moulding of their own future." (Cheers.) "Gradually," "at a long distance," "some part," "a distinctive share,” these are not the aims that make it worth while for the freedom-loving American people to sustain England's conquering arm.

The difficulty these Imperialist politicians have in making selfishness seem noble makes one pinch oneself to be sure that they are not on a stage acting for the amusement of mankind. Mr. G. W. Balfour, M. P., Chief Secretary for Ireland, a representative Conservative, wrestling to hide the secrets, gave them away bravely. "Was the Imperial spirit a spirit to be encouraged, or a spirit to be repressed? In a general way, within reasonable limits and within the limits of our strength, he thought the policy of what Lord Rosebery described as pegging out claims to posterity was a wise and sound one. Had we moral justification for pursuing this policy? If these dependencies were not under the control of this country, they would, for the most part, undoubtedly fall under the control of some other country, and we had at least this to say at the bar of the world's judgment, that wherever we occupied a territory that territory was opened to the enterprise and the trade of all the world. (Cheers.) No doubt we sought our own advantage, but the peculiarity was that our advantage did not exclude the advantage of other people. The second justification which we could plead for this policy was that it was in our power to show that the countries over which our rule had extended had gained by means of that rule the blessings of order, of good government, and of a higher civilization than that, which they previously knew.” (Cheers.) *

If we don't steal every country that is not already stolen some other Power will steal it-our stealing is therefore righteous. Disraeli established this for us by stealing Cyprus. We seek our own advantage, but we find it to our greater advantage to share our trade advantages with others therefore we are unselfish. And

*Speech at Keighley, Dec. 20, 1898.

surely you can't say that we don't bless and civilize and keep a splendid police system over the conquered and govern them in a more orderly manner than they governed themselves—therefore if we take their country away from them and rob them of independence it is justified. Yes, but this is unmitigated bathos and rot, and Englishmen who are not muzzled know it and say so. The Saturday Review says this flatly in referring to a paper by Dr. Bonar on the Empire, read before the British Association:

“Dr. Bonar, at any rate, has a quaint notion of the altruistic mission of the Empire. Wealth does not always give power, as he truly says. But he asks us to believe that we hold Egypt, and even India, 'not from avarice, but from love of governing.' 'Our own colonies,' he adds, 'are not bound to us by a nexus of cash payments.' Does Dr. Bonar really imagine that we hold India and Egypt primarily because we think that we can govern them better than any one else can? The plain unvarnished truth is that the Empire was built up as the result of the pursuit of gain, and if we do not attempt to exact immediate cash payments or their equivalent from the Colonies today, we abstain because rude experience warns us of the certain consequences.'

The canting utterances of Lord Salisbury confirm this. Said he: "The Empire is advancing and must advance. (Hear, hear.) The great strength you have must be used unfailingly, unsparingly, but still prudently, for the advancement of the interest of the Empire, and for the benefit of mankind. (Cheers.) And happy will be the Minister in future days who will be able to render you as good an account as I think we can render you today—(loud and prolonged cheers)--that we have used the force that is entrusted to us not violently, not sentimentally, but with calm and courageous calculation for the advancement of the interests of the Empire and the benefits of the civilization of mankind. (Loud cheers.)".

*Sept. 17, 1898

†Speaking at a dinner of the Constitutional Club, London, Dec. 16, 1898.

The words of Mr. Chamberlain confirm this. Taunted by Mr. Asquith with 'inconsistency in having at one moment boasted of Britain's glorious isolation and at another advocated an alliance, he replied that England is "gloriously isolated" in her ability to defend her own exclusive interests; but she needs an ally when she is called upon to assist in the promotion of the interests of others.' *

The speech of the new Lord Curzon at the luncheon given in his honor by the directors of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company on the eve of his departure to rule India confirms it.† The occasion was significant,

he was speaking to great commercial men.

'Among the chief advantages of the imperial connection between England and India he included the possibility of the improved development of India. [The usual flourish of duty and disinterestedness.] . . . The chairman had incidentally referred to India in the interests of business men as a field for commercial enterprise. [Transition to the motive of avarice begins.] He could not help thinking, although desirous to avoid prophecy, that there would be great developments in that respect. (Hear, hear.) [Warm commercial response.]... If we could establish in India anything like stability of exchange—a great problem to which any outgoing Viceroy must turn his attention-he believed that confidence would revive, and that British capital would flow more freely to India. It might perhaps be regarded as a counsel of perfection to look at the case from any other point of view than that of expediency and self-interest, but in all matters connected with India he believed the point of view of duty and of obligation was paramount. (Hear, hear.) [Another blast on the trumpet of pharisaism with fine commercial appreciation.] . here, as business men, they might pardon and sympathize with him if he looked at the matter also from

*Saturday Review, Dec. 10, 1898.

†See the London Chronicle, Dec. 3, 1898.

But

UNIVERSITY

OF

BRITISH IMPERIAL BATHOS.

17

the sordid point of view of the £ s. d. [Now preliminaries are over and Curzon gets down to business.] Let them look at the trade of India, and compare it with the trade of our colonies. He found that the total sea-borne trade of India for 1896-7, which was an unprosperous year, almost equalled that of the whole of our Australian colonies, and was much greater than that of our South African and North American colonies combined; indeed, it constituted nearly onetenth of the trade of the whole British Empire, and was more than one-third of the trade of the whole Empire outside of the United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) These were astounding figures, and if any deduction was to be drawn from them, it was certainly not the conclusion that, even regarded from the point of view of self-interest, India was a matter in which we had little or no concern. On the contrary, India was of vital interest. (Cheers)." [The commercial skeleton of England's civilizing philanthropy is at length completely bared.]

The determination of England to monopolize education in Africa confirms it. Conveying to Kitchener the approval of "Her Majesty's Government" of the Khartoum College project Lord Salisbury said: "The reconciliation of the races which inhabit the Nile Valley to a government which, in its principles and its methods, must be essentially Western, is a task of the extremest difficulty. It will tax the resources of the present generation, and of those who come after them, for many years before the wall of prejudice can bet thrown down which separates the thoughts of the European and the thoughts of the Egpytian and the Soudanese races, and until it is to a considerable extent accomplished we cannot count securely upon their co-operation, either in the duties of government or in the promotion of industrial progress. The only method by which this reconciliation can be attained is to give to the races whom you have conquered access to the literature and knowledge of Europe.

"Your scheme, therefore, for establishing a machinery by which European knowledge can be brought to the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile is not only in itself most admirable, but it represents the only policy by which the civilizing mission of this country can effectively be accomplished.'

The general attitude of the nation is mirrored in the following editorial opinion:

"For this College at Khartoum would be a new departure in Africa. There we have lavished millions in attempts to teach Christianity, with and without material improvements in the condition of the people. In spite of widely circulated annual reports, the political observer can see no great results-none at any rate commensurate with the outlay. And here would be a new line, the only line possible, as the Prime Minister, whose Christianity no one will suspect, has very properly said, by which the civilizing mission of Great Britain can be thoroughly accomplished in the Nile basin."

All this seems very innocent and disinterested. But about this time France began to talk of assisting in the arduous task of 'reconciling' African with European civilization by founding two colleges in the Nile Valley, one at Khartoum and one at Fashoda. M. Deloncle in a letter to the "Temps" said: "Will you be so kind as to inform your readers that, anxious not to be left behind in this work of education, a French group has in its turn taken the initiative for the foundation of two establishments for native education and instruction-in the first place, 'The French School' at Khartoum, and, later on, 'The Marchand School' at Fashoda. greater part of the funds required for this double project is already assured by generous donations."

We may presume that England thankfully welcomed this offer to share the burden of civilizing the Soudanese races, a task in Salisbury's words of "extremest difficulty," but she did nothing of the sort. English papers scorned the offer and called it an "amusing pro