ject." Why amusing? If England's purpose is the good of the Nile people why will she not co-operate gladly with a highly civilized nation like France to educate them? Educators and scientists of all nations of the earth are loyally co-operating to advance science and education irrespective of race and political rivalry. But we can understand very well why England will not cooperate or share if her 'civilization' is domination and supremacy in the Nile region for commercial ends, and the fact that she will not brook assistance in educating and civilizing establishes our contention that her ruling purpose is not civilization at all but commercialism, that she would not be held in Africa or India a day by the good she can do there, and that what holds her is the gain she gets or expects to get.

The New York Tribune, referring to Lord Cromer's announcement to the Soudanese of the civilization that is ahead of them, expressed a great thought very suavely. "Of course, it remarked, "it may be objected that this action of the British is criminal aggression, rank imperialism, et cetera, and that it is a shameful thing to set up a government at Omdurman without a favorable plebiscitum in Dem Bekir. But we doubt whether such considerations will undo or defeat the convention which has been made or will turn back the rising tide of civilization in the Dark Continent." The rising of European commercial rule and the falling tide of African independence, would be true. Call "criminal aggression" by the name of "civilization" and its sins are all forgiven; it is redeemed, purified and ready to enter heaven.

The curious reader will find in the British and Foreign State Papers for the year 1854-5,* the following words: 'In 1854 a grand jury in the Williamsburg district [South Carolina] declared," "as our unanimous opinion, that the Federal law abolishing the African Slave Trade is a public grievance. We hold this trade has been and

*Page 1156, quoted by W. E. B. Du Bois : "The Suppression of the African Slave Trade in the United States," p. 169.

would be, if re-established, a blessing to the American people, and a benefit to the African himself."

The idea that slavery was a benefit to the African himself was made a corner stone of the institution of slavery. It brought inward consolation to the good man who held slaves or upheld slavery. Now, the enslaving of lower nations is good for the nation that enslaves and a benefit to the nation that is enslaved. The good of our time find peace and perfection in this doctrine.

4. Only Cash-Paying Philanthropy Wanted.

But there are two final forms of proof with which we clinch the foregoing argument. First, England shows no inclination to go adventuring in those countries where there is magnificent opportunity for unselfish philanthropy and little or none for profit. Secondly, English dealing with the subjugated races shows that commerce and profit are primary, and that civilization and upbuilding are desired and fostered just in so far as they promote commerce and profit. Let us give examples. Leonard Courtney in his recent presidential address before the Royal Statistical Society on "An Experiment in Commercial Expansion," gave a study of the Congo Free State. Europe placed the Congo State in the hands of the King of Belgium for "commercial and philanthropic exploitation." The net commercial result was that "the Congo trade represented but little more than 0.7 per cent of the total trade of Belgium.' This, said Mr. Courtney, "was sadly disproportionate to the anticipations of the enterprise."

He said that "if we wished to think accurately about such enterprises as the Congo experiment, philanthropy and commerce must be separated from one another in our thoughts. As a philanthropic adventure the Congo had certainly been a very mixed success. An extremely chequered record of war, enforced labor, and exacted tribute might, after long years, effect a certain transfor

mation of the social condition of the inhabitants. . . . As for the commercial success of the Congo, . . . enough had been said to show that it was disputable whether the resources of the country were such as to sustain permanent trade, even with the help of the railway. . . . The immense development of wealth and commerce, and of civilized populations following the establishment of some of the colonies of Europe, had encouraged the belief that all adventures to which the same name could be given must be crowned with the same success. Yet the conditions which had secured this success in the past could be easily indicated, and it became a simple inquiry whether like conditions were to be found in any land offered for new enterprise.... We were justified in saying that nothing could be deduced from the history of American colonization or Indian domination to justify hopes of a lucrative commercial expansion in Central Africa. Missionary and philanthropic labor might be spent there with approval, and with some measure of slow success, but the foundation of healthful colonies furnishing outlets for -population and commerce was not hopeful.

"Sir R. Giffen moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Courtney for his valuable paper, which was seconded by Sir F. S. Powell, who thought this country ought to be congratulated that the Congo State did not belong to us. (Cheers.)"

Here was an instance where a gathering of very influential and representative Englishmen put itself on record as being highly gratified that England did not own the Congo, because there was no money in it, although the opportunities for civilization and philanthropy there were recognized as immense. If civilizing were the actual as it is the feigned object of England this is the very kind of country that she would choose to own and to colonize, on account of its unbounded needs. The law of imperialistic colonizing is this: No outlay shall be made for 'civilizing' purposes which does not promise to return, sooner or later, the usual rate of

returns on invested capital. The corollary of this law is that civilization is not an end in itself but a means to an end—a means for increasing and firmly establishing commerce. This simple principle is the key to the entire mighty network of imperialist dogmas concerning duty, religion, humanity, unselfishness and civilization. Lord Rosebery skilfully admitted and used this principle in his eulogy of the Sirdar's college, when he said that 'if our civilization was to prevail against other contending European civilizations, etc., ... he [Kitchener] saw that a beginning must be made in the way of a center of education.'

5. Is India Happy?

The dealings of England with her lower subject races are a sturdy proof that civilizing and uplifting are not her ends excepting as they increase and strengthen her sources of income. Of the recent terrific slaughter of the Soudanese by machine guns, I shall not speak here, but shall take the illustration that is most favorable to England—the Indian Empire. One word first, however, as to what civilization and race upbuilding is. It is the boast of English Imperialists that England 'brings into the minds and into the lives of the subject people, not as phantoms of the imagination, but as solid, vivid realities, the ideas of order, justice and humanity.' (Mr. Asquith.) But these ideas alone are very far from civilizing. The dog in distinction to the wolf has these ideas, learned from contact with civilized man. He is tender, kind, orderly, and true, he is even just, but he lacks that which the concept of civilization demands. He lacks independent development, self-development, the power of standing alone and going forward without leaning or being led. Order, justice, and humanity are developed in chattel slaves, but they lack a prime requisite of civilization, without which civilization is not. They are not free. Now the glib lords and lawyers, bishops

*Dec 28, 1898. Reported in the London Daily Chronicle.

and parliamentarians and prophets of England are fiery in praise of the order and security that England establishes, but they do not explain to us just what these are worth without freedom, self-government, and self-development, a thing that we should very much like to know.

To what extent is England developing the Indians, strengthening their character, training them to be selfsustained, independent, and free? As to this none can speak better than Indians themselves. The London Indian Society held its annual conference for 1898 not long ago* and the members gave very vigorous expression to their opinion of British treatment of India. chairman, Mr. D. Naoroji, moved a resolution:

The

"That in accordance with the oft-declared and pledged policy of the British people, through Acts and Resolutions of Parliament and Proclamations of Her Majesty the Queen, to treat Indians exactly as the British subjects in this country; . . . this conference is of opinion and urges upon the government in the name of British justice and honor, that Indians should be allowed commissions and command in the Indian army in the same manner and through the same methods as are open to English

men..

"

Mr. Naoroji referred to the bravery and heroism shown by the native soldiers... They ought by rights to be treated as British citizens, but the practice of the authorities was the very reverse. The chairman quoted opinions which showed that the native soldiers had remained true to their salt, even to the extent of fighting. bravely against their own kith and kin.... He claimed something more than justice from the British people; he claimed their gratitude. (Cheers.) It was the money and blood of India which had built up the British Empire there. (Cheers.) ... The present system was not only an injustice; it was a gross insult to the whole Indian nation. (Cheers.) He had been in communication with the War Office on the matter, and had been told that the Queen's Warrant forbade Indian subjects holding commissions in the Indian army.'