27), pp. 53-9.

268 Racial Supremacy

creasing voice in the councils of the government.
To quote Sir Henry Cotton again : —

"There are, I suppose, not many reflecting persons who
will maintain that our occupation of India, as we hold it,
can be of a permanent character."1 "Sooner or later
India must again take her own rank among the nations of
the East, and our action should be devoted to facilitating
her progress to freedom."2 "The best solution of the
problem is apparently to be found in the proposal to place
India on a fraternal footing with the colonies of England." 3
"The tendency towards decentralization, though momentarily
discouraged, is firmly established, and is eventually destined
to resolve itself into a federated union such as prevails
in the Federation of Australia and in the Canadian
Dominion."4 "Autonomy and not assimilation is the key-
note of England's true relations with her great colonies ; it
is the keynote also of India's destiny." 6

The subject, however, cannot be here pursued.
It is one of magnitude, and its development calls for
expert knowledge. Nor is it possible at present to
forecast the exact form the evolutionary process
would take ; whilst, until a willingness shall be ex-
hibited to foster it, little would be gained by attempt-
ing to suggest its successive stages. But once let
autonomy be recognised as the ultimate goal, to the
attainment of which every step must be directed,
and there will not be wanting in Indian genius,
should British statesmanship lamentably fail, practical
guidance as to the road to be travelled.

With regard to other native races, it will no doubt
be contended that in some cases there would be

1 New India, p. 182. 2 Ibid., p. 184.

3 Ibid., p. 185. 4 Ibid., p. 192. 5 Ibid., p. 185.

The Ethics of Empire 269

greater difficulty than with India, and the general
feeling seems to be that they are permanently fixed
by the order of nature (or, as some term it, by the
inscrutable decrees of Providence) on a lower plane.
Here, again, however, pride is largely responsible for
the feeling. That there are degrees of civilisation,
and that the term " backward " is not illegitimately
applied to some races, is no doubt true ; and it would
be idle to pretend that men who have never had the
faintest conception of what self-government means,
and who in their primitive condition were subject to
the absolute despotism of a king or chieftain, can,
when there has been merely substituted the despotism
of a foreign Power, present the most promising
material out of which to manufacture free citizens.
But no insuperable obstacle presents itself. That
Canaan must be for ever cursed, or doomed to be a
servant of servants until the end of time, is a dictum
of combined ignorance, selfishness, and conceit.
Some of the most brilliant specimens of humanity
have skins as black as coal, and, given educational
opportunities which the white man possesses, there
is no reason to suppose that our coloured brethren,
even though their normal brain capacity may be
somewhat less than our own, would not acquit
themselves with credit. Only recently we have a
" hint of the untapped stores of creative vitality
which reside in the negro nature,"1 for example, by
the production of Mr Coleridge Taylor's oratorio
"The Atonement," an interesting account of which
is given by Mr Raymond Blathwayt ; * whilst almost

1 The Review of Review 's, February 1904, p. 155.

2 The Quiver i February 1904, p. 353.

270 Racial Supremacy

simultaneously we get valuable testimony from Mr
Carl Schurz as to what the negro race has ac-
complished in America : —

" Even supposing the average negro not to be able to
reach the level of the average white man, the negro may
reach a much higher level than he now occupies. . . . The
negro race has not only, since emancipation, accumulated
an astonishing amount of property — nearly 800,000,000
dols. worth in farms, houses, and various business establish-
ments— but has also produced not a few eminent men ;
eminent in literature, in medicine, in law, in mathematics,
in theology, in educational work, in art, in mechanics —
exceptional coloured men, to be sure, but eminent men are
exceptional in any race — who have achieved their successes
under conditions so difficult and disheartening as to en-
courage the belief that they might have accomplished much
more, and that many more such men would have come
forth, had their environment been more just and the oppor-
tunities more favourable." l

In the case, then, of the backward races also,
our work lies in the direction of education ; and
we must pay regard especially to the children.
Our coloured subjects have the same innate love
of freedom as that by which we are characterised.
To attempt to permanently govern them by sheer
brute force only means periodic rebellions and
periodic bloodshed, whilst they are probably too
keenly alive to the treachery and cruelty of which
they have been the victims to exhibit for us any
strong affection, although they may, to a great
extent, endure the ills they have rather than fly to
others they know not of. But if we choose to relax

1 "Can the South solve the Negro Problem ? " McClurfs Magazine,
February 1904.

The Ethics of Empire 271

the sternness of our rule, to treat them as human
beings and not as chattels, to extend our curriculum
beyond mere instruction in the " dignity of labour,"
and to give them opportunity and means for the
development of their faculties, we shall find that they
too can exhibit some appreciation of the art of self-
government and some recognition of the fact that
liberty is not synonymous with licence ; and it may
be that we shall even be astonished at the amount
of latent force which has hitherto been lost to the
world, and find we have less reason than we have
hitherto supposed to plume ourselves upon our innate
superiority.

The gravamen of the indictment of " benevolent
despotism " is that it tends to perpetuate the des-
potism. Whilst in practice the benevolence, if mani-
fested at all, is relatively small, and whilst even if
it were exhibited to the fullest extent that circum-
stances admit, it would be no adequate justification ;
its supposed or actual existence obscures the facts,
satisfies the conscience, and leads to acquiescence in
the permanent withdrawal of liberty, instead of efforts
towards its restoration.

A government, whatever its form, which is
stationary in its nature, which always regards a race
as being in its cradle and under permanent disability,
which does not contemplate and promote growth and
development and is not progressive in its aims, is
inherently bad. A government which dooms the
governed to abject servitude, reduces them to the
condition of hewers of wood and drawers of water,
represses all opportunity or incentive to rise, and at

272 Racial Supremacy

the best imposes upon them the manual labour of
men whilst in all other respects it treats them as
children, is intensely vicious. Alien rule, to be even
tolerable, must be free from exploitation, must be
directed to the promotion of the welfare of its subjects
and the expansion of their faculties, must assist and
not retard the process of evolution, and must have
liberty and autonomy as its ultimate goal.

The only form of despotism which has the faintest
title to be regarded as benevolent is the despotism
whose constant aim is to destroy itself.

VI

THE BURDEN OF EMPIRE

THE GROWTH OF IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE

AMONG the significant and arresting features of the
last decade of our national history, not the least
notable or monitory is the persistent and heavy
increase of taxation. The continuous pursuit of a
policy of expansion, and the acquisition of vast
additional territory, have necessarily proved extremely
costly, and greatly added to the burden of Empire.1
Statistics in numerous and diversified forms abound,
and they all tell the same tale — a tale well calculated
to arouse concern. Yet upon the bulk of the people
they probably fail to make any considerable impres-
sion, owing to the fact that elaborate tables and
masses of figures seldom command more than cursory
attention, and that their fulness tends to obscure
their moral. Moreover, it is very difficult to grasp
the complete import of high numbers ; " a hundred "

1 Increased taxation is not necessarily to be condemned ; on the
contrary, it may be an indication of progress : everything depends upon
the cause or object of the taxation. Expenditure, whether by the
municipality or the nation, which yields a profitable return to the com-
munity— that is which renders it healthier and happier — and, in par-
ticular, which is devoted to the collective accomplishment of beneficent
work that cannot be achieved by the individual, and thus raising the
standard of national life, is to be commended and encouraged.

S 273

274 Racial Supremacy

conveys a very definite idea, " a hundred millions "
only creates a vague notion. It is quite true that every
one has a lively perception of additional taxation, and
generally manifests that perception by a growl ; and
it is also true that when the addition is due to war
the cause is sufficiently in evidence. But the full
extent of the expenditure and the ultimate effect of
the policy are not so readily realised, for the reason
that Governments have a happy knack of passing on
to posterity a great portion of their exceptional
obligations (as though they were remunerative in-
vestments), and that the belief strongly prevails
that conquest is — eventually, if not immediately-
attended with substantial recompense. Hence the
actual facts are not generally appreciated, and as a
consequence the warning they should convey is
frequently unheeded. Only a part of the burden is
felt, and its existence is attributed to anything but
national folly ; whilst, although this part is sufficiently
weighty, it is not regarded as permanent ; and, by
failing to associate effect with cause, we even listen
to schemes for diminishing the pressure which would
positively make it more intense. Now that we have
squandered our money and increased our debt in order
to extend the Empire, we are invited to consolidate
that Empire by bribing our Colonies and ostracizing
other nations, and are told that we shall ourselves
find salvation by taxing our food and diminishing
our foreign supplies. Having bred a gnawing
disease, we are to feed that disease at its source,
and, instead of seeking a radical cure, are to
discover a remedy for the evils of Imperialism in —
more Imperialism.

The Burden of Empire 275

The striking indication of the gravity of the
situation is the amount, not so much of extraordinary,
as of normal expenditure. Everybody knows that
war is expensive — that, as has been sagaciously said,
you can have very little of it for a great deal of
money — but it is the steady serious growth of
ordinary taxation which calls for emphasis. The
cost of our Imperialist regime is not to be measured
merely by the special demands, however onerous,
made upon the people during the prevalence of
hostilities ; it is in the perennial drain upon the
country's resources to which such a regime inevitably
gives rise that its weightier indictment consists.
Since 1895, the period when the present Imperialist
party came into power, the normal expenditure has
risen annually with unvarying consistency, until in
the space of nine years it shows an increase of more
than 50 per cent. ; that is to say, whilst it was
£93,918,000 for the year ending March 31, 1895,
it was £141,416,000 for the year ending March
31, I9O4.1 The "extraordinary" expenditure in
the years of the Boer war was as follows : —

1899-1900 ^23,217,000 1901-1902 £73,197,000
1900-1901 68,620,000 1902-1903 55,132,000

and during the three principal years of the outlay
our average total expenditure was just double the
amount disbursed in the year 1894-5. Of course

1 Mr Gibson Bowles, M.P., in a recent pamphlet, shows that owing
to the involved nature of the National Accounts and the omission of
items from both sides, the figures usually arrived at fall short of the
truth ; and he makes the total receipts for 1903-4 nearly 177 millions,
an increase of 70 millions in 10 years. National Finance. London :
T. Fisher Unwin. 1904.

276 Racial Supremacy

the larger proportion of the cost of the war has been
defrayed by means of loans upon which interest
has to be paid, thereby adding to our permanent
burden ; and the savings of thirty years — years of
comparative peace (but only comparative, because
we were scarcely ever free from some " little " war,
or the savings would have been more) — have dis-
appeared. We are to-day confronted with the fact
that, upon the basis of ordinary peace expenditure,
for every £i we paid in taxation ten years ago we
are now called upon to pay more than 305. owing
to the growth of Imperialism ; and that unless we
radically alter our policy the demands made upon
us will continue to increase ; whilst if we acquiesce
in the latest development of the policy we shall
find we have less means of meeting those demands.

That the increase in the normal expenditure is
mainly Imperial in nature, as distinguished from
national, is fairly well demonstrated by the fact that
nearly two-thirds of such increase is for military
purposes alone. In round figures, the expenditure
on the Army and Navy for 1894-5 was 3 Si
millions, whilst for 1903-4 it was 65 J millions1—
an increase of 30 millions (or 84 per cent.) out of
a total increased expenditure of 47 \ millions. And
if we add to the 30 millions the increase in the
amount of the National Debt Services and deduct
from the 47 \ millions the additional cost of the Post
and Telegraph Services (a branch of the Administra-
tion which shows a substantial profit) we have gone a
long way to explain the total increase, and cannot

1 This is exclusive of over 6 millions spent on capital account for
naval and military works. Mr Bowles gives the total at 86£ millions,
an increase of 50 millions in 10 years. See footnote, p. 275.

The Burden of Empire 277

escape the conclusion that the great bulk of it is
due to the pursuit of a policy of Imperialism.

Nor is this all. Normal expenditure has not
only risen to the alarming extent indicated ; but the
tendency must be an upward one so long as the
same policy prevails.1 Imperialism demands an
ever-increasing price ; for, quite apart from the cost
of the wars it provokes, it means a continuous
growth of armaments. It is a policy of defiance and
a policy of aggression ; it engenders the hostility
of other nations, and it induces them to add to
their military strength ; and this in turn leads to
counteracting measures,2 thus imposing a greater
and still greater strain upon national resources,
until we bid fair to arrive at the time when all
energy will be devoted to the one task of checking
burglary, save when concentrated on burglarious
expeditions. The worthy citizens who gained a
precarious living by taking in each others' washing
were in a parlous way, but they could at least boast
of clean linen ; a world of Ishmaelites or of policemen
would be reduced to an equally precarious means of
livelihood and be more suggestive of dirty linen.

Of our present policy the danger is unmistakable ;
and more than two years ago it called forth a solemn
and weighty warning from no less significant a
person than Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, himself an

1 The normal expenditure for 1903-4 was several millions more
than that of the previous year. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer
sees " no hope for a reduction in our domestic expenditure." Speech
at the Mansion House, June 17, 1904.

2 During the past twenty years the naval and military expenditure
of the European Powers (apart from war) has increased by nearly 70
per cent., while population has only increased by 21 per cent.

278 Racial Supremacy

Imperialist and an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer
of the Imperialist Government. Let the gist of
his monition be recalled : —

" He wanted ... to ask their attention to a matter which
for the last seven years had engaged his most anxious con-
sideration, and that was the rapid growth of the expenditure
of the country. . . . The present national indifference . . .
was one of the most dangerous symptoms. . . . Did any-
body nowadays think of retrenchment at all ? Why, day
by day he saw the most wild proposals for additional and
new expenditure of all kinds. . . . The ordinary estimates
— the peace estimates — for the present year were, in
round figures, something like forty millions more than they
were seven years ago. . . . The main reasons, of course,
were the enormously increased expenditure upon our Navy
and Army. . . . The Army estimates had gone up from
eighteen millions sterling seven years ago to twenty-nine
and a half millions this year. . . . The reason for it was
mainly the great extension of the Empire. . . . He had
spoken plainly to them. He had spoken plainly, too, as
to the dangers of their growing expenditure to the House
of Commons. . . . They should remember he had told them
that in the last seven years the ordinary expenditure of the
country had increased at a rate of no less than five millions
and a half a year. They could not go on in that way." l

Since these words were uttered, so far from
heeding the warning (notwithstanding its source)
we have continued to increase our expenditure ;
and in lieu of our exhibiting any disposition to
amend our ways, it needs all the energies of our
sane statesmen and politicians to combat still more
costly schemes into which we are recklessly urged

1 Speech at Bristol, September 29, 1902. And a year and a half
later we find him repeating the monition — "Such an increase in
taxation cannot go on in time of peace." Speech in the House of
Commons ', April 19, 1904.

The Burden of Empire 279

to plunge. There is little, if any, abatement of
Imperialist ardour ; the very opponents of Mr
Chamberlain have almost apologetically to explain
that they are as devoted to the cause of empire as
he is ; there is apparently no suspicion that the
doctrine of racial supremacy is not sound and profit-
able, no general indication of a desire to alter our
policy. Although there is division in the ranks,
Imperialism still holds the field.

Yet surely the pertinent practical question which
arises is, " Does Empire pay ? " Disregarding (if we
will) moral considerations, ignoring (if we may)
sentimental gratification, and looking at the matter
purely from the financial point of view, is it not
time, as we witness this burden increasing in weight
and pressing more heavily upon all, that we seriously
put to ourselves the inquiry, Cui bono ? We are
not Imperialists from philanthropic motives, although
we no doubt mix up with our Imperialism a good
deal of spurious philanthropy, and when we seek
to justify an aggressive war we always talk of the
benefits which accrue from British conquest and
British rule. But no one pretends that we deliber-
ately tax ourselves to the extent of millions a year
for the good of humanity — indeed, we should be
perfectly prepared, if we could do it, to raise revenue
from other countries (the ne plus ultra of taxation
without representation), and when an import duty
is commended on the ground that it will be paid by
the foreigner, whilst the fallacy of the contention is
readily exposed, it never seems to occur to any one
to protest against its immorality.

280 Racial Supremacy

Imperialism, as has been pointed out elsewhere,1
has a twofold origin, namely, pride and greed ; and
the essential point is, to what extent (if any) is greed
rewarded, or in other words (for it matters not for
present purposes whether the object is regarded
as legitimate or illegitimate) do we obtain a material
return for the expenditure. If we are to bear this
burden simply to gratify our pride, let us at least
not do so ignorantly ; for knowledge might tend to
diminish the pride and lessen the burden. The
general belief seems to be that the Empire does pay,
and that whilst, as has been previously intimated,2
some of the expenditure is the price of " glory,"
a great portion of it can be properly regarded as
a satisfactory investment. Is this so ?

Obviously, if there be a material return, it is an
indirect one. Armaments cannot, in the nature
of things, in themselves prove remunerative ; their
sole purpose is to destroy, not to create. And a
military body earns nothing, although it has to be
fed and clothed ; when it is employed at all it is
engaged, not in producing, but in annihilating.
That there may be an indirect return is of course
possible, but the fact that it can only be indirect
adds to the difficulties of the Imperialist's position ;
for he cannot ear-mark any item of expenditure as
one that pays a dividend. Nor, beyond vague
general assertions, does he in any way indicate
what compensation there is ; purely Imperial book-
keeping is unknown, a statement of assets and
liabilities does not exist, a profit and loss account
is never prepared, and the Chancellor of the Ex-
1 See pp. 8-10. 2 See p. 87.

The Burden of Empire 281

chequer has not yet produced the nation's Imperial
balance sheet.

What is wanted is a quantification of the cost of the
Empire to the United Kingdom and of the pecuniary
set-off (presuming one can be found), and then we
should know where we stood. And the obligation
to supply this is imposed upon those who assert that
the balance is on the right side, and not upon those
who challenge the assertion. But as the former
exhibit no alacrity to make the requisite investiga-
tion, it is necessary this should be independently
attempted if we wish to ascertain the actual facts.
Absolute precision is doubtless out of the question,
for the reason that expenditure for national purposes
is not distinguished from expenditure for Imperial
purposes, and the amount of the latter therefore can
only be estimated. It should, however, be possible to
estimate it with a sufficient approach to accuracy to
arrrive at the approximate truth — sufficient at any
rate to determine whether Imperialism pays.

Of course it may be said that, whatever the result
be, we cannot in any case allow the Empire to
be disintegrated ; and it is no doubt perfectly true
that the merits or demerits of Imperialism are not
to be determined by purely pecuniary considerations.
But they form a very important feature, and indeed
with many they are the dominant feature, and with
all they carry great weight ; and whilst other
considerations have already been discussed, the
financial aspect of the question is the one with
which we are here principally concerned. We have
been launching out in all directions, sinking a vast

282 Racial Supremacy

amount of additional capital, embarking in huge
speculations, and we are now invited to new
departures most costly in character ; the policy on
the whole being defended as conducive to our
interests. If we are on the wrong tack — if we have
been engaged in enterprises which cannot possibly
prove remunerative, if our conduct has been reckless
and threatens to become more reckless, if it has
been productive of tremendous loss and is calculated
to result in further disaster — a realisation of the facts
should surely bring about a reversal of the policy, or
at any rate arrest it to the extent to which it has
been pursued in the belief that it is profitable.

Let us, therefore, endeavour to ascertain what are
our Imperial liabilities and expenditure, and also if
we have any remunerative Imperial assets or revenue,
with a view to determine whether or not Empire is
a sound investment on the part of the dominant
country. Whether or not it conduces to the interests
of any other particular section of the Imperial group,
or of the entire Imperial group regarded collectively,
are distinct questions, the first of which could only
be answered by a separate investigation in the case
of each section, and the answer to the second of
which would largely depend upon the data thus
obtained. But the point which concerns us as a
nation is whether the pursuit of an Imperial policy
conduces to the interests of the United Kingdom.

THE PRICE OF IMPERIALISM

The British Empire — so - called — is a strange
amalgam. We must take it as we find it and adopt

The Burden of Empire 283

conventional nomenclature, but it is a compound of
at least three distinct elements which do not coalesce.
First, there is the paramount power, the United
Kingdom — again so-called, for it is itself engaged in
incessant internal conflict, and one of its sections is
in quasi-rebellion. The hybrid residue comprises, on
the one hand, autonomous communities substantially
independent, and on the other, subject communities
arbitrarily governed ; whilst to add to the incon-
gruities, a fourth section might be differentiated in
which partial autonomy is combined with partial
subserviency.

Obviously there is no bond of interest common
to all these diverse, and to some extent antagonistic,
bodies ; although the general belief seems to be that
they are blended in one harmonious whole, and that
the " Empire " is the most perfect and glorious
political institution which the wit of the most gifted
of mortals could devise. Of course the only section
(no doubt by far the largest) in which true empire is
illustrated is that which is absolutely subject to the
dominant country ; but as our Imperial policy and
Imperial expenditure are by no means so limited,
there is no necessity in this connection to attempt to
make distinctions ; although when we inquire into the
question of contribution, the Colonies and depen-
dencies must be separately regarded.

To ascertain our Imperial liabilities we have to re-
fer to our National Debt — for, whilst it is the nation's
debt, it embodies Imperial expenditure — and this
also will disclose one substantial item of the annual
cost of the Empire. It originated in the " King's

284 Racial Supremacy

Debt," contracted by the later Stuarts, but the
amount at the Revolution of 1688 was comparatively
nominal, being only two-thirds of a million. Since
that period, that is to say in a little over 200 years,
it has grown to the colossal figure of nearly 800
millions, and this almost entirely as the result of the
periodic military enterprises in which the nation has
engaged. The following table as to the approxi-
mate amount of debt incurred in connection with
the principal of these enterprises is sufficiently
instructive : —

Million £

Wars with France during the reign of William III. 14
War with France (Spanish Succession) during the

reign of Anne . . . . . .21

War with Spain during the reign of George I. . 15
Wars with Spain (Right of Search) and France

(Austrian Succession) during the reign of

George II. . . . . . .29

The Seven Years' War during reign of George III. 60
American War of Independence in the same reign 1 10
The Great War with France in the same reign . 610
The Crimean War . . . . . .32

The Boer War (over ^"18,000,000 also diverted

from Sinking Fund) . . . . .159

There have in addition been sundry " little wars,"
and of course the principal wars cost considerably
more than the amount permanently added to the
debt ; indeed, during the period under review we
spent altogether something like 1500 millions in
slaughtering human beings and devastating territory,
of which just about half still constitutes a national
burden.1

1 The total of the table given abovel comes to more than 1000
millions, but substantial payments off were from time to time made in

The Burden of Empire 285

It is no doubt perfectly true that a vast proportion
of this huge expenditure was not directly incurred in
connection with the maintenance or extension of the
Empire, but it is equally true that it was incurred in
pursuit of that policy of aggressiveness, self-assertion,
pride or racial animosity, which are of the very
essence of Imperialism. In no case were we engaged
in defending our shores, in no case was " little
England " in danger ; in other words, if there has
been any compensation or gain, it is Imperial in its
nature ; if any benefit has resulted from the expendi-
ture, Imperialists are entitled to claim what credit
may attach to it. Two of the wars, namely, the
American and South African Wars, were unequi-
vocally waged solely to secure Empire, and the
cost of these alone was nearly one-half of the
present amount of the Debt. And the whole of the
wars were waged for the reason that we were and
are, and sought and seek still more to be, a world-
wide Power. At the time of the accession of
William III., when the Debt was considerably under a
million, we had, with the exception of some small
islands and patches of territory (and apart, of course,
from most of the American Colonies we subsequently
lost) no foreign possessions — we were then on the
whole rather proud of being " a little island in
the Northern Sea." It is because we have developed

the intervals between the great wars. The amount of the National
Debt is now, as already indicated, a little under 800 millions. Of the
159 millions (which only produced ^152,415,0x20) due t© the Boer War,
it is officially expected that we shall eventually obtain over ^"30,00x3,000
from the Transvaal. Of course the actual expenditure on this war does
not represent its total cost : for example, the loss to the Post Office
Savings Bank through the depreciation of securities works out at over
20 millions.

286 Racial Supremacy

into an Imperial race and manifest the qualities and
characteristics of an Imperial race, that we have
indulged in these costly wars and have to sustain
this heavy burden. There is, therefore, an absolute
justification for debiting Imperialism with the whole
cost of these gigantic military enterprises ; but there
is no need to labour the point, since the present
debt only represents about one-half of that cost ; so
that if the most liberal deductions were made for
what might be regarded as doubtful items, it would
still remain true that our present heavy liability
represents part of the price of Imperialism. The
substantial fact for the present generation of
Englishmen is that they find themselves saddled
with a debt of nearly 800 millions, not because they
or their ancestors have had to fight for their homes,
but because they, in the pursuit of an Imperial
policy, engaged in the ruthless and costly work of
destroying the homes of other peoples.

Interest and other payments in connection with
the "National Debt Services" thus constitute the
first item of our annual Imperial expenditure ; and,
with the provision for the New Sinking Fund, the
annual charge is now fixed at 27 millions.

The other and heavier item of this expenditure is
that in connection with the Army and Navy ; and
at the present time this is 66 millions 1 (in round
figures 29 millions on the Army and 37 millions on
the Navy). With regard to this, it must of course
be recognised that a powerful navy is necessary for
the defence of our shores, and to some extent an
army is similarly necessary ; and to this extent the

1 But see footnote, p. 276.

The Burden of Empire 287

expense incurred can be properly regarded as an
insurance against the risk of invasion. It is signifi-
cant, however, that despite the great wars to which
reference has been made, and despite the fact that
scarcely a year passes without our being engaged in
some military enterprise, in no instance has Great
Britain been the arena of the conflict ; we fight our
battles in every part of the globe save in our native
land, which alone is pointedly suggestive of their
being aggressive and not defensive. (Parenthetically,
it may be remarked that if the horrors of war were
brought home to us individually and collectively, we
should certainly resort to arms with much less
alacrity and enthusiasm than, with our present
immunity, we now exhibit.) Moreover, the danger,
such as it is, of a hostile attack upon our shores
would be minimised by our pursuing a policy of
international amity and reduction of armaments ;
and we positively add to our risk by that policy
of international enmity and increasing armaments
which is so characteristic of Imperialism. A third
of our present expenditure would be ample for our
own protection.1 The sea is our natural bulwark
against aggression ; a large permanent army is un-
necessary, and even with regard to the navy — and
not forgetting the necessity of protecting our
merchandise fleet — no one will pretend that, apart
from the Empire, it need approach its present
dimensions. Thirty years ago a sum of 24 millions
was deemed sufficient to spend on the Army and
Navy together ; although we even then boasted that

1 During the Boer War we were practically dependent entirely upon
the Navy for defence.

Racial Supremacy

the sun never set upon the dominions of the
Queen — and however much the Empire may have
been since enlarged, our own shores have not
expanded ; so that such a sum should at least be
more than adequate for purely national defence.
Indeed, even for the protection of the Empire, vast
as it is, nothing like the present expenditure is
requisite ; a great part of it is simply the cost of a
policy of expansion and defiance, and is distinctly
so traceable. If we had been and were willing,
without abandoning anything acquired, to desist
from that policy and aim at promoting international
goodwill, and a general reduction of armaments, we
might eventually cut down our military and naval
expenditure to about 40 millions. And even of
such an amount, one-half would have to be regarded
as Imperial, for it seems clear that somewhere about
20 millions per annum would be a sufficient premium
to ensure our own land and shipping against the
risk of attack, although of course if an actual attack
should unhappily occur, there would be a largely
increased war disbursement for the time being.
Something can no doubt be said as to the desirability
of being sufficiently strong to prevent or assist in
preventing acts of aggression on the part of other
nations towards other nations ; but in the days
when our expenditure was on an infinitely less
considerable scale we were as potent in the councils
of Europe, and if emergencies arise we can
temporarily add to our forces ; whilst it is significant
that, quick as we are to resent any insult or injury
(real or supposed) to ourselves, we do not, in fact,
interfere to put down the grossest cruelty by others,

The Burden of Empire 289

even if partly responsible for the circumstances
which render it possible, as in the case of the
Armenian and Macedonian horrors. Look at the
matter, then, how we may, we come back to the
conclusion that, apart from Imperial considerations,
a third of our present naval and military expenditure
should suffice in times of peace ; and of our 66
millions, 44 millions can be legitimately regarded
as a further part of the price of Imperialism.

If, then, we take the amount of the National
Debt Services, 27 millions,1 and the above pro-
portion, 44 millions, of the naval and military
expenditure, we get an annual Imperial (as
distinguished from national) expenditure of 71
millions2 — just half of our total expenditure of, in
round figures, 142 millions. As, however, the latter
sum includes the cost of the Post and Telegraph
services (which, as has been indicated, is a remu-
nerative expenditure), we ought for the purpose
of comparison to eliminate this, in which case the
total is reduced to 127 millions. The proportion of
our purely Imperial expenditure is thus substan-
tially increased, and is in fact considerably more

1 Ic may be suggested that as this item embodies provision for the
New Sinking Fund (devoted to the repayment of the Debt), it should,
for the purpose of ascertaining the imperative annual expenditure under
this head, be reduced by the amount so applied. But the fact is that,
outside the fixed annual charge of 27 millions, there are " charges con-
nected with other capital liabilities," and these for the year 1903-4
brought the net expenditure up to ,£28,788,694, whilst the amount
applied to the Sinking Fund was only ,£1,464,087. See White Paper,
1904, Cd. 2065, pp. 34-5, and also Mr Gibson Bowies' pamphlet (foot-
note, supra, p. 275). The annual fixed charge ought to be at least
28 millions.

2 Of course, according to Mr Bowies' figures the amount would be more.

T

290 Racial Supremacy

than our purely national expenditure — being 71
millions out of 127 millions. This is the normal
annual pecuniary burden which empire has imposed
upon us.

Let us next ascertain whether there is anything to
lessen the burden — whether we have any and what
Imperial assets or revenue.

We own certain shares in the Suez Canal, and as
the cost of these is included in our National Debt,
which has been debited to Imperialism, we must give
credit for their value. This fluctuates, but may be
placed at about 28 millions, and the revenue at
£960,000, thus reducing the amount of the purely
Imperial expenditure to say 70 millions. Then we
possess our armaments, requisite partly for national
and partly for Imperial purposes ; but an apportion-
ment need not be attempted, seeing that they produce
no revenue and do not therefore lighten our expendi-
ture. And last, though it will not be considered
least, there is our Empire — a somewhat peculiar
" asset " — and the main inquiry therefore takes the
form of what revenue can be discovered emanating
from this source.

The first question we naturally ask is — do our
Colonies help us? Seeing that a very large pro-
portion of the expenditure is incurred for their
protection, and that we are now asked to tax our-
selves still further for the express purpose of drawing
them closer to us, we should naturally expect that
they would send us a substantial contribution. We
hear a great deal of their loyalty and disinterested
services, based on the fact that they assisted in de-

The Burden of Empire 291

vastating the Transvaal, at a proportionate cost to
us of about five times that of our own soldiers
(although, so far as Canada is concerned, Mr Carnegie
has pointed out that she sent many more thousands
of her sons to fight in the Northern ranks in the
great Civil War, and at the same rate as paid to the
American regular) ; let us see what that loyalty
amounts to measured in pounds sterling. The
Colonies incur a certain military expenditure, and
also (with the exception of Canada) naval expenditure;
but as this has not been taken into account in
ascertaining the amount of our own Imperial burden,
the latter is not thereby reduced. As an interesting
comparison, however, it may be mentioned that whilst
the naval and military expenditure of the United
Kingdom works out at over 305. per head, that of
the Colonies averages less than 33. per head.1 From
the Cape — the one colony charged with disloyalty

1 It is instructive to note, in passing, how the cost of our recent great
Imperial enterprise was apportioned. The Boer War cost Great
Britain about ^"230,000,000 (but see footnote, p. 285) ; it cost the
American and Australian Colonies ;£ 1,860,000 ; to the former it worked
out at over ^5, 93. per head, to the latter it ranged from 2s. 3d. to 8s. 8d.
per head, or on the average 35. 9d. So that in proportion to popula-
tion the burden imposed upon the Mother Country as compared with
the Colonies is nearly 30 times as great, whilst in amount it is about
125 times as great. However, of the total we are supposed to get some
^30,000,000 from the new Colonies, but in view of the method by
which this interesting arrangement was effected, and of the fact that
those Colonies did not, and do not at present, enjoy self-government, and
that protests were urged in every district, and that the mining magnates
now look to be relieved from their undertaking, it is perhaps safer not
to regard this as an asset until we get it. The Cape and Natal, it will
be remembered, both petitioned against the war, so that the "loyalty"
of the other Colonies took the form of assisting in the coercion of their
fellow colonists in a matter in which the former were only remotely and
the latter were vitally interested.

292 Racial Supremacy

— we get a contribution of .£40,000 (formerly
£30,000 ;) l and Australia helps defray the cost of a
local naval squadron, which, however, is under her
control, so that instead of this assisting the Mother
Country the position is reversed. And this is the
extent of the colonial share of our burden ; their
contribution to our Imperial expenditure is com-
paratively infinitesimal. Comment on the facts need
not be carried beyond Mr Chamberlain's own observa-
tion at the Colonial Conference, when he intimated
that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the
Colonies as nations that they should leave the
Mother Country to bear almost the whole of the
expense of Imperial defence, and that no one would
believe she would for all time make this inordinate
sacrifice ; 2 or Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's confession
that he was a little tired of the paroxysms of mutual
admiration and the innumerable perorations about
unity and loyalty, and his injunction to show the
Colonies in our dealings with them that we could
take care of the advantage of the United Kingdom
just as much as they took care of their advantage
in their dealings with us 3 — utterances which if made
by a " Little Englander " would no doubt have been
indignantly reprobated.

Turn we now to India, where we have a true
instance of empire. Our Colonies, not being ruled
by us, cannot be made to share our burden ; all we
can do is to indulge in (apparently futile) appeals to
them. But where empire exists, toll can be levied by

1 Natal supplies coal for the use of His Majesty's ships, &c., to the
value of £12,000 per annum.

2 Blue Book, Cd. 1299, p. 5.

1 Speech at Bristol, September 29, 1902.

The Burden of Empire 293

the dominant race upon the subservient race, and is
only limited, on the one hand by the will of the former,
and on the other by the capacity of the latter ; the
second limitation, as all history shows, being the
more effective. The Indian people, as we have seen,1
groan under the burden of taxation, and it is doubt-
ful whether much more could be extracted from them,
having regard to their impoverished condition and to
the fact that periodically millions die of starvation.
Yet it cannot be said that Great Britain derives any
substantial national pecuniary benefit from the
ownership of the country. For it is one of the
features of Imperialism that the exploitation it fosters
conduces, as a rule, to the benefit of only a compara-
tively small section of the Imperial race ; the British
working man, for example, pays no less in taxes
because tribute is levied on the unfortunate ryot.
Practically the only direct national gain (if it be one)
derived from India is due to the fact that she is
made to maintain a huge army, out of proportion to
her own requirements, which is largely utilised for
service in other parts of the Empire ; but, if this
were not the case, it is doubtful whether we should
proportionately increase our own enormous military
expenditure or whether we should not rather dispense
(to our advantage from many points of view) with
the additional means thus afforded of gratifying our
aggressive or bellicose proclivities. The bulk of the
remaining burden imposed upon India represents the
cost of government (that is, the amount which goes
into the pockets of the officials) the spoils of " the
ill-paid and hungry native subordinates who prowl

1 Pp. 21-29 aad 238-244.

294 Racial Supremacy

about the villages and gradually fatten themselves
by plunder and extortion," 1 expenditure on public
works, and interest paid on British capital which has
been sunk in enterprises that yield no equivalent
economic return to the people. Despite, then, the
price which India has to pay for British rule, there
is to us, nationally, no pecuniary gain that can be
ear-marked and treated as a contribution towards
our own expenditure.

And if neither from the Colonies nor from India
do we obtain any appreciable contribution, it is in
vain to look to the remaining minor portions of the
Empire. Nor do we derive any indirect pecuniary
gain, as is commonly supposed. The delusion that
empire promotes our commercial prosperity, based
on the dictum that trade follows the flag, has already
been subjected to detailed investigation,2 and need
not therefore here detain us. There is no escaping
from the fact that our Imperial expenditure of some
seventy millions a year is paid by us — that it is un-
attended with any appreciable return — that more than
half the amount of our taxation represents the price
of " glory " — that we are spending this enormous
annual sum because we are an Imperial Power. It
is not a hallucination, as Lord Rosebery supposes,3
but a sober fact that the word Empire means
expenditure and means little else.

THE REDUCTION OF IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE

Nor can we get rid of the burden. We may
forget the follies and crimes of the past, but we
1 See p. 240. 2 See pp. 89-96. * See p. 69.

The Burden of Empire 295

have to pay dearly for them in the present ; we
may exult in the recent expansion of the Empire,
but the penalty of expansion will be exacted. We
have mortgaged our property, and the interest must
be met ; it is written in the bond, and the earnings
of this generation and of future generations have
been hypothecated.

At best we can in time lighten the burden ; at
least we can see that we add not to its weight. By
further sacrifice we can reduce the principal ; by wise
reforms we can prevent leakage and waste ; by alter-
ing our policy we can effect a substantial diminution
in our expenditure. If we cannot repudiate our
National Debt, we can take care not to increase
it ; if we cannot abandon the Empire we possess,
we can refrain from acquiring new dominions ; if
we cannot relinquish the duty of Imperial defence,
we can discharge it in a less reckless and expensive
manner ; if we cannot ensure immunity from attack,
we can avoid inviting it. Or, on the other hand,
we can in all these matters pursue exactly the
opposite course — the course we have been pursu-
ing for so many years — and thereby make the
burden more oppressive. And we can also, in
the endeavour to extricate ourselves from the bog
into which we have floundered, continue to follow
the will-o'-the-wisp by whose glamour we have
been caught, as he seeks to allure us into
a new quagmire with the mocking promise that
we shall find a surer foothold. Which is it
to be?

The motives from which Imperialism springs are

296 Racial Supremacy

mixed, and the preponderating one differs with in-
dividuals.1 With some it is a desire for personal
gain, attained directly or indirectly ; and to such
the national cost does not count, seeing that though
they may have to bear a share, this is far outweighed
by the benefits they derive. With others an idea
of promoting the progress of the world undoubtedly
exists ; and to such, if they still cling to the
delusion that conquest and arbitrary rule make for
progress, the inquiry may be put whether the results
are commensurate with the cost, and whether the
object would not be more largely promoted by other
and less expensive methods. Neither of these classes,
however, is in the majority, though possibly the
views of each partly enter into consideration with
all. But the bulk of Imperialists are mainly ani-
mated by racial pride and arrogance ; a feeling of
satisfaction at belonging to a nation which is greater,
or is thought to be greater, than other nations ;
satisfaction at exercising dominion, real or assumed,
over a quarter of the globe ; satisfaction at being
able to bid defiance, and if need be to challenge ;
in short, pride of place, prestige and power. And
of such, ignoring the moral offensiveness of pride,
the question can be pertinently asked — May not
that pride be gratified at too high a price ? Is it
worth taxing ourselves to this enormous extent
mainly to indulge in a morbid and paltry senti-
ment which has been, not perhaps too severely,
described as the " never failing vice of fools ? "
Reasonable men can give but one answer to such
a question : to unreasonable men, such as those who

1 See pages 8-9.

The Burden of Empire 297

were prepared to fight the Boers to the bitter end,
though it cost not 250 millions but ten times that
amount, it would of course be useless to put the
inquiry. But the majority of men in their calmer
moods, and when not under the influence of passion
such as war provokes, are more or less influenced
by common sense, and are in the habit of counting
the cost ; and there is, therefore, little reason to doubt
that if their illusions as to the facts can be dispelled
and they can once be brought to realise the gravity
of the situation, there would be a considerable abate-
ment of Imperial ardour.

Obviously it is primarily important that we should
avoid everything calculated to add to the burden,
whether further territorial aggrandisement, or granting
bribes to our colonial possessions, or courting the
hostility of other nations. We must, therefore, ab-
solutely reverse the policy by which we have been
dominated for many years past, emphatically veto
the latest proposed development of that policy, and
honestly endeavour to cultivate international friend-
ship and goodwill ; for in this way only can we hope
to prevent a growth of expenditure. Mr Morley has
suggested an Empire might be described as a State
system that ruins itself by wasting its capital 1 ; and
if we wish to escape ruin we must cease to waste
our capital, and no longer allow ourselves to be
dominated by the spirit of empire. What benefit we
are ever likely to derive from our latest conquest,
which has so largely contributed to our present in-
cubus, would be as difficult to discover as the con-
verse benefit we are ever likely to confer upon those

1 Speech at Montr ose^ April 13, 1903.

298 Racial Supremacy

we have conquered. Imperialism is twice cursed, it
curses him who takes and him from whom is taken ;
it is the rape of liberty which leaves " lust, the thief,
far poorer than before." Self-interest, not less than
the golden rule, bids us stifle earth-hunger, ag-
gressiveness, and vindictiveness ; we must recognise
the right of others to the freedom and independence
we claim for ourselves ; we must abstain from
insult, injury, and provocation, and aim at promot-
ing cordiality, friendship, and brotherhood amongst
nations.

But we can attain, at any rate eventually, more
than the negative result of not adding to our burden ;
we can take active steps to lighten it. The re-
suscitation of the Sinking Fund is an obligation we
owe to posterity, and ought to be discharged in a
more liberal spirit than is proposed ; but of course
this, so far from diminishing, in fact increases for the
time being the demand upon our resources. Of the
methods of effecting a reduction, the most important
is to cut down our military and naval expenditure
— an expenditure which Imperialism has caused to
mount by leaps and bounds and which, as has been
indicated, could be materially abridged if we curbed
the spirit of aggrandisement, and still further abridged
if we adopted a less defiant attitude to other Powers
and paid more regard to international comity. In
pursuance of this object we should seek firmly
to establish friendly relations with other countries ; l
should co-operate with them — having regard to our

1 The recent Treaty with France is a notable step in the right direc-
tion— but for this we are probably largely indebted to the benignity and
tact of His Majesty.

The Burden of Empire 299

status, we could indeed take the initiative l — in any
movement for the reduction of armaments ; and
should steadfastly uphold the principle of arbitration,
and endeavour to dispel (a difficult task, it must be
admitted) the distrust due to our breach of the
spirit of the Hague Convention almost before its
ink was dry. Of the need of War Office reform it
is scarcely necessary to say a word after the Report
of the Commission on the War in South Africa,
but the moral is that reckless militarism begets
extravagance, incompetence, and waste, and that
nations which engage in robbery must expect to be
robbed in the process. It is a fitting incident in a
campaign of blundering and plundering — blundering
in the Cabinet, blundering in the field, plundering
of territory, and plundering of independence — that
the like blundering and plundering should extend
to the incidental equipment ; but if a tithe of the
indignation expressed at the depredations affecting
ourselves had been expressed at the depredations
affecting others, it would have been more to the
purpose. Certain it is, however, that we can, if we
like, practise an extensive economy in two directions,
namely, in the reduction of outlay and in the
avoidance of waste. Upon both these points, as
well as upon the general policy of pacification, Sir
Michael Hicks-Beach may again be appropriately
quoted, since the counsels of a Conservative and
Imperialist, and one who has had control of the public

1 A proposal made by Sir John Brumell was carried unanimously at
the Peace Conference held in Vienna in 1904, to the effect that the
Committee of the Hague Conference should be called together to re-
commend what steps might wisely be taken to reduce the naval and
military expenditure of the great European Powers.

300 Racial Supremacy

purse, may command attention on the part of some
of those with whom party or patriotic bias discounts
appeals to pure reason.

" He had always told his constituents that he was not
in favour of the maintenance of a large permanent army
in this country. He did not believe it was necessary. He
looked upon our fleet as our great defence. But he knew
very well that such a sentiment would arouse the deepest
indignation on behalf of the service members of the House
of Commons and military experts. . . . There might very
easily be a reduction in our military estimates ... if the
War Office properly expended their money. He doubted
if there was any one outside that Office who believed that
they did.1 . . . c There is a great difference between an
effective and an expensive army. One may have a
military system which is perfect, and which at the same
time is founded on wise economy. The military establish-
ment which we sanction should be a model rather than a
force adequate to any great occasion which might here-
after arise.' . . . More than this, let them all remember that
the safety of the country depended not only upon our
material strength, but upon our policy. . . . Let us carry
out the golden rule of doing to others as we would wish
them to do to us. Let us, while keeping our powder dry,
be careful to avoid provocation, whether of word or action.
Let us estimate at their true value, which was nothing, the
vapourings of the sensational press, whether at home or
abroad, and let us not always consider it a menace or an
injury to ourselves if a foreign nation followed our own ex-
ample by founding some station for the benefit of its trade,
or even annexing a certain territory in a country which
hitherto in barbarous hands had yielded nothing
to the welfare of mankind. Whatever our wealth,
and whatever our strength, it was on that policy, and
on that policy alone, that the welfare of our people

1 This was spoken before the publication of the Report of the South
African War Commission.

The Burden of Empire 301

could be secured and the greatness of our Empire
maintained." 1

This much is clear ; if we are to be saved, we
shall have to work out our own salvation. To our
Colonies it is vain to look for help ; and, although
we are bound to defend them if attacked, and
although they identified themselves with us in our
last gigantic Imperial enterprise, there is at least
this to be said on their behalf, that they did not
create our National Debt, that they have not the
slightest control over our expenditure, and that they
possess no effective voice in the determination of
our policy. Certainly they give not the slightest
indication of an intention to come to our assistance ;
and whilst tradition, kinship, and the ties of race
partly operate in the direction of maintaining the
status quo, there seems little doubt that their
allegiance is largely based upon self-interest, and
that if and when they thought it to their advantage
to sever the connection, they would not hesitate to
sever it.

Is this rank heresy ? Then listen to the colonial
view as expounded by a colonial : —

" It is the present writer's opinion that unless a recon-
sideration of the relations between the two great sections of
the Empire — the Islanders and the Outside — is made,
unless the Englishman is prepared to ... abdicate some
part of the title of ' Predominant Partner/ which the
history of the past has naturally enabled him to assume,
this vast agglomeration called the British Empire will
prove to be not a living organisation but a mere aggrega-
tion of units, bound together by no common tie, and

1 Speech at Bristol, September 29, 1902.

30 2 Racial Supremacy

liable to destruction at the first moment of stress. . . .
[The Colonies] must either be taken into the joint business
on terms that recognise their responsibilities and also their
rights, or they must withdraw and set up business for
themselves. ' But,' says the Englishman, * that happily
cannot occur. The Colonies have shown their loyalty to
us in unmistakable terms : they sent us contingent after
contingent with the utmost readiness and enthusiasm.
If a war broke out to-morrow they would unhesitatingly
throw in their lot with us.' That is a pleasant and a com-
fortable faith. The only unsatisfactory point about such
a complacent bulwark of self-satisfaction is that such a
belief is quite unfounded. Here the Englishman suffers
from that radically wrong point of view which apparently
is the inevitable result of his regrettable insularity. The
Colonies are not loyal to England. The fact has been
insisted upon again and again ; apparently it is necessary
to insist upon it till the end. . . . No, the loyalty to his
own particular island, of which the Englishman is so
assured, does not exist save in a complacent belief due to
a wrong sense of the colonial's opinion of him. . . . And
it is surely unnecessary to point out that in the event of a
vital difference between the United Kingdom and one of
its unfranchised Colonies the loyalty towards England
would not survive five minutes after the first angry word
was spoken. Then the Motherland would have an oppor-
tunity to test the loyalty of its colonials — to themselves, to
each other. And in a large conflict of opinion between
England and any of her great colonial governments, there
is little doubt in the minds of those who know colonial
feeling that the event would be the signal for an outbreak
of sympathy between the Colonies directed against the
Mother Country. ... It must be quite apparent to such
an astute statesman as Mr Chamberlain that he cannot
hope to obtain one penny from the Colonies without
proffering them some very real privilege in exchange.
How, then, is he going to induce the Colonies to take
upon themselves the burden beneath which the United

The Burden of Empire 303

Kingdom is so pathetically staggering ? Certainly not by
an appeal to their gratitude. The Colonies, though swift
in sympathy and generous in their charities, are not
of a grateful frame of mind. They have too confident
a belief in themselves to admit that there is need of their
gratitude. The colonial is assured of his ability to protect
himself, and of the splendid future before his colony. He
is a grown man now, with a man's conceptions of his
advantages." l

The remedy propounded by the writer of the
above for averting the threatened disruption (he
exhibits no enthusiasm for reciprocal tariffs) is the
establishment of an Imperial Federal Council for
Imperial affairs consisting of a lower chamber in
which the United Kingdom would possess twenty
representatives and the Colonies six, and an upper
chamber in which the United Kingdom would
possess nine representatives and the Colonies twelve,
the two houses in case of conflict to sit as one,
giving the United Kingdom twenty-nine votes to
eighteen ; the apparent effect of which would be to
make Ireland master of the situation (what an
opportunity for " wiping off old scores "), since a
transference of her five votes to the Colonies would
leave Great Britain with a bare majority of one, and
of course result in an impasse if not in disintegration.
What, however, here concerns us is the frank avowal
that the Colonies are not loyal to the Mother
Country, that they pursue their own interests, that
they would stand by each other against Great
Britain, and that they can face the possibility of
severance with equanimity.

1 "A Colonial View of Colonial Loyalty." By Arthur H. Adams.
The Nineteenth Century and After ', October 1903, p. 525.

304 Racial Supremacy

Nor can it be truthfully retorted that this is an
isolated opinion, for there are many indications that
it is not far from accurate. It is a reflex of
Australian sentiment ; and almost simultaneously
there comes evidence of a similar sentiment on the
part of Canada, where geographical, commercial,
economical, racial and social conditions point to the
contingency of an ultimate union with the great
American Republic. Says Dr Goldwin Smith : —

" The tie which binds Canada as a dependency to the
Imperial country has, by successive concessions of self-
government, been worn thin. . . . Canadian writers bewail
the betrayal of Canadian interests to the Americans by the
weakness of British diplomacy. ... It is affirmed by
some that the sentiment of Canadian nationality and of
recoil from connection with the Americans has of late been
on the increase. . . . National sentiment in the proper
sense of the term is out of the question, Canada not being
a nation but a colonial dependency ; unless, indeed, there is
an anticipation of independence. . , . Of actual shrinking
from association with Americans, social, commercial or
industrial, there is no visible sign. . . . There is, however,
no danger of violent or precipitate changes unless Great
Britain should be induced to declare war against the
United States." l

The Australian suggestion of an Imperial Council,
as a means of promoting unity, would apparently
not meet with substantial support in Canada ; for
Dr Smith indicates that, although Imperial Federa-
tion has been preached by a small but enthusiastic
party for many years, it has never assumed a
tangible shape ; whilst as regards the new fiscal
proposals, he inquires what reason there is for

1 " Canada, the Empire and Mr Chamberlain." The Monthly
Review, October 1903, p. 38.

The Burden of Empire 305

presuming that all parts of the Empire ought, in
defiance of the indications of nature, and at great
risk of incurring the commercial enmity of other
nations, to be forced into a fiscal union. Another
Canadian writer is strongly condemnatory of the
" new Imperialism " and at the same time more
outspoken as to the trend of events towards
separation.

" I venture to think that Imperialists have done a good
deal to weaken the British connection by bringing forward
schemes that involve reactionary changes in our relations
with Britain. It is always wise to let well enough alone.
. . . The whole theory of the New Imperialism rests on
the flimsiest sort of underpinning. In the first place the
notion of a federated Empire, of a permanent union between
the Mother Country and the Colonies, is based on the
unsafe doctrine of ' once a Colony always a Colony ' ; on
the supposition that Canada, for instance, is never to enter
upon full national life, but is to remain, what she is now,
an imperfectly developed organism. . . . We have been
casting off, one by one, the regulation swaddling bands of
a British Colony.1 . . . We are satisfied with the exist-
ing connection with Britain, but are not going to permit
the new Imperialists to degrade, to take away any
portion of our self-government — not even the right to do
wrong to ourselves ; and certainly we are not at this day
going to break with the faith and traditions of the New
World so far as to serve as mercenaries in the Old. Our
ambition, indeed, lies in quite another direction. We
hope to grow in wisdom and stature and in favour with
God and man, so that when the time comes for us to
proclaim our independence, we may start in the path
of industry and peace, and continue therein to our

1 "We are not accustomed," says Sir Wilfred Laurier, "to being
dragooned in this country." Speech in the House of Commons,
Ottawa, June 10, 1904.

U

306 Racial Supremacy

own advantage and the honour of the Anglo-Saxon
name." l

There is thus brought into relief one possible
development by which the burden of Empire might
be materially further lightened, namely, by the
withdrawal of the most costly section ; whilst we get
colonial testimony that the latest schemes of English
Imperialists are calculated to hasten rather than
retard the process.2 It may of course be very im-
politic, and even very wrong, for our children to
think of renouncing the filial tie ; but to offer either
admonition or rebuke would not alter facts, and
unpleasant retorts might be provoked at censure on
the part of a nation accustomed to pursue its own
interests (or supposed interests) without regard to
others, and to impose its will upon them when too
weak to resist. The position, on the one hand, is
that we incur a heavy expenditure partly for the
protection of the Colonies, that the latter have no
intention of sharing it, and are quite prepared to
dispense with the protection ; and on the other (as
we are told on high authority and not without
reason), that we cannot continue for all time to
incur the expenditure or make this inordinate
sacrifice.

The possibility of separation is one which a
" Little Englander " would scarcely dare on his own
initiative even to hint at, and it is certainly not
a consummation devoutly to be wished. But, since it

1 " Canada and the New Imperialism." By E. Farrer. The Con-
temporary Review i December 1903, p. 761.

2 The above, of course, refers to reciprocal tariffs ; but it may be
added that Australian opinion as regards the introduction of Chinese
labour into the Transvaal equally tends in the same direction.

The Burden of Empire 307

is a possibility candidly recognised, both by Colonials
and British Imperialists, to briefly suggest what it
would mean, if realised, may not be unprofitable.
Probably it would involve a loss of prestige, a
diminution of influence, and a decrease of power.
Yet, seeing the shock administered in South Africa
to our prestige, influence, and power, the experience
would not be new, and apparently would not even be
chastening. The alteration in the political status
would be more sentimental than substantial, for our
Colonies are now " independent sister nations," 1 not
controlled by us ; and, unless the termination of our
nominal suzerainty resulted from previous ill-feeling,
there is no reason why the sisterly regard should
diminish. Kinship, at any rate, must remain ; and
even now we could as ill afford to quarrel with our
American cousins as with our Colonial brethren.
But progress, after all, consists in paying less regard
to racial ties and more regard to the common bond
of humanity. ^What is race, that men should range
themselves in hostile camps, according to their petty
distinctions, and ignore the great fundamental com-
munity of interest of all human beings ? We
ourselves are composed of diverse elements and not
a little of our virility is due to the fact. Our very
language, on which the " larger hope " of the unity
of the " English-speaking race " is founded, exhibits
the like characteristics ; and why those whose speech
is the result of a somewhat different blend should be
excluded from this larger hope is not easy to under-
stand. Defoe, who in his caustic True-born English-

1 This, it may be recalled, is Mr Chamberlain's description of them.
See p. 7.

308 Racial Supremacy

man unkindly describes our progenitors as " an
amphibious ill-born mob," tells us that they left a
" shibboleth upon our tongue,"

" By which with easy search you may distinguish
Your Roman-Saxon-Danish-Norman-English,"

and the satire is worth reviving. The emphasising
of racial variations by so composite a people as
ourselves is not without its humour, but it has its
grave aspects in being distinctly antagonistic to the
nobler ideal. In any case, if we are to base union
upon kinship, let it be a kinship of affection and not
of selfishness. That our Colonies should remain
attached to us and we to them, every one must
desire ; but if the attachment is to be made the
subject of bargaining, and is to result in antipathy
to the foreigner, it is robbed of its ethical value.
Certain it is that, if we are wise, we shall in no case
take upon ourselves a greater share of the burden of
Empire ; if we cannot continue to make this in-
ordinate sacrifice, if we cannot " go on in this way,"
it is clear that we must not add to the sacrifice, and
must find a more excellent way. And that way we
must devise for ourselves.

Whilst our Colonies exhibit no inclination to
come to our rescue, it is, we have seen, equally vain
to turn our eyes to India. Although we do rule
that impoverished country, we cannot in all conscience
attempt to exact more than we do, even if it were
possible to exact more. Indeed, our obvious duty
is to exact less, and to initiate such reforms in
government as shall afford material pecuniary
relief. In doing this we need not increase our own

The Burden of Empire 309

taxation,1 for whilst India is " bled," the British tax-
payer, as has been indicated,2 does not derive benefit
from the bleeding. But, at the same time, he cannot
and ought not to look to India for any relief; she is not
responsible for the burden, has had no voice in its
creation, and is prostrate under her own burden.
With all our pride of possession and glory of
dominion, we stand alone, a weary Titan staggering
under the too vast orb of our fate ; there is none to
help us in our " splendid isolation," and amelioration
can only come from ourselves.

Empire, as has been previously pointed out,3
means bondage not less for the Imperial than for
the subservient race. In dictating to others we our-
selves succumb to a dictator ; in fostering parasitism
we become its victims ; in imposing our yoke upon
the weak we tax our own strength. And Empire
has always spelt decay, if not ruin ; Athens, Sparta,
Rome, Spain, all tell the same tale. Militarism, by
which alone dominion is maintained and expanded,
eats into the heart of the Empire.

We have vast wealth, abundant internal resources,
and bright potentialities — a goodly heritage which
cannot be squandered in a day. We can no doubt
make long the broad road that leads to destruction ;
but the destination is the same, and must ultimately
be reached if we pursue the journey. Or we can,
if so determined, arrest our steps ; we can to some
extent regain lost ground, and we can seek a nobler

JIn equity, however, we ought ourselves to bear a considerable
portion — at least 5 millions— of the Indian "Home Charges."
2 See page 293. 3 Pages 33-35.

i o Racial Supremacy

path. Our safety lies where our honour lies ; not
in fostering empire, dominion, predominance ; but in
promoting autonomy, liberty, brotherhood. Egoism,
not less than altruism, bids us abjure the doctrine of
Racial Supremacy.

INDEX

ACTON, LORD, 31

Actual India, 27

Adams, A. H., 303

Adulteration, 90, 108

Adult suffrage, 56, 82

Afghanistan, 3

Africa, 61, 194, 195, 248 (and see

South Africa)
Aggression, 155, 200, 203-4, 213,

225, 277, 279, 285, 287-8 (and

see Conquest)

Agnosticism, 156, 212, 213
Agriculture, 116, 118, 145-7 (and

see Land)

Alien rule (see Imperialism)
Aliens, 180-1
Altruism, 52, 227, 256-7, 310

(and see Humanitarianisni)
America, 7, 78, 143, 150, 224,

248, 284-5, 304, 307 (and see

Canada)

American wars, 224, 284-5, 29J
Amity, 155, 287-8, 297-8 (and see

Peace]

Ansemics, 173-4
Anarchy, 220
Anne, Queen, 284
Annexation, II, 73-74, 77, 159,

176, 188, 224
Apostasy, 72-81, 169
Arbitration, 74, 187, 299
Armaments, 277, 280, 287-8, 290,

299

Armenia, II, 61, 224, 289
Army, 23, 28, 253, 276-8, 280,

286-8, 293, 300 (and see Mili-
tarism)

Arnold, Arthur, 47
Ashley, Prof., 141
Asia, 195 (and see separate

countries)
Atonement, The, 269

Atonement, vicarious, 221

Australia, 6, 7, 117, 130, 143, 189,
268, 292, 304, 306

Autocracy, 18, 236

Autonomy. (See Self -Govern-
ment.)

BACKWARD RACES. (See Subject

Races.')
Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., 95,

96, 132, 133
Barbarism, 205, 219, 248, 253

, methods of, 36, 159, 253

Beach. (See Hicks- Beach.}

Beaconsfield, Earl of, 3

Bechuana, 250, 252

Bechuana Troubles, The, 250

Belgium, 248-9

Beneficence. (See Benevolence.')

Benevolence, 216, 228, 230-3,

236-7, 249, 253, 259
Benevolent Despotism, 56, 214-

216, 228, 230-3, 236-7, 245-6,

249-56, 259, 261, 271-2
Bennett, Dr, 47
Benson, A. C., 201
Bevan, Dr L., 47, 54
Bias, class, 59
, national, 59, 164, 166, 169,

173-4, 176, 199, 202 (and see

Patriotism)

Birmingham, 66, 118-119, 121-2
Blacks and Whites in South

Africa, 250
Blathwayt, R., 269
Blind, Dr Karl, 185
Bloemfontein Conference, 187
Blue Books, 19, 22, 23, 33, 93,

134, 149, 153, 194, I9&-9, 249,

289, 292, 299
Blundering, 60, 299
Boastfulness, 10, 203, 258

3"

Index

BOERS, The :

Characteristics of, 37, 161,

176, 190-2, 197
References to, 14, 62, 84,
173, 1 80, 182, 187, 189,
207
Republics, 15, 170, 184, 186,

192, 206, 208
BOER WAR, The :

Apologia for, 170-200, 206,

208
Causes of, 74, 178-9, 183-8,

250, 285

Characteristics of, 13, 14, 32,
37, 159, 1 60, 200, 203,
227, 253, 299
Cost of, 121, 153, 189, 199,

275, 284-5, 291, 297
Effects of, 1 6, 121, 123, 153,

1 60- 1, 193-200, 206-7
Nature of, n, 73, 75, 78
Bonnerjee, W. C., 26, 241
Borneo, 247
Bourne, Fox, 250
Bourneville, 115

Bowles, Gibson, M.P., 275-6, 289
Bowley, Prof., 97
Boycotting, 101-2
Bradlaugh, C., 212
Breakfast-table duties, 79, 117,

128 (and see Taxation, Food}
Brewers, 49, 68, 79
Bribes, 117, 125, 129-130, 152,297
BRITISH EMPIRE, The :

Area of, 8, 93, 214, 229
Assets of, 290-4
Burden of, 273-310
Composition of, 5, 7°-I> 214,

282-3, 301
Growth of, i, 93-4, 122, 216,

253, 278, 285
Population of, 92-3, 214
Problem of, 255-272
References to, 3, 39, 63, 121,

124, 174-5
Rule of, 8, 214, 215, 238,

245-7, 257-272
(And see separate countries)
British Flag. (See Flag, The.}
British India, 227
British Rule in India, 26

Broadhurst, Henry, 46
Brotherhood, 36, 77, 86, 168, 213,

256, 298, 310
Browning, Robert, 46
Brumell, Sir J., 299
Burden of Empire, 273-310 (and

see Imperial expenditure)
Bureaucracy, 236, 242
Burns, John, M.P., 37, 77

CAINE, W. S., 26
Campbell, Rev. R. J., 2IO-II
Canada, 6, 7, 116, 130, 189, 268,

291, 304-6

Canada and the Empire ', 68
Canada and the New Imperialism,

306
Canada, the Empire, and Mr

Chamberlain, 304
Can the South solve the Negro

problem? 270
Cape Colony, 7, 15, 130, 1 80- 1,

264, 291-2
Capital-ists, 9, 93, 100-1, 107, 144,

H7, 195, 250, 282, 297
Carnegie, A., 291
Cartwright, A., 32
Catholicity, 204, 213, 222
Chamberlain, Right Hon. A., 277
CHAMBERLAIN, RT. HON. J., and
Boers, 6, 15, 73, 180, 190-2
Characteristics, 4, 9, 41, 70,
74,89,115,120-3,153,295
Colonies, 7, 15, 67, 117, 189,

193, 292, 302, 306-7
Conservatives, 119, 122-3
Empire, the, 6, 9, 39, 121-4
Free Trade. (See Protection. )
Imperialism, 4, 9, 69, 89,

115, 121-2, 279
Kaffirs, 190-194
Liberalism, 41, 46, 73, 118
Preferential Tariffs, 67, 117,

119-120, 127-130, 302
Protection, 67, 89, 117-125

128, 130, 138, 295
Rhodes, Rt. Hon. C., 4, 184
South Africa, 6, 15, 73, 121

123, 157, 180, 190-5
Children, 13, 80, 200, 207, 227,
233-5, 270, 272

Index

3*3

Chinese, 32, 194-6, 247, 306
Chosen Nation, 10, 58, 157, 160,

168, 205, 210
CHRIST, 106, 154-5, 158-9, 161,

164, 168, 205, 210
Christianity, 154-5* IS8~9, 164-

171, 201, 208-13, 220, 227
CHURCH, The :

Apologia of, 169-200, 205
Established, 48-9, 154, 162-3,

171

Imperialism, and, 154-213
Militant, 154-169, 202
Mission of, 155, 167
Patriotic, 200-213, 258
Power of, 154-6, 162, 167,

213

Responsibility of, 164-7
Tribal deity of, 161, 202, 211
War, and, 155-163, 169-200,

205-208, 210-13
City Liberal Club, 62, 70
Civilisation, 157,223-7, 231, 251,

253. 269

Civilisation in Congo Land, 250
Clarke, J., M.A., 227
Classes, The, 48-9, 59
"Clean Slate, "43, 64, 71, 84
Clergy, The, 49, 79, 80, 154-213

(and see Church)
Clifford, Dr, 30, 174
Coal duty, 127

Coercion, 10, 51-53,80,84-5, 163,
231 (and see Despotism, Force,
and Liberty)
Colonial View of Colonial Loyalty,

303
COLONIES :

Autonomous, 5, 7, 15, 125,

189, 214, 262, 264, 283,

301-7
Burdens, as, 3, 291-2, 301,

306, 308

Contributions of, 283, 290-4
Crown, 193, 214, 246, 260,

283

Debts of, 143
Federation and, 303-5
Independence of, 7, 189, 263,

301-7
Population of, 8, 125, 214

COLON i ES — continued.

Preferential tariffs, and, 116,

117, 119, 120, 128, 130-1,

146, 274, 297, 308
Reciprocity, and, 67, 131-2,

303-5

Separation of, 262-3, 3OI~7
(And see separate Colonies)

Commerce. (See Trade.)

Commercialism and Imperialism,
87-153, 249-50, 294

Competition, in, 141, 151

Compromise, 236

Conceit, 55, 256, 257 (and see
Pride)

Conciliation Act, 79

Conduct, 13-16, 55-8,73,81,110-
114, 149, 150, 157, 165, 167,
203-4, 227, 245, 255, 293, 306
(and see Ethics)

Confectionery Trades, 128

Congo, 248-250

Conquest, 2, II, 33, 35, 58, 95,
213, 217, 220-3, 226-9, 249-56,
274, 296-8 (and see Subjugation)

Conscience, 78, 164, 171, 256

Conscription, 62

Conservatism, 40-1, 45, 49, 56,
60-1, 66, 68, 74-7, 119, 122-3

Consumer, 112, 126-8, 130, 142

Consumption, no, 112, 136

Contemporary Review, 306

Convention, Hague, 78, 187, 299

, Transvaal, 181

Cook, E. T., 19

Corn Laws, 118-9, I44~5

Cost of production, 106, 109, 114,
140, 145, 148

Cotton, Sir H., 24, 26, 242-3,
268

Country right or wrong, 76, 209
(and see Patriotism)

Crime, 16, 75, 78, 175, 220

Crimean War, 78, 284

Cruelty, 13, 157, 219, 226, 245,
248-9, 270, 288 (and see In-
humanity and Tyranny)

Cuba, 248

Cunningham, Prof., 141

Curzon, Failure of Lord, 27, 267

Curzon, Lord, 18, 26-7, 242, 267

Index

DAILY MAIL, THE, 124

Daily News, The, 247, 249

Decoys, 252-3

Defence, national, 286-8, 290,
295. 300, 306

, self. 176, 182-4, 230

Defiance, 10, 117,277, 286, 296-8

Defoe, D., 307-8

Delagoa Bay, 185

Delhi Durbar, 27, 243-4

Demand, 99-102, 111-12, 136, 138
(and see Markets)

Democracy, 15, 48, 73, 206, 236,
263 (and see Self- Government)

Demoralisation, 11-16, 167,207-8,
258 (and see Conduct)

Denmark, 143

Dependencies, 5, 8, 125, 214, 229,
246-7, 256-7

Dervishes, 227

Despotism, 73, 163, 219, 224, 227,
249, 255, 264, 269 (and see
Benevolent Despotism and Con-
duct)

Devonshire, Duke of, 70, 124

Digby, W., 19-26, 29-30, 244

Disestablishment, 48, 163

Disfranchisement, 181, 194

Distribution. (See Wealth.)

Disutility, 106-111, 140, 148-

Divine right, 58, 160, 175

Doles, 49, 79

Doyle, Sir Conan, 13, 185

Drink, 48-9, 63, 68, 71, 79

Dumping, 137-9

Dutch, African, 13, 32, 181, 187,

207 (and see Boers)
Dutt, R. C., 26, 244

ECCLESIASTICISM, 154-213 (and

see Church and Clergy)
Economic Notes on Insular Free

Trade, 132

Economics, 26, 50, 87-153
Education, 66, 68, 71-2, 234, 259,

260, 270
Education, National, The Struggle

for, 163

Edward VII., 244, 298
Efficiency, 71, 149, 299

Egoism, 83, 257, 310 (and see

Pride and Selfishness)
Egypt, 214, 246, 253
Elgar, Sir E., 201
Elliott, Sir C. A., 25
Emancipation, 259-265, 271-2
EMPIRE :

Burden of, 273-310
Creation of, I, 10, n, 34, 58,
74, 122, 201, 208, 217, 253,
262, 288

Ethics of, 214-272
Problem of, 255-272
(And see British Empire and

Imperialism)
Emporialism, 9
Energy, 108, no, 145
England, 35, 73, 181, 189, 197,

201, 203 (and see Gt. Britain)
England in Egypt, 246
English-speaking race, 307-8
English, composite nation, 307-8
Enmity, 2, 208, 277, 287 (and see

Hatred)

Envy, i, 10, 53, 202, 208
Equality, 36, 47, 50-5, 75-7, 82-6,

188-191, 197
Ethics, 11-16, 36, 51-3, 57-8, 73,

81-6, 105-7, 115, 127, 133, 152,

155-9, 164-9, I75-6. 182,187-8,

200-13, 216-36, 225-8, 261-3,

271-2, 307-8 (and see Conduct)
Ethics of Empire, 214-272
Ethics, Principles of , II, 205, 226
Europe, 195, 224, 277, 288, 299
Evatt, Surgeon-General, 247
Evolution, 268, 272
Exchange, 90, 102-3, IO6» no,

I3I> !35~7 (and see Trade)
Exchequer, National, 80, 128-9,

280
Exploitation, 22, 108-112, 149-50,

196-8, 249-51, 255, 272
Exploitation of Inferior Races,

250
Exports, 92-9, 103, in, 118, 129,

135, 153

PARIAN TRACTS, 97, 241
Facts and Comments, 5, 10, n
Failure of Lord Curzon, 27, 267

Index

3'5

Fair Trade, 118-119 (and see

Protection)

Fallibility, 167, 237, 256
Falsehood, 13, 161, 166, 191
" Falsely True," 167-8
Famines. (See India.)
Fanaticism, 167
Farmers, 128-9, 147, 252
Farrer, E., 306
Fashoda, 61-2
Fatalism, 13, 208
Federation, 213, 264, 268, 303-4
Female suffrage, 56, 82
Finance, 23, 207, 275-8, 286-292,

298-300

Financiers, 8-9, 23, 178-9, 194
Financial News, 133
Financial Reform Almanack, 92,

94

Finland, 248

Flag, the, 8, 9, 37, 87, 91-2, 95,

117, 124, 249, 262, 294
Food :

Homegrown, 114, 129, 145
Imported, 101, 129, 141 (and

see Imports)
Taxes on, 79, 116-120, 127-

130, 141, 145-7

Force, 10, 34, 152, 155-9, 217-224,
262, 270 (and see Coercion and
War)

Foreigners, 51, 117, 124, 127,
132-142, 145-6, 202, 279,
300

Foreign investments, 93, 98
Foreign policy, 50-4, 59, 203,

300
Fowler, Right Hon. Sir H., 19,

238

France, 61, 143, 149, 284, 298
Franchise, 56, 181, 260

, Transvaal, 73, 178, 1 80, 194

(and see Self- Government)
Fraternity. (See Brotherhood.)
Freedom. (See Liberty.)
Freedom of speech, 33, 76
Free Institutions. (See Self-

Government. )
FREE TRADE :

Benefits of, 103-4, 1 16, 134-8,
143, 149, 151

FREE TRADE — continued.

National minimum and, 148-

151

Principles of, 126-8, 142
References to, 66-8, 120,

123-5, J40, 144-5
(And see Protection)
Freight, 93, 98

GARDEN CITIES, 115
General election (1900), 63, 77
Georges, Kings, 284
Germany, 90, 117, 138, 143, 149
Ghose Lai Mohun, 243-4
Giffen, Sir R., 7, 97
Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E., 3,
4, 3i, 36, 45. 59, 61-2, 66, 203,
260

Gladstone, Life of W. E., 260
Glasgow University, 5, 63
Glory, 34, 87, 197, 201, 203, 258,

280, 294

Gold, 22, 92-3, 117
Golden Rule, 53, 298, 300
Good Samaritan, 204
Gordon, General, 208
Gospels, The, 158, 164, 202, 204,

205, 212
GOVERNMENT :

Alien, I, 17, 55, 229-255,
261-4, 271 (and see Im-
perialism)

Indian. (See India.)
Self. (See Self -Government.)
The, 60- 1, 68-9, 74~9, 121,

171, 185-6, 193
Transvaal, 15, 73, l8o-i, 189,

196-9, 206-7

Graduated income-tax, 50
Grant in aid, 130, 150
Great Boer War, The, 185
Great Britain, 75, 123, 135, 147-8,
154, 159, 206, 257, 264, 287,
293, 303 (and see England and
United Kingdom)
Great men, 258
Greed, 8, 36, 208, 280
Grondwet, The, 206
Ground Landlords, 79, 117-120,
128-130, 144-7 (and see Land)
Ground values, 48

316

Index

HAGUE CONVENTION, 78, 187, 299
Hamilton, Lord George, 19, 21,

25, 238

Harrison, Frederic, 174
Hatred, 52, 155, 166-8, 208, 256
Health, 106-9, H4-5, i45-6> 150
Helots, 177-8, 207
Herbert, B., 68
Hereford, Bishop of, 174, 196
Hicks-Beach, Right Hon. Sir

Michael, 277-8, 292, 299-301
History, 78, 157-9
Hobhouse, Miss, 32
Hobson, J. A., 109, 123, 216
" Holy War," 156, 162
Home Rule, 4, 45, 61-2, 64, 84
Hong Kong, 247
House of Lords, 48, 56, 59, 8l
Housing, 63, 71, 114
Humanitarianism, 52, 54, 174-5,

204, 222-8, 230-3, 255-7, 261
Humanity, 168-9, 2O3> 232> 244,

262, 279, 307
Hypocrisy, 165, 167

IDEALS, 161, 168, 188
Ignorance, 17, 117, 152, 206-7,

228, 280, 302
"Illth," 107, in
Imperial Expenditure :

Amount of, 282-294

Growth of, 273-282

Reduction of, 294-310
Imperial Federation, 303-4
Imperial Liberal Council, 40
IMPERIALISM :

Analysis of, 8-10, 58, 83, 280,
285, 296

Bane of. (See Products of. }

Burden of, 273-310

Colonies and. (See Colonies.}

Commercialism and, 67, 87-
153, 249-50, 294

Conservatism and, 56, 75> I22

Cost of, 87, 153, 273-9, 284-
290, 294, 297-8

, reduction of, 294-310

Definition of, 4-6, 37

Demoralising influence of,
11-16, 35-7, 73-6, 160-1,

202-4, 211, 298

IMPERIALISM — continued.

Ecclesiasticism and, 154-213
Ethics and, 214-272 (and see

Ethics}

Freedom and, 31-5, 50-1, 55,
78, 85, 152, 214, 216-7,
221, 225, 228-235, 251-5,
270

Liberalism and, 38-86
Modern, birth of, 3

, growth of, 1-4, 216-7,

228
Nature of, 4-10, 31, 35, 37,

55-7, 85, 280, 285, 296
Patriotism and, 166, 175-6,

190, 200- 1

Products of, 11-16, 19-37,

57-9, 65, 72-6, 79-8L, 112,

125, 152, 160-1, 193-213,

216, 293, 295, 298, 309

Protection and, 68, 117,

121-5, 274

Subject races, and. (See Sub-
ject.}
Trade and, 87-96, 109-112,

151-2

(And see Chamberlain, Em-
pire, Rhodes and Rosebery}
Imperialism, a Study, 123, 216
Imperium et Libertas, 34-5
Imports, 22, 92-4, 98-103, II ,

126-132, I35-H2, 151, 1S3
Income, average, 20

, national, 93, 97, 99, 103

Income Tax, graduated, 50
Inconsistency, 14, 42, 75, 82-5,

120, 181, 200-213
Independence, 36, 51, 74-5, 159,
163, 168, 173, 176, 179, 182,
188-9, 261 (and see Colonies}
Independent Review, 151
INDIA :

Acquisition of, 58, 227, 253
Army of, 23, 28, 33, 239, 293
Authorities on, 19, 24-7,

238-44

Delhi Durbar, 27, 243-4
Drain upon, 22, 24, 27-9, 33,

198, 250, 293, 308-9
Emancipation of, 265-8, 308
Exploitation of. (See Drain.}

Index

3r7

INDIA — continued.

Famines of, 21-5, 29, 238,

240, 244, 293
Government of, 8, 18-30, 33,

56, 58, 238-45, 265-7, 294,

308

Home charges, 24, 309
Ignorance as to, 17-18, 244-5
Income, average of, 20
Intellect of, 265, 267-8
Irrigation of, 23, 25, 240
Land system of, 23, 29, 33,

240-4

Life, average duration of, 24
National Congress of, 244,

265
Official riewsof, 18, 22-6, 29,

238

Population of, 17, 238, 241
Poverty of, 19-30, 240-2, 244,

293, 3°8-9

Press and, 25, 28-9, 242-4
Railways of, 23, 27
Taxation of, 20-1, 24, 27-9,
33, 239-40, 243-4, 266-7,
293

Trade of, 22-3, 141, 241-2
India, Actual, 27
India in the Victorian Age, 26
India, New, 24, 26, 242-3, 267-

268

India, Ruining of , The, 29, 267
Indian Policy, 240, 266
Indians in Transvaal, 198-9, 252
Indies, West, 117, 128
Industrial Democracy, ill, 150
Industry, 49, 86, 101, 107-8,
115-6, 130, 137-140, I45» H8
(and see Trade]
Inhumanity, 14, 175, 219, 226,

248 (and see Cruelty}
Inquisition, The, 167
Instinct, 174-5, 202
Interest, 23, 93, 98, 286, 295
International Affairs, 51

, Law, 181

, Trade. (See Trade.}

Ireland, 45, 56, 80, 84, 303 (and

see United Kingdom)
Ishmaelites, 277
Isolation, 309

JAMESON, Dr, 181, 184
Jealousy, 52, 124 (and see Envy}
" Jekyll and Hyde," 84
Jesuitism, 15, 17, 57
Jingo, 3

Justice, 32, 78, 86, 152, 160, 173-
175 (and see Ethics}

KAFFIRS, 188-194, 196-8, 245,

250-2

Kaiser-i-Hind, 243
King Edward VII., 244, 298

William III., 284-5

Kings, George, 284
Kruger, Ex-President, 160

LABOUR :

Cheap, no, 194-8, 250-2
Exploitation of, 107-119, 147-

151, 195-8, 250-2
Organisation of, 107, 113-15,

146-7
Produce of, 49, 97-99, 104,

107, 116
References to, 71, 79, 100,

1 06, 144-5, 271
Specialisation of, 103-4, 148
(And see Wages}
Laisser-faire, 49

Land, 48, 71, 100, 116, 142, 147,
218, 263 (and see Ground Land-
lords}

Land Laws, 71, 146-7, 218
Land of Hope and Glory, 201
Lansdowne, Lord, 74, 185-6, 198
Lash, The, 194, 198, 252
Laurier, Sir W., 305
League of Liberals, 39-40, 240
Leisure, 114

Letters of Lord Acton, 31
Letters on War, 158
LIBERAL

Apostasy, The, 72-81
Debacle, A, 38-42, 72, 81-6
Degenerate, A, 59-72
Dissensions, 38, 42, 75
Imperialists, 2, 40, 64, 83-4
League, 40, 71

Party, 36, 38, 64, 70-3, 77,
82, 123, 1 86 (and see
Liberalism}

Index

LIBERAL — continued.

Scottish, Association, 69
Unionists, 40, 64-6, 83-4
Liberal, Why I am a, 45-6
LIBERALISM :

Definitions of, 45-7, 54
Foreign policy of, 50-4
Imperialism and, 38-86

, versus, 54-9, 65, 73-6,

84-6

Liberty, and (see Liberty)
Principles of, 42-4, 47-54, 71,

73-77, 82-86
Rationale of, 42-54
Rosebery, Lord, and, 59-72,

84, 294

Socialism and, 49-50
Liberalism and the Empire, 9,

250
LIBERTY :

Abrogation of, 31-5, 51, 55,
75, 78, 152, 182, 221-3,
228-230, 251-256
Church and, 163, 213
Collective, 49, 50, 219, 260-1
Conceptions of, 49, 50, 219,

263

Imperialism and (see Im-
perialism, Freedom]
Liberalism and, 46, 49-51,

54, 55, 75, 77, 85, 86
Progress and, 31, 259-264
Promotion of, 203, 259-63,

310
Life, 105, 109-111, 114, 150, 218,

219, 221, 273
Life and Teaching of Leo Tolstoy,

158

Lincoln, Abraham, 187
Liquor Traffic, 48, 68, 79
Little England-er, 86, 117, 124,

204, 285, 292, 306
London, 72, 79, 80, 178

County Council, 80

Loss, 137, 138, 280, 285
Love, 168, 211, 227, 234
Lower Races. (See Subject.}
Loyalty, 15, 117, 264, 290, 292,

302

Luxuries, 108, 141
Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. A., 13, 252

MACEDONIA, 11, 16, 224, 289
Madras, 28, 244.
Magna Charta, 33
Majuba, 61, 186, 208
Mai-distribution, 108, 113
Malmesbury, Earl of, 3
Malta, 246

Manchester School, 49
Manufactures, 101, 108-9, "4,

118, 129-130, 138-142, 147-8

(and see Trade]
Markets, 9, 87, 90, 100-104,

110-115, 123-4, 132, 136, 223,

249-250 (and see Trade]
Masses, The, 33, 48-9, 79, 250
Massingham, H. W., 60, 61
Me C 'lure's Magazine, 270
Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, 3
Methods of Barbarism, 36, 159,

253
Militarism, 34, 40, 69, 80, 276-

280, 284-300, 309 (and see

Coercion, Force, and War]
Military expenditure, 93, 276-8,

284-294, 298, 300
Mill, J. S., 131-2, 254
Milner, Lord, 13, 177, 199, 207,

246

Miners, 178-9, 193-8
Modern Israel, 10, 160, 174-5, 2O4
Moffat, Rev. J. S., 192
Monopoly, 48-51, 54~6, 79, "3,

116, 126, 132, 145-7, 162, 219,

25i

Montague, E. S., 68
Monthly Review, 304
Morality. (See Ethics.}
Morley, Right Hon. John, 32,

163, 192, 207, 245, 260, 297
Municipalisation, 50, 72
Murray, Prof. G., 250

NAOROJI, D., 26, 244
Natal, 130, 181, 252, 291-2
National

Bias. (See Patriotism.}
Debt, 80, 207, 276, 283-6,

289, 290, 295, 301
Expenditure, 87, 273-300
Income, 20, 93, 97~ioo, 139
Minimum, 150-1

Index

National — continued.

Prosperity, 88, 93, 95-6,

104-9, 132-3, 147-9, 309
Nationality, 51, 54, 121, 200-3,

222, 262-4 (and see Patriotism)
Nationalization, 146-7
Native Races. (See Subject.)
Natural Advantages, 103-4, 116,

134-5, 140, 148
Naturalization Act, 181
Naval Expenditure, 93, 276-7,

288-292, 298-300
Navy, 276-8, 286-8, 300
Nay lor, Thomas, 195
Necessaries, 107-8, 112, 218
Necessity, 14, 208
Negroes, 269-70 (and see Subject

Races)

Negro Problem, The, 270
Neighbour, 209
Nemesis, 35, 76-81, 152
Newcastle programme, 43
New India, 24-26, 242-3, 267-

268
New Markets, 9, 87, 93, 95-6,

110-115, 123-4, 223, 249-50
New Reform Club, 40, 195
New Zealand, 130
Nineteenth Century, The, 6 1, 65,

192, 303

Nonconformists, 78, 154, 160,

163, 171 (and see Church}
Nonconformist conscience, 78
Non-resistance, 158, 220
North American Review, 185
North Borneo, 247

OFFICIALS, 18, 24-29, no, in,

207, 238-240, 266-7
Old Age Pensions, 50, 80
Oligarchy, 18, 34, 206, 236
Opportunism, 82, 86
Oppression, 162-3, 176-7, 182,

197, 240 (and see Tyranny)
Orange River District, 15, 73, 78,

81, 1 86, 206, 208, 245 (and see

South Africa)
Organization of industry, 106-115,

146-149

Outhwaite, R. L., 207
Outlanders, 73, 176-181, 192

PARADOX, 189, 210, 221
Parasitic class, 106, no, 145, 207,
250, 309

trades, in, 148-151

Parental control, 233-5

Pariahs, 177-8

Passion, 86, 155, 162, 166, 169,

200
PATRIOTISM :

Bias, 59, 166, 176, 199
Influence of, 75, 78, 83, 163,
166, 174-6, 201-8, 209, 210,
224
Pride, 55, 83, 200-6, 209

(and see Pride, National}
References to, 54, 78, 85
Vices of, 156, 201-6, 209,

258

Patriotism and Ethics, 112, 210
Peace, 2, 70, 77, 86, 155, 157-9,
167, 174-5, 180-1, 208, 210,
213, 256, 275, 299
Pentateuch, The, 204
Perris, G. H., 158
Petition of Right, 33
Philippines, The, 248
Phillips, Capt. M., 178-9, 183
Plural voting, 56
Plutocracy, 34, 59, 260
Poland, II

Political Economy, 132
Political equality, 47-8, 50-55, 75,

77, 82-86
Polygamy, 193
Poor, The, 79, 112, 120, 250 (and

see Poverty)

Postal Service, 276, 285, 289
Poverty, 79, 81, 107-8, 112, 116,

149, 206, 250 (and see India)
Poverty and Un- British Rule in

India, 26
Predominance of Race :

British, 72, 74, 163, 165, 188-

189, 193, 197, 217, 262
Character of, 4-6, 54-5, 63,

72

Doctrine of, 51, 163, 310
Effect of, 37, 58, 83, 167
References to, 155-6, 213,

235, 256, 310
(And see Imperialism)

320

Index

Prejudice, 86, 164, 166, 169, 175,

199, 202, 209

Press, The, 13, 32, 178-9, 215, 300
Prestige, 16, 296, 307
Price, 101, 128, 130, 138-9

of Imperialism, 282-294

Pride, 83, 200, 204, 208, 269
, National, 8-10, 35-7, 55,

83~4, I73> 200-6, 209, 228,

256-7, 269, 280, 285, 296
Principles of Ethics, II, 205, 226

of Political Economy, 132

Privilege, 48, 50-1, 54, 56, 118,

162-3, 188-9, 191
Problem of Empire, 255-272
Problems of Indian Poverty, 241
Pro-Boers, 77, 86, 175
Production. (See Wealth.']
Profit, 35, 97, 107-113, 123, 126,

146-7, 194
Progress, II, 31, 41, 43-4, 53, 79,

86, 101, 212, 222, 225, 231-2,
256, 307

Proletariat, 33, 48-9, 79, 250
Property, 56, 79, 108, 118, 147

(and see Wealth)
Prosperity, 7, 14, 28, 87-8, 104,

1 06, 142, 147, 206, 309
Prosperous British India, 19
PROTECTION :

Chamberlain and, 67, 89, 1 17-

125, 127-130, 138, 295, 302

Colonies and. (See Colonies.)

Countries, foreign, and, 116,

125, 129, 133-146
Dumping, 137-139

Effects of, 116-123, 126-131,

137, 140-1, 151
Food and, 116-120, 127-130,

141, 146, 153
Manufactures and, 118, 119,

126, 128-130, 145
Objects of, 116-7, 128, 135,

141
Price and, 118, 120, 123, 126-

13°, r37~9
Raw material and, 119, 129,

130, 138, 141
Reciprocity, 131-2, 303-5
Retaliation, 124-5, I32~I42
Rosebery, Lord, and, 67-8

PROTECTION — continued.
Spreading of, 129-130
Wages under, 116, 149
(And see Free Trade}

Publicans, 48, 79

QUAKERS, The, 211
Queen Anne, 284

Victoria, 3, 179, 180, 207, 288

Quiver, The, 269

RACE, 4-6, 54, 63, 219, 263-4,271,

307 (and see Racial)
, solidarity of, 54, 222, 228,

231
Races, Subject. (See Sttbject.)

, Superior, 201, 225-6, 233

Racial

Equality, 50, 54, 75, 188-191
Instinct, 13, 52, 264, 307-8

(and see Patriotism)
Pride. (See Pride, National. )
Supremacy. (See Contents

and Predominance. )
Randlords, 32, 178, 192, 195, 206
Raw material. (See Protection.}
Re-barbarization, n, 16
Rebels, 13, 15, 205, 252, 264, 270
Reciprocity, 131-2, 303-5
Re-exports, 97-8, 153
Reform(s), 43, 48, 50, 53, 77, 80,

114-5, 140, 146-151, 259, 297-9
Reid, Andrew, 45
Religion, 155-9, 166-9, 204, 21 1

(and see Christianity and

Church)
Rent, 33, 118-120, 129, 147 (and

see Ground Landlords)
Representative Government. (See

Self- Government. )
Republics. (See Boers.)
Retaliation. (See Protection.}
Retrenchment, 77, 278, 295, 298-

300

Retribution, n, 35, 76-81, 152
Retrogression, n, 16, 35, 79-81,

116
Revenge, 13, 52, 134, 204, 207-8,

256, 298

Review of Reviews, The, 25, 269
Revolution of 1688, 284

Index

321

Rhodes, Right Hon. C., 4, 8, 9,

87, 184
Riches, 105-6, 108, 114 (and see

Wealth]
Righteousness, 162, 205, 256

, Self, 200

Ripon, Lord, 242

Rose, E. B., 15, 73, 178-9, 206

ROSEBERY, LORD :

"Clean Slate" and, 43, 64, 71
Education and, 66, 71-2
Empire, on, 1-2, 63, 68-72,
294

, definition of, 4, 5, 63, 71

Foreign Policy, 59, 61-4, 69-

72

Free Trade, and, 66-68
Home Rule, and, 61-2, 64, 84
Imperialism, and, 9, 59-72, 84
Liberal

Degenerate, A, 59-72
ism, and, 46, 59-72
League, and, 40, 71
Party, attacks on, 60- 1, 65,

69, 71-2, 82

Leader, 59, 60, 65, 70, 73
Peace, and, 2, 70
Programme of, 63, 69, 71-2
Protection, and, 67-8
Trade, and, 9, 66-8, 87
War, and, 61-3

Ruining of India, The, 29, 267
Ruskin, John, 19, 105, 109, 210
RiiskinJ., Social Reformer ', 109
Ruskin, Studies in, 19
Russia, 141, 248

SACERDOTALISM. (See Clergy.)
Sacrifice, 53, 82, 234, 292, 308
Salisbury, Lord, 22, 208, 245
Salvation Army, 71
Sanitation, 114, 150
Saturday Review, The, 124
Savings, National, 93, 276
Sawtell, Arthur, 27
Schurz, Carl, 270
Schwann, C.E., M.P., 26
Science, 72, 101, 147
Scottish Liberal Association, 69
Selborne, Lord, 70
Self-defence, 176, 182-4, 230

SELF-GOVERNMENT :

Colonial. (See Colonies.)
Conservatism and, 56
Development of, 259, 272, 310
Imperialism and, 57-8, 71,152
Liberalism and, 48, 50, 51,

54-58, 75, 85
Opposition to, 56, 194-5, 233»

246, 269
Significance of, 31, 168, 254

Selfishness, 83, 108

, National, 53, 83-4, 222-4,

226, 232, 247, 255, 261, 269

Self-righteousness, 200

Sempstresses, 251

Separation. (See Colonies.)

Separatist, 86

Sermons on the Boer War, 170

Shipping, 93, 98, 130, 287-8

Signs of the Times, 211

Sinking Fund, 286, 289, 298

Sjambok, 194, 198

Slander, 13, 53, 160-1, 190-1

Slavery, 176, 188-9, 196, 224,
247-8, 251-2, 271

Smith, Dr Goldwin, 304

Smuggling, 127

Smuts, General, 207

Snell, Rev. Bernard, M.A., 170-
191, 196-200, 205-9

Snobbishness, 204, 258

Socialism, 49-50

Sociology, Study of, 212

Soldiers, 172-3, 210-211, 280 (and
see Army and Militarism}

Solidarity, 54, 222, 228, 231

Some Signs of the Times, 21 1

Sophistry, 6, 57-8, 117, 173

Soudan, 2, 214, 227

South Africa :

Natives of, 188-198, 227, 245,

250

References to, 2, 4, 63, 73, 194

(And see separate Colonies

and Boers and Boer War)

Spain, 248, 309

Spencer, Herbert, 5, 10, 11,49,
174, 204-5, 211, 226

Standard, The, 28, 33, 67, 1 86,
191, 194, 196

State, The, 34, 38, 50-1, 154, 162

322

Index

Statistics, 20-3, 27, 92-4, 97-8,
128-9, 141, 199, 200, 207, 214,
267, 273, 275-8
Stead, W. T., 161
Struggle for National Education,

The, 163

Stuarts, The, 284
Studies in Ruskin, 19
Study of Sociology , 212
SUBJECT RACES :

Emancipation of, 259-272
Exploitation of, 22, 196-8,

249-251, 258, 272
Government of, 57-8, 214-
216, 229-237,246-9,254-5,
259-272
India, of, 16-30, 238-245, 253,

265-8, 308
South Africa, of, 188-198,

227, 245-6, 252
Subjugation of, 57-8, 152,

203-4, 217, 221-9, 253-6
Subjugation. (See Subject, Con-
guest and Liberty.}
Submerged tenth, 112
Subsidised trades, in, 148-50
Suez Canal shares, 290
Sugar, 117, 128, 142
Superiority, 58, 215, 225-8, 234,

256, 261, 271

Supply (economic), 112, 136-8
Supremacy. (See Predominance.}

, Commercial, 87, 113-14, 249

Sweating, in, 150-1 (and see

Exploitation]
Sweden, 143
Sympathy, 52, 172-3

TARIFF PROBLEM, THE, 141
Tariff Question. (See Colonies

and Protection.}
TAXATION :

Amount of, 20, 275-7, 286,

289

Control, without, 80
Food, of, 68, 79, 116-120,

127-130, 134, 141-7
Imperialistic, 34, 12 1, 276,

281, 289, 290, 294
Increase of, 273-8
India, of. (See India.}

TAXATION— continued.

Objects of, 252, 273

Protective, 116-20, 126-30,
134, 141-7

Reduction of, 298-300

Reform of, 48, 50

Transvaal, in, 180, 207
Taylor, Coleridge, 269
Temperance, 63, 71
Thorburn, S. S., 26, 240
Tibet, 23-4

Times, The, 25, 65, 178
Titan, weary, 309
Tolstoy, Leo, 158, 220
Tolstoy, Life, etc., of, 158
Tory Democracy, 40
TRADE :

External, 88-104, 1 18-19, 128-
142, 153

Fair, 118-19

Flag, and, 87, 91-2, 95, 117,
124, 249, 294

Foreign, 90-5, 97-102, 1 19-20,
129, 134-142, 149, 15°

Free. (See Free Trade. }

Home, 96, 99, 100

Imperial, 90-6, 129-131

Objects of, 105-8, 110-15,

149, 152

Rationale of, 90, 104-115, 153
Regulation of, 88, 115-151
Relative, 92-9, 104-5, 119,

129

Volume of, 97-9, no, 129
Trades, parasitic, in, 148-51
TRANSVAAL :

Annexation of 3,11, 15,73-4,

157, 176, 184
Boers. (See Boers.}
Chamberlain, and. (See

Chamberlain. }
Chinese in, 194-6, 247, 306
Conquest of, 2, II, 13, 15,

73-4, 78, 159, 170, 189,

208, 291
Democratic, 15, 72, 180-1,

189, 206-7
Government of, 15, 16, 32,

73. 75, !79» 181-2, 193,

197-9, 206-7. 246
Natives, 188-198

Index

323

T R ANSV AAL — continued.

Outlanders, 73, 177-182, 192,

207

Raid, The, 183-4
Restoration of, 62
Slavery and, 188-198
Taxation in, 180, 207
Transvaal^ Truth about the, 73,

179, 206

Treachery, 245, 270
Tribal Deity, 160, 202, 21 1
Trinidad, 246

True-born Englishman, 307
Truth, 86, 160, 167
Truth about the Transvaal, The,

73, 179, 206

Turkey, Sultan of, 61, 175, 248
Tyranny, 14, 32, 51, 52, 160, 162,
188, 216, 219, 224, 230, 237,
248

ULTIMATUM, Boer, 183-5

, British, 185

Un-British Rule in India, 26

Unemployed, 81, 113, 147, 153

Unionism, 83, 84

Unionists, 40, 64-66

UNITED KINGDOM :

Debt of. (See National.)
Expenditure of, 87, 273-300
Income of, 20, 97
Population, 92-3, 143, 214
References to, 8, 117, 281-3,

292-3, 302-3, 309
Taxation in. (See Taxation.)
Trade of. (See Trade.}
(And see Great Britain)

United States, 7, 78, 143, 150,
224, 248, 284-5, 304, 307

Unselfishness. (See Altruism.)

Unto this Last, 105, 109

Utility, 106, 107, 109, 110, 113

VAGABONDS, 174-5, 202
Vanity. (See Pride.)
Vengeance. (See Revenge.)
Vested interests. (See Monopoly.)
Vicarious atonement, 221
Victoria, Queen, 179, 180, 207, 288

Vital force, 1 10, 145
Vox populi, vox Dei, 160

WAGES, 111-113, 118, 120, 149-
;o, 195, 198, 250-1 (and see

Wants, 106, 109, 112-113
WAR:

American, 224, 284-5, 29l

Boer. (See Boer.)

Causes of, 156, 200, 205

Characteristics of, 10, 13-15,
22, 205, 221, 287, 297

Church and. (See Church.)

Cost of, 274-7, 286

"Holy," 156, 162

Justification for, 182, 219-22

Office, 63, 299, 300

Unrighteous, 75, no, 166-8
War, Letters on, 158
Wars, list of principal, 284

- , "little," 276, 284
Waste, 106-110, 299
Water, 50, 79
WEALTH :

Distribution of, 49, 50, 80,

106-9, 1 13-115, 149
Exchange of, 92-103, no,

in, 131, 135, 141
Material, 100, 105-6, 111-14,

142, 148, 152, 309
Production of, 96, 100-115,

141, I45-I52
True, 105, 109, no, 152
Webb, Sidney, 65, 151

- , and Mrs, in, 149-151
Wedderburn, Sir W., 26, 238,

265-6

West Indies, 117, 128

Why I am a Liberal, 45

William III., 284-5

With Rimington, 178-9, 183

Wolseley, Lord, 185

Women, 13, 15, 82, 200, 227

Working Classes, 33-4, 48-9, 79-
83, 111-115, Il8> 120, 130,
144-6, 150, 250 (and see Labour)

YELLOW LABOUR, 195

VRJNTED BY

TURNBULL AND SPEARS,
EDINBURGH

0

LIST OF
NEW BOOKS

PUBLISHED BY

MR GEORGE A, MORTON

42 GEORGE STREET

EDINBURGH

LONDON AGENTS $

Messrs SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & Co., Ltd.

STATIONERS' HALL COURT, EC

LIST OF NEW BOOKS

PUBLISHED BY

MR GEORGE A. MORTON

SCOTTISH PEWTER-WARE AND PEWTERERS.
By L. INGLEBY WOOD.

In one volume, crown Jfio, with thirty-six page plates,
mainly from photographs specially taken for the
work, and drawings in text. Tastefully bound in
art cloth, gilt.

The increasing interest manifested during recent years in the
history and craft of the Pewterer, and the taste for collecting
examples of what is, unfortunately, a lost art, has induced the
author to undertake this work, which deals more particularly with
Scottish Pewter- ware and the history connected with the Pewterers'
craft in Scotland.

The author first gives an account of the Pewterers' craft and its
connection with the Hammermen Incorporations of the principal
towns of Scotland, from the sixteenth down to the beginning of
the nineteenth century, and gives many interesting facts connected
with the history of the craft.

Church vessels, eating and drinking vessels, tavern measures,
communion tokens, beggars' badges, and the many other things
which were made in pewter, are fully treated of, and the collector
is given much information for the dating and identification of the
various pieces he may have in his possession.

The book is illustrated with numerous photographs, taken
especially for the work, and concludes with an accurate list of the
marks and touches to be found upon Scottish Pewter-ware ; a dated
list of Freemen Pewterers in the principal towns of Scotland, from
the sixteenth to the nineteenth century ; and these, together with
carefully compiled catalogues of the various examples of the art of
the Scottish Pewterers' craft existing in the Museums of the chief
towns of Scotland, and those belonging to the Episcopal Church of
Scotland, should prove of great value to the collector.

Although the work has been written more especially for the
collector, the student of social history and the larger public with
antiquarian tastes will find much in the volume to interest and
claim their attention.

NEW BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

EMPIRICAL ESSAYS.

By the Author of " Unthinkables."

In one volume, crown 8vo, 5s. net.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS : Rome, Jerusalem and an Ideal ; Karma ;
Reincarnation ; The Higher Criticism.

FLOWERS AND FRUIT FOR THE HOME.

Being Practical Papers on Horticulture for
Amateurs and Gardeners.

By I. L. RICHMOND, F.R.H.S., Garden Editor of The
Queen.

With 24 full-page plates. Crown 8wy 5s. net.

The knowledge of horticulture has of late years advanced in a
marvellous way, and many are the books on the subject ; yet the
amateur may still look for some practical guidance in choosing the
best varieties of plants for the home garden, and the object of this
little book is not only to point these out, but also to give (in a clear,
distinct form) the details of the cultivation necessary to success in
growing them.

The book is the result of personal experience, and it is hoped
that — from the fact that no previous knowledge of horticulture is
taken for granted — it may be found helpful to the uninitiated in the
art of gardening, whether in the open air, the greenhouse, the
fruit garden, or the house ; decorative plants for the table and home
being specially considered.

RACIAL SUPREMACY.

Being Studies in Imperialism.

By JOHN GEORGE GODARD, Author of "Patriotism and
Ethics," " Poverty : its Genesis and Exodus," etc.

Crown 8vo, 6s.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS : I. Imperialism : its Nature and Products
— II. Liberalism and Imperialism — III. Commercialism and Im-
perialism— IV. Ecclesiasticism and Imperialism — V. The Ethics of
Empire — VI. The Burden of Empire.

Whilst each of the studies in this volume is substantially inde-
pendent of the others, their dominant thesis is the some. They
are united by a continuity of purpose ; and taken collectively, they
embody an attempt to present a fairly comprehensive survey of
modern Imperialism.

MR GEORGE A. MORTON

Dedicated to their Excellencies Lord and Lady Minto.

CURLING IN CANADA AND THE UNITED
STATES.

By the Rev. JOHN KERR, M.A., F.R.S.E., F.S.A.Scot, Minister
of Dirleton ; Author of "The History of Curling," "The Golf
Book of East Lothian."

Profusely Illustrated. Ordinary Edition, extra croivn
8vOj 750 pp., with over JflO Illustrations. Price
10s. net. Edition de Luxe, demy 8vo, on art
paper. Impression limited to 150 copies, signed
and numbered. Price £1, 5s. net.

Third Impression.

THE KEEPER'S BOOK.

A Guide to the Duties of a Gamekeeper.

By A. STODART WALKER and P. JEFFREY MACKIE.
With Special Chapters by Lord Douglas Graham, Captain
Shaw Kennedy, Dr Charles Reid, John Lamb, P. D. Malloch,
Henry Lamond, Tom Speedy, and others.

Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net (postage 4d.).

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS : Introduction — The Ideal Keeper — Re-
lations with Farmers, etc. — The Apprentice Keeper — Points in
Law a Gamekeeper should know, by John Lamb, Advocate — The
Poacher — Vermin, by Tom Speedy — The Dog from a Keeper's
Point of View, by Dr Charles Reid — The Moor: Grouse, Black
Game, Ptarmigan — The Partridge — The Deerstalker, by Captain
H. Shaw Kennedy— The Rabbit— The Pheasant— Wild Duck, by
Lord Douglas Graham — Wild-fowling in Scotland, by J. S. Hender-
son— Miscellaneous Sport : Snipe, Woodcock, Capercailzie, Pigeon,
Plover, Roe Deer, Hares — The Keeper as a Fishing Gillie, by P.
D. Malloch — Some Broad Facts in Scottish Angling Law, by
Henry Lamond — Diseases of Game — Loaders and Gun Cleaning
— Miscellaneous Duties — Baksheesh — Index.

"We have seldom read a better, more succinct, or more practical
treatise. . . . It is an acquisition to the keeper's bookshelf, which
should be in every gun-room." — Times.

"We are glad to welcome ' The Keeper's Book.' . . . Much practical
advice is given." — Field.

"A complete vade mecum for the British gamekeeper. " — County
Gentleman.

" Eminently practical." — Pall Mall Gazette.

NEW BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

THE POOR LAW OF SCOTLAND.

By J. EDWARD GRAHAM, Advocate, Author of "A Manual of
the Acts relating to Education in Scotland," " Manual of the
Elections (Scot.) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act," etc.

In one volume, royal 8vo.

Second Impression.
SONGS OF THE LINKS.

By R. K. RISK.

Large crown 8vo, Is. net., (postage Id.).

' ' A delightful book, fanciful and humorous." — Golf Illustrated.

' ' Full of good things." — Bystander.

" With one exception the best collection of golfing verses I have seen."
— HORACE HUTCHINSON in Country Life.

" Witty, humorous, whimsical. Read it and you will take half-a-
dozen off your score/' — Glasgow Herald.

THE SHAIKHS OF MOROCCO

In the sixteenth century. After the Arabic of Ibn
Askar.

By T. H. WEIR, B.D., M.R.A.S. With a Preface by Professor
JAMES ROBERTSON, D.D.

With a Map. Large crown 8vo, 6s. net.

" A really clever outlook upon many things of which it is extremely
difficult for any European to learn anything at all. ... A quite re-
markable picture of the Moslem mind in Morocco as it was then — and
as it is now. This book should help the reader to understand something
of the unquenched and unquenchable spiritual glow which made
Mohammedanism a great fighting and conquering faith from its infancy,
which keeps it a living force in human affairs to this day, which may yet
secure for it a greater future. ... In short, this is a valuable and fruitful
book which lifts for us a corner of the veil of mystery that envelops the
true inwardness of the Moslem mind." — Pall Mall Gazette.

" A fresh and vivid picture of the everyday life of the upper classes in
Morocco. . . . The present volume mirrors the minds and feelings of the
Sultan and of the ruling and learned classes without distortion, and for
that reason it can be conscientiously recommended to any who desire to
understand the forces at work in that and other Mohammedan countries,
instead of being content to see them through Western spectacles. "-
St Andrew.

ft We have not lost ourselves so contentedly in a book of any kind for
a while. . . . But it is not for the history we revel in it, it is for the
unsuspicious play of humanity before us — tragedy and comedy, laughter
and tears." — Expository Times.

MR GEORGE A. MORTON

THE LOST PARADISE
and other Poems.

By JOHN TATTERSALL.

Fcap. 8vo, 2s. 6d. net (postage %d.).

" A cultivated and tasteful little collection of poems. It has thought-
fulness ; it has poetic feeling ; it has classic and restrained expression."
— Academy and Literature.

TWELVE TRIFLES.

Cheerful and Tearful.

By THEOPHILA NORTH, Author of "The Marriage of True
Minds," "The Veiled Figure, and other Poems," etc. Cheaper
Edition.

Crown 8vo, paper cover, Is. net.

"A series of dainty little exercises in narrative and character study.
... In each of them some facet of life or feeling is skilfully and
picturesquely placed before the reader." — Pall Mall Gazette.

"Delightful reading. Miss North has a dainty touch and a delicate
sense of humour, but is most effective when she strikes the note of
pathos." — Notts Guardian.

Uniform with "British Serpents."

THE LIFE-HISTORY OF BRITISH LIZARDS
and their Local Distribution in the British Isles.

By GERALD R. LEIGHTON, M.D., F.R.S E., Author of
"British Serpents," etc. With numerous Illustrations from
Photographs of Living Lizards by Douglas English, and from
original Drawings.

Crown 8vo, price 5s. net (postage Sd.J.

" A wonderfully interesting book. . . . Dr Leighton is always pains-
taking and accurate . . . indispensable to every field naturalist. " —
Morning Leader.

"The book is throughout accurate and painstaking, and the intro-
ductory chapter in which the author differentiates between the work of
the field club and that of the laboratory might be read with advantage by
many who are wont to underrate all field clubs. . . . The photographs
which accompany the text are singularly happy." — Morning Post.

ff Dr Leighton has the advantage of a fascinating and a manageable
subject, and he has made the most of his opportunity. . . . The peculiar
charm of the book. It is perfectly clear, and is easily understandable,
and yet it is thoroughly scientific. ... To the field naturab'st it will be
invaluable. " — Manchester Courier.

"Tells all about Lizards that a field naturalist on the look out for them,
or curious as to their ways of life, needs to know. Handy, concise, and
clearly expounded. . . . Serviceable and instructive to all classes of
students. " — Scotsman.

" The work is simply and admirably written and beautifully illustrated."
— Liverpool Post.

8 NEW BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

Second Edition, Revised.
THE CARE OF INFANTS.

A Manual for Mothers and Nurses.

By SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE, M.D., Member of the Irish College of
Physicians ; late Dean of the Edinburgh School of Medicine for
Women; Lecturer on Midwifery for the University of Edin-
burgh ; late Senior Physician to the Edinburgh Hospital for
Women and Children.

Stiff covers, Is. net; cloth gilt, Is. 6d. net (postage I2d.).

et We can most strongly recommend Dr Sophia Jex-Blake's manual ; it
is an excellent work, and we should like to see a copy in every nursery."
— Athenceum.

f< An excellent little practical manual — a book which ought to have a
place in every household." — Scotsman.

" Deserves to be read with care by young mothers, who will find much
in it to assist them to rear strong and healthy offspring." — Medical Press.

ff Let me thank you for your book on the care of infants, which is
exactly what has long been wanted." — From Dr SYMES THOMPSON.

"I consider it most sensible, and that it ought to be of great use."
— From Sir THOMAS BARLOW, M.D.

FROM JOURNALIST TO JUDGE.
An Autobiography.

By FREDERIC CpNDE WILLIAMS, Judge of the Supreme
Court of Mauritius ; late Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of
Natal ; formerly Judge of the Northern District Court, Jamaica ;
sometime Editor of the Birmingham Daily Gazette.

With Portrait. Crown 8vo, 6s. (postage 4a-)-

"This is a capital autobiography, interesting, amusing, and instructive."
— Graphic.

" Mr Williams' naivete gives spice to his narrative. He is frank, not
only in regard to himself, but also in respect to others." — Athenaeum.

" Contains the cream of an interesting and varied experience. . . . His
racy stories, portraits and aper^us are unencumbered with the slightest
alloy of tediousness or triviality." — Pall Mall Gazette.

OMBRA THE MYSTERY.

A Story of Medical Student Life in Edinburgh.

By FREDERICK GRAVES.

Cronm 8vo, 6s.

A GENTLEMAN'S WIFE.

By AUBREY LEE, Author of "John Darkee," etc., etc.

Crown 8vo, 6s.

MR GEORGE A. MORTON

RECOLLECTIONS OF JAMES MARTINEAU.

With some Letters from him and an Essay on his
Religion.

By the Rev. ALEXANDER H. CRAUFURD, M.A , Formerly Ex-
hibitioner of Oriel College, Oxford ; Author of " Enigmas of the
Spiritual Life," "Christian Instincts and Modern Doubt," etc.

With a Photogravure Portrait of Dr Martineait.
Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net (postage 3d.}.

" The charm of the book is the picture that we get of Martineau in old
age discussing without reserve the great problems of religion and morals.
. . . There is much else in this brilliant little book that is noteworthy."
— Standard.

" It is indeed a winsome and fascinating personality that meets us in
these pages. " — Scotsman.

"This little volume will be found profitable by all who regard James
Martineau as a great and inspiring teach er." — Spectator.

{( Mr Craufurd has added something worth having to our knowledge of
Martineau's judgments concerning many of the leading minds of the
last century." — Hibbert Journal.

THE AWAKENING OF MRS CARSTAIRS.

By OLIVIA ROY.

Third Impression. Crown 8vo, 6s. (postage 4d.).

Olivia Roy ' ' has written a story that carries the reader along from
page to page with breathless excitement and a real delight." — Sunday Sun.

Olivia Roy's " tale is told in simple, direct, breathless style. ... A
genuine human document. " — Sunday Times.

Olivia Roy ' ( strikes with unfaltering hand the note of pure womanhood.
It is a story of supreme interest." — Pall Mall Gazette.

Olivia Roy " has a rare power of painting characters that seem to live."
— Woman.

FROTH.

By the Author of "Tom Bullkeley of Lissington," "The Girl He
Left Behind Him," "A Pink Wedding," "He would be a
Soldier," etc.

Crown 8vo, 6s. (postage 4d.).

" A thoroughly up-to-date novel." — Scotsman.
" A bright story brightly told."— Pall Mall Gazette.
" Clever and amusing . . . brisk and cheerful. " — Literary World.
" Plenty of spirit in it and many an echo of the ' Lissington ' charm."
— Bookman.

" An interesting bit of psychology." — T.P.'s Weekly.

10 NEW BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

FOAM AND MIST.

By NORMAN BROUGHAM WARDE.

Crown 8vo, 6s. (postage 3d.}.

WINDFALLS.

By ROBERT AITKEN. With cover design by John Hassall, R.I.

Cheaper Edition, crown 8vo, Is. net.

" Of exceptional merit . . . original, genuine, and vastly entertaining."
— Athenceum.

" A very remarkable volume. . . . We have read no more striking
first book since Rudyard Kipling's ' Plain Tales.5" — World.

ff The best piece of fiction to hand this week. ... It has a strength, a
reticence, and a perception that reminds me again and again of certain
' plain tales.' " — Morning Advertiser.

DRINKERS OF HEMLOCK.

By A. STODART WALKER, Author of "The Struggle for
Success," "The Poet of Modern Revolt," etc.

Cheaper Edition, crown 8vo, Is. net.

" Filled with clever satire." — Daily News.

" A most interesting and entertaining story." — Vanity Fair.

" It is remarkably and cleverly written. The intrigues and the wire-
pullings ; the jealousies and the scandals ; the feminine influences — all
these form the subject of his clever and lively book." — Academy and
Literature.

f( Mr Stodart Walker is to be congratulated on his first attempt at
fiction. His style is carefully polished, yet never elaborate, and the
dialogue is rapid, brilliant and epigrammatic without becoming obscure."
— Manchester Guardian.

Second Impression.

THE VERY SHORT MEMORY OF MR JOSEPH
SCORER.

Some Odd Seaside Experiences.

By JOHN OXENHAM, Author of " Barbe of Grand Bayou,"
"Bondman Free," "John of Gerisau," etc.

Is. net ; cloth limp, Is. 6d. net.

" Amongst the rarest literary gifts is that of writing a good short story.
John Oxenham possesses it in a marked degree. . . . Suddenly, towards
the end, there is introduced an unexpected development that charms and
delights the reader." — Punch.

" One of the best productions of its kind . . . represents a shilling's
worth of genuine fun." — Pall Mall Gazette.

MR GEORGE A. MORTON 11

THE FIELD NATURALIST'S QUARTERLY.

Edited by GERALD R. LEIGHTON, M.D., F.R.S.E.

This New Journal is devoted to all the subjects usually worked
by Field Naturalist and kindred Societies. It is conducted from
the point of view of the ordinary member of a field club, not for
the specialist or advanced student.

"THE FIELD NATURALIST'S QUARTERLY " is issued in the months
of March, June, September, and December, and deals with each
subject as much as possible from the point of view of the season of
issue : thus the first number of each year specially treats of animal
and vegetable life in winter ; the next issue is a spring number,
and so on.

Each issue consists of about Ninety-six pages, demy 8vo, with
Illustrations. The Annual Subscription is 10s., payable in
advance.

Contributions and correspondence from Secretaries of Field
Clubs, etc., should be addressed to the EDITOR, " Field Naturalist's
Quarterly," 17 Hartington Place, Edinburgh.

SOME RECENT PRESS OPINIONS.

Westminster Gazette. — "The interesting character of this periodical
continues to be well maintained. ... A really valuable feature of the
magazine to many readers is that devoted to British Field Zoology. It
is to be hoped that members of field clubs and societies will give ' THE
FIELD NATURALIST'S QUARTERLY ' their hearty support. . . . Must be to
all field naturalists an attractive periodical."

Lancet. — " Each succeeding issue of this interesting quarterly seems to
show some improvement on that of its predecessor."

Outlook. — " The papers are well written by people who know what they
are talking about. . . . We wish Dr Leighton's Quarterly a long life and
a prosperous one."

EDINBURGH : GEORGE A. MORTON, 42 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & CO., LTD.

t

(D

276

G6M

1905

C.I

ROBA