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 responsibility 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 see) 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 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 arbitrary 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 contemplate 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.

This brings us to the second hypothesis of the Imperialist, namely that benevolence 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 to render it possible for despotism to be benevolent, at least condition seems essential, namely that the power should be ve in a single individual: whereas the rule of one race by anothe collective, generally bureaucratic. Of course omniscience w really be necessary to secure perfect rule, but it is at any possible to conceive of an autocrat (though not easy to discover in history) who, so far as his knowledge extended, should exer dominion solely in the interests of his subjects. The moment, b ever, power is vested not in one individual but in a number individuals, the obstacles to a beneficent sway are enormo increased, for the beneficence then depends not upon a single but upon a number of wills. Even if it be assumed to be true in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, it is infinitely n difficult to find a body of men, brought together by a variety circumstances, who shall have a high moral ideal, than it is to one man possessing such an ideal; and even on the wide assu tion that all will be actuated by the best of motives, the concep of duty will inevitably differ. Government, whether democra oligarchic or bureaucratic, in short, of any form other than a cratic, must be based on compromise; and compromise, wh perfectly valid as between men having a common interest, me when it relates to the destinies of others that full justice cannot done. For one nation to govern another with pure benevolenc would be necessary that there should be absolute unanimity both to what constitutes benevolence in given circumstances and a how it is to be reduced into practice; but, as the old maxim has it homines, quot sententiæ. Hence the joint decision must be the resul a give and take process; and, granting for the sake of argument t all are honestly desirous of doing the best for the subject race, see that they will inevitably have different ideas, the more noble have to yield something to the less noble-whilst, with fallible m it will perhaps in the result be found that what had the appeara of being beneficent in fact proved the reverse. In other words, limitations of human nature are such that arbitrary rule, howe well intentioned, can only be tempered with a certain amount benignity. Whilst despotism need not be (although it often is) same thing as pure tyranny, whilst it may stop somewhere short this, the exact halting place depends upon the will, intelligen prescience and agreement of a number of persons of vary individuality, temperament, wisdom and rectitude.

So far then as ratiocination goes it seems to be clea established that there can be no such thing as benevolent despotis But it is sometimes intimated that an ounce of fact is wort pound of theory, and it has already been granted that the quest of whether or not benevolence does characterise despotism is one

fact. To arrive, therefore, at a conclusive answer to the question we must look to alien rule as it actually manifests itself. Of course, however, it is here 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 favourable aspects.

What then, in the first place, are the facts with regard to India? Says Sir William Wedderburn:

"Unfortunately the people of this country have never properly realised their responsibility as proprietors of so vast a national joint-stock concern. Like careless shareholders 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, nevertheless, 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 content 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 as 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 emoluments, 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. The Salt Department naturally calls for, and readily obtains from the Government,

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

Mr. S. S. Thorburn writes:

"The root cause of the increasing poverty and self-helplessness of t Indian peoples may be most comprehensively expressed by the term, o 'system.' . . . Each famine that has occurred has submerged more ar more of the peasantry, and as famines have of late years been increasin in frequency and intensity, more than half of the agriculturists of Britis India-a few favoured localities excepted-are now in about as miserab a plight as human beings not officially designated slaves or serfs can b Our system' has disintegrated their ancient village commonwealth involved a majority of the members in hopeless indebtedness, and tran ferred the proprietary or cultivating right in their best fields-the wor are worth little to usurers-to their creditors. . . . To the sympathet discernment of the disinterested statesman, the man who considers pr ducers as well as production, India contains not one unit, but 300 millio of units, each a struggling atom of humanity, lying prostrate and bleedi under the wheels of the Juggernaut Car called progress on Western line If a country's prosperity is measured by the material volume of its wealt a people's depends on the width of that wealth's diffusion. India, for agricultural country, has wealth, but as our system' has accumulat most of it in the hands of a comparatively small number of persons, t people, the masses, are poor sweated creatures."

And says Mr. W. C. Bonnerjee :

6

2

"Say what they would India was not governed in the interests of t people of India, but in the interests of the middle class and aristocra class of this country. It was a place to which were sent the boys wi whom it was a great difficulty to know what to do. They were sent the for the civil service, the forest service, the military service; as tea plant and indigo planters-anything to put those sons out of sight.... Up the present time the natives had been mere hewers of wood and drawers water for their English conquerors. No real attempt had been made sympathise with the people or to govern them as they should be govern

Englishmen were bound hand and foot to certain persons who we called their agents, were satisfied with everything they told them, and if native Indian got up and told a different story they would remark th 1 Pamphlet, No. 14 of the League of Liberals against Aggression and Militaris London: The Reform Press.

2 Fabian Tract, No. 110. London: The Fabian Society.

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." 1

That the pictures here presented are faithful delineations is, if not beyond controversy (for anything may be disputed), beyond confutation. No unbiassed individual can peruse the voluminous treatises of Mr. Naoroji and Mr. Digby, 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 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 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 of South Africa," as Mr. John Morley tells us, "is one of the most abominable chapters in the history of our times." And even Lord Salisbury has been constrained gently to enjoin (without, however, indicating how the injunction is to be performed) that due precaution must be taken for the philanthropic and kindly and improving treatment of those countless indigenous races of whose destiny he actually fears we have been too forgetful. Concerning our new territories in the Transvaal and Orange River district, as they are at present in a state of chaos, or at the best of transition, it would not be fairalthough it is we who have brought about this chaos out of previous order to instance them as a case of arbitrary rule; but whilst it is tolerably clear that we cannot permanently govern a vast white population in the spirit of pure despotism, and that we shall eventually see an autonomous South African Confederation (which will, in all probability, ultimately be under its own flag) at present whatever desire is manifested to promote the welfare of the governed,

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