(1917) the character of the british empire

8/9/2019 (1917) The Character of the British Empire

1/48

JVI0Z7M8UC-NRLF

B 3 bM3 D3S


2/48


3/48

THECHARACTER

OF THEBRITISH EMPIRE

BYRAMSAY MUIR

PRICE THREE PENCE

LONDONEUNSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED

191;


4/48


5/48

THE CHARACTER OF THEBRITISH EMPIRE


6/48


7/48

THECHARACTER

OF THEBRITISH EMPIRE

BYRAMSAY MUIR

LONDONCONSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED

1917


8/48

3^' \ 'O^Y f ^

Note.The following essay is based mainlyupon a book by the same author entitled " TheExpansion of Europe" in which an attempt is madeto estimate the part played by various nations inextending the civilisation of Europe over the wholeworld. A few references are therefore given to thefuller treatment of various aspects of the subjectcontained in the book.


9/48

THE CHARACTER OF THEBRITISH EMPIRE.

i.

NEARLY all the great self-governing nations ofthe world are now combined in a desperatestruggle against the scarcely-veiled militarydespotism of the Central European Powers, andthe object of the struggle has been well defined byPresident Wilson as the securing of freedom fordemocracy, so that it shall be safe from the threatsof militarist and conquering empires.

In the forefront of the group of States engagedin the defence of democracy stands the BritishEmpire, the greatest dominion that has ever existedin history, which covers a quarter of the earth'ssurface, and in which a quarter of the earth's popu-lation is subject (at any rate, in form) to the ruleof two small European islands.

The very existence of this huge Empire seemsto many people to stultify in some degree the causefor which the world's democracies are fighting. Itseems, at first sight, to be simply the greatestexample of that spirit of conquest and of militarydominion against which we are striving. This is theview taken by some neutrals. " Imperialism is theenemy," says one Swiss writer; "whatever form ittakes, German or Russian, British or French, it isequally the foe of free government." The Germansthemselves make great play with this notion. They

5


10/48

THE CHARACTER OFdescribe the British Empire as a vast, greedytyranny, built up by fraud. They invite us to freethe oppressed millions of India before we talkhypocritically about liberty. They assert that thenaval supremacy of Britain is far more dangerousto the freedom of the world than the military powerof Germany could ever be. Some people even inthe allied countries are affected by doubts of thiskind. The Russian Socialists, for whom imperialismhas in the past meant nothing but a hideous repres-sion of freedom, are ready to assume that the BritishEmpire, because it is called an empire, must meanthe same ugly things. And criticism of the samekind can sometimes be heard in France, in Italy, inthe United States, and in Britain herself.

Our purpose, in this short paper, is to examinethe truth of these superficial impressions. Butbefore we do so there are two preliminary observa-tions worth making.

The first is that men's minds are extraordinarilyeasily influenced by mere words. The word"Empire" suggests, to many, conquest anddominion over unwilling subjects. In so far as itdoes so, it begs the question. As we shall try toshow, this word is really misapplied to the Britishrealms. The character of their government and ofthe bond which holds them together would be muchbetter expressed by a phrase which is now beingwidely used in Britainthe British Commonwealthof Nations. Of course, that title also begs thequestion in a way. But the reader is asked, at theoutset, to keep in his mind, while he reads, thequestion, " Is the title ' Empire/ or the title * Com-

6


11/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.monwealth of Nations/ the truer description of thisextraordinary aggregate of lands and peoples ?The second preliminary observation which weshall make is, that there are certain outstandingfeatures of the war which must have thrown astriking light upon the character of the BritishEmpire.

Over a million volunteer soldiers have comefrom the great self-governing Colonies of theBritish Empire without any compulsion beingimposed upon them. The princes and peoples ofIndia have vied with one another in their generousand spontaneous gifts to the cause, while Indianforces have fought gallantly in all parts of theworld, and at the same time India has been almostdenuded of British troops. That is not the sort ofthing which happens when the masters of a tyran-nical dominion find themselves fighting for theirvery life. Apart from the unhappy troubles inIreland (which were the work of a small minority) andthe rebellion in South Africa (which was promptlyput down by the South African Dutch themselves),there has been no serious disturbance in all the vastrealms of this Empire during the three years' strainof war. Even the most recently subdued of Africantribes have shown no desire to seize this opportunityfor throwing off "the foreign yoke." On the con-trary, they have sent touching gifts, and offers ofaid, and expressions of good-will. It appears, then,that the subjects of this "Empire" have, for themost part, no quarrel with its government, but arewell content that it should survive.


12/48

THE CHARACTER OF

II.

The creation of the British Empire has beensimply a part (though, perhaps, the greatest part)of that outpouring of the European peoples whichhas, during the last four centuries, brought thewhole world under the influence of western civilisa-tion. That is a great achievement, and it hasbrought in sight the establishment of a real world-order. It is merely foolish to condemn the " lustof conquest" which has driven the Europeanpeoples to subdue the rest of the world, though, ofcourse, we ought to condemn the cruelties andinjustices by which it has sometimes been accom-panied. But without it North and South America,Australia, and South Africa would have remaineddeserts, inhabited by scattered bands of savages.Without it India would have been sentenced to theeternal continuance of the sterile and fruitless warsbetween despotic conquerors which made up herhistory until the British power was established.Without it the backward peoples of the earth wouldhave stagnated for ever in the barbarism in whichthey have remained since the beginning. The"imperialism" of the European nations has broughtgreat results to the world. It has made possiblethat unification of the political and economicinterests of the whole globe which we see beginningto-day. It is one of the fine aspects of this grimand horrible war that it affects the interests of thewhole world, and that the whole world knows this.

8


13/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.The giant's part which has been played by

Britain in the conquest of the world by Westerncivilisation, and the peculiar character of her work,have been due to two thingsBritish institutionsand the British Navy.

It ought never to be forgotten that down to thenineteenth century (that is, during all the earlierpart of the process of European expansion) Britainwas the only one of the greater European Stateswhich possessed self-governing institutions. Shehas been, in truth (this is not a boast, but a merestatement of indisputable historical fact), theinventor of political liberty on the scale of the greatnation-state, as Greece was the inventor of politicalliberty on the scale of the little city-state. Andwherever free institutions exist to-day, they havebeen derived from Britain, either by inheritance, asin America and the self-governing British colonies,or by imitation, as in all other cases.

When the outpouring of Europe into the rest ofthe world began, the British peoples alone had thehabit and instinct of self-government in their veryblood and bones. And the result was that,wherever they went, they carried self-governmentwith them. Every colony of British settlers, fromthe very first, was endowed with self-governinginstitutions. No colony ever planted by any othernation ever obtained corresponding rights.* Thatis one of the outstanding features of British expan-sion. In the eighteenth century, and even in themiddle of the nineteenth centurv, Britain herself

* Sec ''The Expansion of Europe," Chapters II. and III.


14/48

THE CHARACTER OFand the young nations that had sprung from herloins were almost the only free States existing inthe world. It was because they were free that theythrove so greatly. They expanded on their ownaccount, they threw out fresh settlements into theempty lands wherein they were planted, oftenagainst the wish of the Mother Country. And thisspontaneous growth of vigorous free communitieshas been one of the principal causes of the immenseextension of the British Empire.Now one of the results of the universal existenceof self-governing rights in British colonies was thatthe colonists were far more prompt to resent andresist any improper exercise of authority by theMother Country than were the settlers in thecolonies of other countries, which had no self-governing rights at all. It was this independentspirit, nurtured by self-government, which led tothe revolt of the American colonies in 1775, and tothe foundation of the United States as an indepen-dent nation. In that great controversy an immenselyimportant question was raised, which was new tohuman history. It was the question whether unitycould be combined with the highest degree offreedom ; whether it was possible to create a sort offellowship or brotherhood of free communities, inwhich each should be master of its own destinies,and yet all combine for common interests. But thequestion (being so new) was not understood oneither side of the Atlantic. Naturally, Britainthought most of the need of maintaining unitv; shethought it unfair that the whole burden of thecommon defence should fall upon her, and she

TO


15/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE,committed many foolish blunders in trying toenforce her view. Equally naturally the coloniststhought primarily of their own self-governing rights,which they very justly demanded should be in-creased rather than restricted. The result was theunhappy war, which broke up the only family of freepeoples that had yet existed in the world; andcaused a most unfortunate alienation between them,whereby the cause of liberty in the world wasgreatly weakened.*

Britain learned many valuable lessons from theAmerican Revolution. In the new empire whichshe began to build up as soon as the old one waslost, it might have been expected that she wouldhave fought shy of those principles of self-govern-ment which no other State had ever tried to applyin its over-sea dominions, and which seemed to haveled (from the imperialistic point of view) to suchdisastrous results in America. But she did not doso; the habits of self-government were too deeplyrcoted in her sons to make it possible for her todeny them self-governing rights in their new homes.On the contrary, she learnt, during the nineteenthcentury, to welcome and facilitate every expansionof their freedom,! and she gradually felt her waytowards a means of realising a partnership of freepeoples whereby freedom should be combined withunity. Its success (although it must still undergo

* See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapter IV., where tl.view of the American Revolution is developed.

t See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapter VI., where th"Transformation of the British Empire" during the nineteenthcentury is analysed.


16/48

THE CHARACTER OFmuch development) has been strikingly shown in theGreat War.Thus British institutionsthe institutions ofnational self-government, which are peculiarlyBritish in originhave played a main part both indetermining the character of the British Empire andin bringing about its wonderful expansion. Themore the British Empire has grown the morefreedom has been established on the face of theearth.

The second great factor in the growth of theBritish Empire has been the power of the BritishNavy, which has been the greatest sea power of theworld practically since the overthrow of the SpanishArmada in 1588.

It is a striking fact that in all her history Britain hasnever possessed a large army, until the necessities ofthis war suddenly forced her (as they are now forcingAmerica) to perform the miracle of calling her wholemanhood from the pursuits of peace to arms, oftraining them, and of equipping them, all withintwo years. In 1775 it was the fact that shepossessed only a tiny armed force (some 40,000 menfor the defence of all her dominions), which madeit necessary for her, for example, to hire Hessiantroops in a hurry for the purposes of the AmericanWar of Independence. Is not this an astoundingparadox, that the power which has acquireddominion over one-quarter of the earth has done itwithout ever possessing a large army? And doesit not suggest that the process by which this empirewas acquired must have been very different fromthe ordinary processes of military conquest? This

12


17/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.is a paradox which those who speak of the BritishEmpire as if it were a mere military dominion mustsomehow explain.

But there has been the supreme British fleet. Ithas made the creation and preservation of theEmpire possible by securing the free transit notmerely of soldiers, but, far more important, ofsettlers, merchants, administrators, organisers, andmissionaries. Scattered as it is over all the seas ofthe world, the British Empire wrould undoubtedlybe broken into fragments if the security of the oceanhigh-roads by which it is united were ever to be lost.But although the British Navy has made the growthof the Empire possible, and has held it together, ithas not conquered it. A fleet cannot conquer greatareas of land ; it cannot hold masses of discontentedsubjects in an unwilling obedience; it cannotthreaten the freedom or independence 'of any land-power. It is strong only for defence, not for offence.

There are two aspects of the work of the BritishNavy during the last three centuries which deserveto be noted, because they also help to indicate thecharacter of the work done by the British Empireduring this period.

In the first place, the British naval power hasnever been used to threaten the freedom of anyindependent State. On the contrary, it has beenemployed time and again as the last bulwark offreedom against great military Powers which havethreatened to overwhelm the freedom of their neigh-bours by mere brute strength. That was so in thesixteenth century, when Spain seemed to be withinan ace of making herself the mistress of the world.

13


18/48

THE CHARACTER OFIt was so a hundred years later, when the highly-organised power of Louis XIV. threatened theliberties of Europe. It was so again, a centurylater, when Napoleon's might overshadowed theworld. It is so once more to-day, when the Germanperil menaces the liberty of nations. During eachof these desperate crises the British Navy hasseemed to neutrals to be interfering unduly withtheir trade, in so far as their trade helped theenemy. In this connection it is worth noting thatit has been for two centuries the invariable rule ofthe British Navy that in no circumstances must aneutral vessel ever be sunk, and in no circumstancesmust the lives of non-combatants be sacrificed. Butis it not reasonable to say that in each of these greatwars the theoretic rights of neutral trade were justlysubordinated to the struggle for the preservation ofliberty? In all the great crises of modern Europeanhistory, then, British naval power has been theultimate bulwark of liberty.But how has this power been used in times ofpeace? The Spanish naval power, which precededthe British, enforced for its people a monopoly ofthe use of all the oceans of the world except theNorth Atlantic. The Dutch naval power, whichcarried on an equal rivalry with the British duringthe seventeenth century, established a practicalmonopoly for Dutch trade in all the waters east ofthe Straits of Malacca. But the British naval powerhas never for a moment been used to restrict thefree movement of the ships of all nations in timesof peace in any of the seas of the world. This,again, is not a boast, but a plain statement of unde-

14


19/48

THE BRITISH 'EMPIRE.niable historical fact. The freedom of the seas intimes of peace (which is much more important thanthe freedom of the seas in times of war) has onlyexisted during the period of British navalsupremacy, but it has existed so fully that we havegot into the habit of taking it for granted, and ofassuming, rather rashly, that it can never be im-paired. What is more, it has been entirely duringthe period of British naval supremacy, and mainlyby the work of the British fleet, that the remoterseas have been charted and that piracy has beenbrought to an end, and the perils of the sailorreduced to the natural perils of wind and wave.This also is a contribution to the freedom of theseas.

British institutions, the institutions of self-government, and the British Navy, which has atall times been a bulwark of liberty, and has neverinterfered in times of peace with the use of the seasby any nationthese have been the main explana-tions of the fabulous growth of the British Empire.We cannot here attempt to trace the story of thisgrowth, but must be content to survey the completedstructure and consider on what principles it isgoverned.

III.

The vast realms of the British Empire fallnaturally into three groups : the great self-governingdominions, Canada, Australia, South Africa, NewZealand, and Newfoundland; the -lands of ancient

J5


20/48

THE CHARACTER OFcivilisation, India and Egypt; and che wide protec-torates (mainly in Africa, but also in Asia and thePacific) which are inhabited by backward andprimitive peoples. There are other regions also,such as the West Indian Islands, or the militaryposts and calling stations like Gibraltar, Malta, andAden, which do not fall into any of these threecategories. But they are of relatively minor im-portance, and it will be convenient to concentrateour attention upon each of the three main groupsin turn.

Regarding the self-governing dominions, theintelligent reader scarcely needs to be told that theyare to all intents and purposes entirely free States,which remain in association with the MotherCountry only by their own free will. If they wereto claim complete independence, there wouldcertainly be no attempt made by Britain to forcethem to remain in partnership, though the breachwould be a great sorrow to the Mother Country.They make their own laws; they appoint all theirown officials (except the Governors, who performalmost purely formal functions, corresponding tothose performed by the King in the "crownedrepublic" of Britain); they levy their own taxes,and both may and do impose any duties they thinkfit upon imports from Britain equally with thosecoming from other States. They pay not a farthingof tribute to the Mother Country. They are noteven required to contribute to the cost of the Navy,which protects them all, though some of them makevoluntary contributions. The only restriction upontheir political independence is that they do not

16


21/48

THE BRITISH EMTIRE.pursue an independent foreign policy or maintainambassadors or consuls of their own in foreigncountries. The responsibility (and the total cost) ofthis function falls upon Britain. If Britain shouldbe drawn into war, the great dominions are alsotechnically at war, and if Britain were to pursue awarlike or aggressive policy, this would soonalienate seme or all of these young democracies.But it is only by their own free will that they takeany part in a war in which Britain is involved, andthe Mother Country has neither the right nor thepower to demand military aid from them. Yet wehave seen what whole-hearted and generous aidthey have all given. Would it have been as great,or as valuable, if it had been compulsory? Gradu-ally they are beginning, through their PrimeMinisters or other representatives, to take a moreand more effective part in the direction of thecommon policy of the Empire. The meetings ofwhat was called the "Imperial War Cabinet'*' inthe spring of 191 7 marked a definite stage in thisdevelopment, and incidentally afforded a verystriking proof of the elasticity and adaptability ofthe British system of government. It is certain thatthis method of co-operation will be carried stillfurther in the future.

Cjearly, so far as concerns the great dominions,the British Empire is far from being a militarydomination imposed by force. It is a voluntarypartnership or brotherhood of free peoples, aCommonwealth of Nations. It is a wonderfulachievement in the combination of unity andfreedom, an experiment in the unforced co-opera-

17


22/48

THE CHARACTER Ohtion of free States such as has never before beenseen in human historv. If that is the meaning ofImperialism, who will cavil at it?

Only one series of events has prevented a largepart of the world from realising that this was thespirit in which the British Empire was governed.The South African War made Britain appear, in theeyes of most of the world, a vast, greedy, tyrannicalpower, which, not content with an already immensedominion, must fall upon and devour two tiny, freerepublics, merely because they contained gold ! Butthe world did not appreciate the real meaning ofthe South African War.* In the British SouthAfrican colonies (the Cape and Natal) the fullestequality of political rights was enjoyed by Dutch andBritish residents alike, and their institutions were thesame as those of other British dominions. But in thesemi-independent Dutch republic of the Transvaaland the independent Orange Free State (especiallythe former) no such equality of rights existed. Theideal they aimed at was that of Dutch predomi-nance, and some of their leaders hoped in time to drivethe British out of Africa, and to establish there anexclusively Dutch supremacy. This did not matterso long as the inhabitants of these lands were onlya few Dutch farmers. But when the discovery ofgold and diamonds brought an immense inrush ofBritish and other settlers, who henceforth producednearly all the wealth of the country, this denial ofequality of rights became serious, and the pro-gramme of Dutch conquest, prepared for mainly at

*See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapters VI. and VIII.,tor an analysis of British policv in Smith Africa.

i3


23/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.the cost of the, new settlers, began to seemdangerous. This was the real cause of the SouthAfrican War. It might, perhaps, have been avoided,and, if so, those who precipitated it unnecessarilywere much to blame, whether they were Boers orBritons. There were faults on both sides. Butessentially the war was, on Britain's side, a war forequality of rights. What were its results? So faras Britain was concerned, the bones of thousands ofher sons lay on the African veldt, and her public debtwas vastly increased. She made no direct materialgains of any sort : the gold-mines remained in exactlythe same hands as before. But so far as SouthAfrica was concerned, the result was that in a veryfew years the conquered republics were given fullself-governing powers, on the basis of equal rightsfor both races, and a few years later they and theolder British colonies combined in the Union ofSouth Africa, a great, free, federal state, in whoseaffairs Dutch and British have equal rights, and inwhich a new nation, formed by the blending of thetwTo races, can grow up. That was what Britishimperialism led to in South Africa.And now observe the sequel. When the greatwar began (scarcely more than a dozen years fromthe time when Dutch and Britons wrere fightingbitterly) the Germans tried to bring about a revoltamong the more ignorant Dutch. It was putdown by the forces of the Union, mainly Dutch,led by Louis Botha, who had once been the com-mander-in-chief of the Transvaal army, and wasnow the prime minister of a self-governing dominionwithin the British Empire. And then, still led by*9


24/48

THE CHARACTER 0P_Botha, a combined force of Dutch and Britonsproceeded to the conquest of German South-WestAfrica, suffering casualties which, by a happychance, were exactly equally divided between thetwo races. And then a South African contingentwas sent to East Africa, and the supreme commandover them, and over British regulars and Indianregiments and native levies, was assumed by theDutch General Smuts, once a formidable leaderagainst the British. And, lastly, General Smutscame to England to join in the deliberations of theImperial War Cabinet, and to make speeches ofprofound foresight and political wisdom to theBritish people, in which he sang the praises of theBritish Commonwealth of free nations as somethingthat deserved every sacrifice from the peoplesenrolled under its sheltering aegis.

Is there any parallel to these events in thehistory of the world? And is the Empire whosespirit leads to such results to be spoken of as if itwere a mere, ruthless military dominion?.

IV.The second great group of British dominions

consists of those ancient and populous lands,notably India and Egypt, which, though they havebeen able to develope remarkable civilisations, havenever in all their history succeeded in establishingthe rule of a just and equal law, or known any formof government save arbitrary despotism.

It is impossible to trace here, even in the baldest20


25/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.outline, the steps by which Britain acquired thesovereignty over India and Egypt.* They formtwo of the most curious and romantic episodes inhistory, for the strange thing is that in both casesBritish intervention was begun with no thought ofconquest, and in both cases the responsibility ofpolitical control was assumed by Britain with verygreat reluctance. This may sound incredible, butit is an indisputable historical fact. We mustcontent ourselves with a very brief analysis of thecharacter and results of the British dominion.

What, then, has the establishment of Britishpower meant in India ? Until the British power wasestablished, India had in all her long history neverknown political unity. She had seen nothing but analmost uninterrupted succession of wars, an endlessseries of conquests and evanescent dominions. AlwaysMight had been Right; Law had represented onlythe will of the master, and the law courts only theinstruments of his arbitrary authority, so that thelover of righteousness could only pursue it bycutting himself off from all the ties of society andliving the life of the ascetic. India was the mostdeeply divided land in the worlddivided not onlyby differences of race and tongue (there are 38distinct languages in India to-day, and some of themdiffer more widely than Russian and Spanish), butdivided still more deeply by bitter conflicts of creedand, most sharply of all, by the unchanging, im-permeable barriers of caste, which had arisen in thefirst instance from the determination of conquering

* India is dealt with in Chapters III., IV., VI., and Egyptin Chapter VIII. of "The Expansion of Europe."2T


26/48

THE CHARACTER OFpeoples to keep themselves free from any inter-mixture with their subjects. Nowhere in the worldare there to be seen, cheek by jowl, such profoundcontrasts between distinct grades of civilisation asare represented by the difference between (say) thealmost savage Bhils or the out-caste sweepers, andthe high-bred Brahmin, Rajput or Mahomedanchiefs. One result of these time-worn distinctions isthat through all the ages the ruling castes and raceshave been accustomed to expect, and the mass ofhumble men to offer, the most abject submission; sothat British administrators have often had to com-plain that the chief difficulty was, not to make laws forthe protection of the humble, but rather to persuadethose for whose benefit they were made to take ad-vantage of them.To this divided land the British rule has broughtthree inestimable boons : a firmly organised politicalunity; the impartial administration of a just andequal system of law, based on a codification ofIndian usages; and the maintenance of a long, un-broken peace. To this may be added the introduc-tion not only of the material boons of western civili-sationrailways, roads, irrigation, postal facilities,and so forthbut of western learning. This has ...ad to be conveyed through the vehicle of English,because it was impossible to create, in all the 38vernaculars, a whole literature of modern know-ledge. And the consequence is, that all the mem-bers of the large and growing class of University-trained students, whose existence for the first timecreates an instructed public opinion in India, areable freely to communicate with one another, and to


27/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.share a common body of ideas, to an extent thathas never before been possible in all the earlierhistory of India. Out of all these causes, due tothe British rule, there has begun to arise in thisdeeply divided land a sentiment of national unity,and an aspiration after self-government. Thissentiment and this aspiration are in themselvesexcellent things ; their danger is that they may leadto a demand for a too rapid advance. For nationalunitv cannot be created by merely asserting thatit exists. It will not be fully established until thedeeply-rooted differences which are only beginningto be obliterated have largely ceased to determinemen's thoughts and actions, as they still do in India.And self-government, on the amplest scale ofmodern democracy, cannot be achieved until thetraditionally ascendant classes, and the traditionallysubject classes, have alike learned to recognise theequality of their rights before the law. But thefoundations have been made of advance towardsboth of these aims; they are the result of Britishrule.

There are discontents in India ; there is muchsharp criticism of the methods of the supremeGovernment, especially almost exclusively among the new class of western-educated men.But the criticism has not gone so far, except with avery few fanatics, as to assert that British rule isitself unjust or evil; on the contrary, all the bestopinion in India desires to see that great landsteadily progressing towards greater national unityand greater political liberty under the guidance andprotection of British rule; all the best opinion in


28/48

THE CHARACTER OFIndia recognises that the progress already madehas been due to British rule, and that its continuancedepends upon the continuance of British rule; allthe best opinion in India desires that India, evenwhen she becomes, as she will steadily become,more fully self-governing, should remain a partnerin the British Commonwealth of Nations. It wasa real satisfaction of one of the aspirations of Indiawhen three representatives of the Indian Govern-ment, an Indian prince, an Indian lawyer, and anAnglo-Indian administrator, came to London in thespring of 19 1 7 to take part in the councils of theEmpire during the crisis of its destiny. Criticismand discontent exist. But their existence is a signof life; and the freedom with which they areexpressed is a proof that the Government of Indiadoes not follow a merely repressive policy, and thatthe peoples of India have at last been helped toescape, in a large degree, from that completedocility and submissiveness which are the unhappysigns that a people is enslaved body and soul.

India does not pay one penny of tribute toBritain. She pays the cost of the small, efficientarmy which guards her frontiers, but if any partof it is borrowed for service elsewhere, the cost fallsupon the British Treasury. This rule was, indeed,broken in regard to the first Indian contingents inthe present war, but only at the request of theIndian members of the Viceroy's Legislative Coun-cil. India contributes not a penny towards theupkeep of the British fleet, which guards her shoresnor does she defray any part of the cost of theconsuls and ambassador* in all parts of the world

2^


29/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE,who protect the interests of her travelling citizens.She is a self-dependent state, all of whose resourcesare expended on the development of her own pros-perity, and expended with the most scrupuloushonesty and economy. Her ports are open, ofcourse, to British traders, but they are open onprecisely the same terms to the traders of all othercountries; there is no special privilege for theBritish merchant. Recently she has entered upon apolicy of fiscal protection, wTith a view to thedevelopment of cotton manufactures. This policywas directed primarily against Lancashire. Butbecause Indian opinion demanded it, it has not beenresisted, in spite of the fact that the bulk of Britishopinion holds such a policy to be economicallyunsound. Nor have British citizens any specialprivileges in other respects. It was laid down, aslong ago as 1833, as an "indisputable principle,that "the interests of the native subjects are to beconsulted in preference to those of Europeans,wherever the two come in competition." Where willyou find a parallel to that statement of policy by thesupreme government of a ruling race?

India, in short, is governed, under the terms ofa code of law based upon Indian custom, by asmall number of picked British officials, only about3,000 in all, among whom highly-trained Indiansare increasingly taking their place, and who workin detail through an army of minor officials, nearlyall Indians, and selected without respect to race,caste, or creed. She is a self-contained country,whose resources are devoted to her own needs. Sheis prospering to a degree unexampled in history.


30/48

THE CHARACTER OFShe has achieved a political unity never beforeknown to her. She has been given the supreme giftof a just and impartial law, administered withoutfear or favour. She has enjoyed a long period ofpeace, unbroken by any attack from external foes.Here, as fully as in the self-governing Colonies,membership of the British Empire does not meansubjection to the selfish dominion of a master, or thesubordination to that master's interests of the vitalinterests of the community. It means the establish-ment among a vast population of the essential giftsof western civilisation rational law, and theliberty which exists under its shelter.

What has been said of India might equally besaid of Egypt, mutatis mutandis, but space does riotpermit of any detail on this theme. Enough to saythat the achievements of the short period since1882, when the British occupation began, in therescuing of the country from bankruptcy, in theabolition of the hideous tyranny under which themass of the peasantry had long groaned, in thedevelopment of the natural resources of the country,in the introduction of Western methods of govern-ment and education, in the removal of the peril ofreturning barbarism which threatened from theSoudan, and in the establishment of a just and equalsystem of law, is something which it would be hardto match in the records of history.*

Both in India and in Egypt lands of ancient* The causes of the British occupation of Egypt, and the

development of Egypt under British control, are discussed in"The Expansion of Europe," Chapter VIII.26


31/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.civilisation have been rescued from a state of chaosand set upon the path which leads to unity andfreedom. And in both countries, if the kind ofpolitical liberty which consists in the universaldiffusion of a share in the control of governmenthas not yet been established, it is because thepeoples of these countries are not yet ready for that,and because the premature establishment of it, byenthroning afresh the old ruling castes, wouldendanger the far more real gifts of liberty whichhave been securedliberty of thought and speech,liberty to enjoy the fruits of a man's own labour,freedom from subjection to merely arbitrarysuperiors, and the establishment of the elementaryrights of the poor as securely as those of thepowerful.

Empires, like men, are to be judged by theirfruits.

Lastly, we come to the vast regions inhabitedwholly or mainly by backward or primitive peoples.Most of these are territories of comparatively recentacquisition. And it is here, and practically herealone, that the British Empire comes into compari-son with the recently created empires of otherEuropean states, France, Germany, Italy andBelgium ; none of which possess any self-governingcolonies, or any extensive lands of ancient civilisa-tion like India, unless the French colonies ofAlgeria and Annam are to be regarded as fallingwithin the latter category.

27


32/48

THE CHARACTER OfThe establishment of European control over

most of the backward regions of the world has been,for the most part, a very recent and a very rapiddevelopment.*

The rush for extra-European territory which hastaken place since 1878 is frequently regarded as amerely sordid exhibition of greed and of the lustfor power; and indeed, some features of it deservecondemnation. But it ought to be recognised thatthis huge movement was, in the main, both neces-sary and beneficial. It was necessary becausemodern scientific industry needed the raw materialsproduced in these lands, and the primitive savageryof their occupants could not permanently stand inthe way of the triumphant march of materialprogress. And it was (or was capable of beingmade) highly advantageous, not only to the indus-trial world, but to the backward peoples themselves,who, apart from it, might never have emerged fromthe unchanging barbarism* in which they havemostly rested since the beginning of time. Whetherthat was to be so or not, depended, of course, uponthe spirit in which the task was undertaken. Wehave seen some hideous examples of depravedcruelty in the treatment of backward peoples, as inLeopold of Saxe-Coburg's administration of theCongo (which improved beyond recognition as soonas it was taken over by the Belgian Parliament), oras in the ruthless German slaughter of the Hererosin South-West Africa. But on the whole, and withexceptions, the establishment of European control

* On these events see " The Expansion of Europe," ChapterVII. 28


33/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.has been as beneficial to its primitive subjects as ithas been advantageous to the development ofmodern industry.

In spite of the vast extent of her Empire inother regions, Britain has taken a far larger shareof this work than any other single power; perhaps,all things considered, she has taken as great ashare as all the rest put together. What are thereasons for this?

The first reason is that Britain had begun longbefore any of the other powers. Both in Africa andin the islands of the Pacific, the work of explorationwas mainly done by British travellers; Britishtraders had almost alone been known to the nativepopulations ; and British missionaries, who wereextraordinarily active during the nineteenth century,had planted themselves everywhere, and played animmensely important part in civilising their simpleflocks. Wherever the missionary went, he under-took the defence of the primitive peoples to whomhe preached, against the sometimes unscrupulousexploitation of the trader. It was the constant cryof the missionaries that the British Governmentought to assume control, in order to keep the tradersin order. They, and the powerful religious bodiesat home which supported them, did much to estab-lish the principle that it was the duty of governmentto protect the rights of native races, while at thesame time putting an end to such barbarous usagesas cannibalism, slavery, and human sacrifice, wherethey survived. Often, too, native chieftains beggedto be taken under British protection; while thebetter type of traders were anxious to see civilised

29


34/48

THE CHARACTER OPadministration set up, because it is only undercivilised administration that trade can permanentlythrive. Thus the British Government was undercontinual pressure from all sides, while the govern-ments of other European countries as yet took nointerest in colonial questions. The British Govern-ment was extremely loth to assume additionalresponsibilities, and did its best to avoid them. Butsome annexations it could not avoid.

Thus before the great European rush forcolonies began, Britain, and Britain alone, hadacquired a very wide experience in the governmentof backward peoples, and had worked out fairlyclearly defined principles for the government ofsuch peoples. What is more, in all the regions ofthis type which she controlledindeed, throughouther whole Empire, everywhere save in the self-governing Coloniesit had become the practice ofBritain to throw open all her ports and marketsto the trade of all nations on exactly the same termsas to her own merchants. She is, in fact, the onlygreat, colonising Power which has adopted thisprinciple. If a British merchant goes to the Philip-pines, or to Madagascar, or to Togoland, he findsthat he has to compete with his American, French,or German rival on unequal terms, because a tariffdiscriminates between the citizen of the rulingpeople and the foreign trader. But if an American,French, or German merchant goes to India, or toany British Crown Colony or protectorate, he isadmitted on exactly the same terms as the Briton.That distinction had already been established


35/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.before 1878, though it has been accentuated sincethat date.

The British method of administering backwardregions as worked out before 1878 was thereforebased upon two principles, firstly the protection ofnative rights, and secondly the. open door to alltrading nations; and Britain may fairly be said tohave learnt to regard herself as being, in theseregions, a trusteea trustee on behalf of her sub-jects, and on behalf of the civilised world. Is itnot true that if these principles had been universallyadopted, half the bitterness which has been due tothe rivalry of the European Powers for colonialpossessions would have been obviated? To-daythese principles are being advocated by manyearnest men as representing the only mode by whichthe supremacy of Western civilisation throughoutthe world can be reconciled with the avoidance ofbitter rivalry and war between the civilised states;and they are preached as if they were a new doctrineof salvation. Yet they have been consistently prac-tised by Britain during the greater part of the nine-teenth century, and they are still practised by herto-day.When the great rush' began, the main objectof the European states which took part in it was toobtain a monopoly-control of the regions which thevannexed. But in all the available regions of theworld, British trade had hitherto been preponderant.British traders saw before them the prospect ofbeing absolutely excluded from lines of traffic whichhad hitherto been mainly in their hands, and theywere naturally urgent that the only means of pro-


36/48

THE CHARACTER OFtection available should be taken, and that theareas in which they had been most active shouldbe brought under British administration. If thenew colonising Powers had been prepared to fol-low the policy of the open door, to which Britainhad so long adhered, there would have been noreason to fear their annexations ; rather there wouldhave been every reason to rejoice that other nationswere taking their share in the work of givingcivilised government to these regions. But sincetheir object was monopoly and exclusion, it wasinevitable that Britain should undertake great newresponsibilities. Her doing so was, indeed, theonly practicable way of preserving the tradingrights, not merely of her own subjects, but also ofall the other trading Powers which had not them-selves joined in the rush, or had only a small partin it. Yet even now the British Government wasextremely unwilling to take action, or to expandstill further the already vast domains for whosegood governance it was responsible, It had to beforced into action, mainly through the activity oftrading companies.

In the vast new acquisitions of the period since1878 (which were mainly in Africa), as in the earlieracquisitions, the old principles long pursued byBritain in the government of these backwardregions were still maintainedprotection of nativerights and the open door. And thus it has comeabout that to-day these British realms presentalmost the only undeveloped fields to which allnations may resort on equal terms and in whose


37/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.development all may take a share. The Germanshave made a very large use of these opportunities.

Another point ought to be made. Immense asthese regions are, and recently as they have beenturned from barbarism, order and peace are main-tained within them by extraordinarily small militaryforces : only the absolute necessary minimum. Yetthey have been on the whole extraordinarily freefrom unrest or rebellion, such as has repeatedlydisturbed the German colonies in Africa. Therehas been in their history no episode like the ruthlessslaughter of the whole Herero race in GermanSouth-West Africa, after long, desperate, draggingcampaigns. And while it would be absurd to claimthat no abuses of the power of the white man overhis coloured subjects have been known in them, atleast there have been no outstanding or notoriousatrocities. Their subjects are loyal, and are recon-ciled to peace, because they recognise that they arejustly treated. That, it may fairly be claimed, iswhat the British Empire has meant in the backwardregions of the earth. And if it be true that theinstitution of civilised government in these regionswas necessary in the interests at once of modernindustry and of the backward peoples themselves,it is equally true that there are no other backwardregions in which the interests of the native subjectshave been more solicitously considered, and nonein which the interests of all the industrial nations,and not merely of a single dominant race, have beenso steadily held in view, as in these regions of theBritish Empire.

S3


38/48

THE CHARACTER OFVI.

If we now turn to consider as a whole thecharacter of this vast Empire,* whose principalregions we have been examining, the first thing thatmust strike us is that, while it is by far the biggestof all the world-dominions which have come intoexistence in modern times, it is also the most looselyorganised of them all. It is rather a partnershipof a multitude of states in every grade of civilisationand every stage of development than an organisedand consolidated dominion. Five of its chiefmembers are completely self-governing, and sharein the common burdens only by their own free will.All the remaining members are organised as distinctunits, though subject to the general control of thehome government. The resources of each unit areemployed exclusively for the development of itsown welfare. They pay no tribute; they are notrequired to provide any soldiers beyond theminimum necessary for their own defence and themaintenance of internal order.

This Empire, in short, is not in any degreeorganised for military purposes. It is strong fordefence so long as it is sure of the command of thesea, since it is open to attack at singularly few pointsby land. But it is incapable, by its very nature andsystem of organisation, of threatening the existenceof any of its rivals or of making a bid for world-supremacy. For, vast though its population and

* The passages in this section are mainly quoted directly from"The Expansion of Europe."34


39/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.resources are, they cannot be made available for warexcept under the impulse of a great enthusiasmsimultaneously dominating all its members, like thatwhich has led them all to share in this war; and ifits directors were to undertake an aggressive andconquering policy, not only could they not countupon general support, but they would probablybring about the disruption of the Empire.

The life-blood of this Empire is trade; itssupreme interest is manifestly peace. The concep-tion of the meaning of empire which is indicatedby its history is not a conception of dominion fordominion's sake, imposed by brute force. On thecontrary, it has come to be regarded as a trust, atrust to be administered in the interests of thesubjects primarily, and secondarily in the interestsof the whole civilised world. That this is not theassertion of a boast or of an unrealised ideal, butof a fact and a practice, is sufficiently demonstratedby two unquestionable facts, to which we havealready referred, but which cannot be too oftenrepeated. The first is the fact that the units of thisempire are not only free from all tribute in moneyor men, but are not even required to make anycontribution to the upkeep of the fleet, upon whichthe safety of all depends. The second is the factthat every port and every market in this vastempire, so far as they are under the control of thecentral government, are thrown open as freely tothe citizens of all other States as to its own.

Finally, in this Empire there has never been anyattempt to impose a uniformity of method or evenof laws upon the infinitely various societies which

35


40/48

THE CHARACTER OFit embraces; it not only permits, it cultivates andadmires, varieties of type, and to the maximumpractical degree it. believes in self-government. Itincludes among its population representatives ofalmost every human race and religion, from theAustralian Bushman to the subtle and philosophicBrahmin, from the African dwarf to the master ofmodern industry or the scholar of universities.Almost every form of social organisation known toman is represented in its complex and many-huedfabric. It embodies some of the most democraticcommunities which the world has known. It findsplace for the highly organised caste system by whichthe teeming millions of India are held together. Itpreserves the simple tribal organisation of theAfrican clans. To different elements among itssubjects this Empire appears in different aspects. Tothe self-governing dominions it is a brotherhood offree nations, co-operating for the defence and diffu-sion of the ideas and institutions of freedom. Tothe ancient civilisations of India or Egypt it is apower which, in spite of all its mistakes and limita-tions, has brought peace instead of turmoil, lawinstead of arbitrary might, unity instead of chaos,justice instead of oppression, freedom for thedevelopment of the capacities and characteristicideas of their peoples, and the prospect of a steadygrowth of national unity and political responsibility.To the backward races it has meant the suppressionof unending slaughter, the disappearance of slavery,the protection of the rights and usages of primitiveand simple folk against reckless exploitation, andthe chance of gradual improvement and emancipa-

3*


41/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.tion from barbarism. But to all alike, to one-quarterof the inhabitants of the globe, it has meant theestablishment of the Reign of Law and of theLiberty which can only exist under its shelter. Insome degree, though imperfectly as yet, it hasrealised within its own body all the three greatpolitical ideals of the modern world. It has fosteredthe rise of a sense of nationality in the young com-munities of the new lands, and in the old and oncedecaying civilisations of the most ancient historiccountries. It has given a freedom of developmentto self-government in a variety of forms, to whichthere is no sort of parallel in any other empire thathas ever existed. And by linking together so manydiverse and contrasted peoples in a common peaceit has already realised, for a quarter of the globe,the ideal of internationalism on a scale undreamtof by the most sanguine prophets of Europe.

Long ago, in the crisis of the American Revolu-tion, when the faithfulness of Britain to her traditionof liberty was for an unhappy moment wavering inthe balance, the great orator Burke spoke someglowing sentences on the character of the BritishEmpire as he conceived it. They read like aprophetic vision of the Empire of to-day, linked byties which, in his words, "though light as air, arestrong as links of iron," yet joining in an heroiccomradeship to defend the threatened shrine offreedom. "As long as you have the wisdom tokeep the sovereign authority of this country as thesanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecratedto our common faith, wherever the sons of Englandworship freedom, they will turn their faces towards37


42/48

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.you. The more they multiply, the more friends youwill have; the more ardently they love liberty, themore perfect will be their obedience. Slavery theycan have anywhere. It is a weed that grows inevery soil. They may have it from Spain, they mayhave it from Prussia. But freedom they can haveonly from you. This is the commodity of price, ofwhich you have the monopoly. Deny them this par-ticipation of freedom, and you break that sole bond,which originally made, and must still preserve, theunity of the Empire. Do not dream that yourletters of office, and your instructions, and your sus-pending clauses, are the things that hold togetherthe great contexture of the mysterious whole. Thesethings do not make your government. Dead instru-ments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of theEnglish Constitution that gives all their life andefficacy to them. It is the spirit of the English Con-stitution which, infused through the mighty mass,pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies everypart of the Empire, even down to the minutestmember. ,,

The spirit of Burke was wounded in 1775; it isrejoicing to-day.

Printed in Great Britain by Messrs. Hayman, Christy and Lillv, Ltd.,iij-ny, Farringdon Road, London, E C.38


43/48


44/48


45/48


46/48

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATESTAMPED BELOWAN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTSWILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURNTHIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTYWILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTHDAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAYOVERDUE.

9EC 4 19339EC 5 1933 ftidSSW&*29tau f?EC*Dr

mit 3olOUayT

OfCjy HW13'64.6FM?0ct'64jw

FEB 2 '65 -5 PM

"W 13 19*MAR 2fi 1i)47

RECtf 3072 *^L-ioo/ 7;:;:;


47/48

GAYLAMOUNTPAMPHLET BINDER-%

Manufactured by6AYLORD BROS. Inc.Syracuse, N. Y.Stockton, Calif.

IBRAR

-ifl


48/48

(1917) the character of the british empire

Documents