the results they looked for may not be achieved; but they shall at least have multiplied a hundredfold the chances of success, and they shall at least have found that justification they now invariably postulate but woefully fail to establish.

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

Strictly it does not come within the scope of the present article to suggest an answer to this question. The popular belief is that the Empire is already governed for the best, and the first stage 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 fatuous contention 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. The preliminary task is a herculean one; it is one which has for years past engaged the attention of many able men, but their voices have been almost 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 even when great is largely composed 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 find boasting of its greatness 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 pulpi and the latter, indeed, has imparted to it a divine sanction by t proclamation of the theory of a chosen nation, and inferentially of tribal Deity. Until men can be led to see that self-satisfaction a boastfulness are as priggish in a race as in an individual, a productive of far greater evil, we may seek in vain for any change their attitude towards alien races or for an application to oth nations of the same amount of justice as that which they pract towards men of their own nationality.

Nevertheless, mere destructive criticism can never be regarded a wholly satisfactory performance; and whilst to demonstrate that proffered solution of a problem is unsound (if such it be) is to cle the ground, this, essential though it is, merely creates a void unl it helps to the true solution and suggests the nature of the edif to be erected. Farther, there is more probability of destructi criticism accomplishing its mission if it be accompanied by co structive effort; whilst it may also be forcibly urged that it incumbent upon those who think the wrong road is being travers to point out a more excellent way. Hence this dissertation m not inappropriately be brought to a conclusion by contemplating for moment the problem of Empire, and suggesting in what directi lies the answer to the crucial question before referred to.

Not that there is in this respect much scope for originality, far as the principle of government is concerned, whilst the meth of the application of that principle to the various parts of Empire, the examination into the structure and function of machine and the evolution of a system, are tasks for the skilled investiga and practical statesman, and tasks as formidable as they are gra But the goal to which all effort should be directed is sufficien indicated, if not expressly stated, in what has been already 1 down. If despotism is a bad thing, if benevolence neither justi nor characterises it, obviously the only legitimate general aim is secure its abrogation, and interim administration must promote t object. In other words, the best way to govern another race is teach it to govern itself; to educate it (if not already sufficien educated) up to the point of autonomy; to develop in it the capac to appreciate, utilise and justify free institutions, and gradually accord to it greater liberty until the last vestige of alien rule sh disappear. "Gradually" is a vague word, but it is the only that can be employed in a generalisation, since no arbitrary r can be laid down as to the length of the process, and this m depend upon a variety of circumstances. In some cases the res might be achieved comparatively speedily, in others the prod must be slow and require steady and persistent nurture. It is o within the last century that any approach to self-government been made in England, and we are yet far from having attained

race.

à true democracy: although if plutocracy was formerly all powerful and is still potent, the rule has at least not been that of an alien The essential point is that the government should be directed to the restoration or procreation or extension of liberty, for liberty 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 influence. No doubt suddenly to withdraw all restraints 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 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 imperilling 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 despotism. 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 presumptuously considered the loss of independence as involving no injustice if accompanied by the establishment of British rule, and that we have been led by 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 position, 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 wh subject to our control. Only in this way can we discharge grave responsibilities to which Empire gives rise, and offer it ma some atonement for the grievous wrongs which in so many insta were perpetrated in the creation of Empire, and which in so instances have attended its continuance.

But whilst the abrogation of despotism should be our ulti goal, it is to be observed that the complete emancipation of su races does not necessarily mean a lowering of the flag or a sever of connection. In our self-governing colonies-independent s nations, as Mr. Chamberlain has termed them-we have an ad able model; and they point to the establishment of autono institutions within the geographical area (which, of course, is to be regarded as immutably fixed) and the conversion of the of force into the bond of affection. It is true we cannot le mately say that to this the stamp of finality is definitely t imparted, for complete political freedom involves the right to a lute severance, unless in any given instance such an act w endanger general liberty. If the colonies should desire to b the silken cord that binds them, there would be no ethical just tion for the mother country to seek to prevent them by force, certainly in the case of her large colonies she would not make attempt. But the strength of the union lies in the fact that it voluntary one, that it is due not to the denial but to the exe of freedom; and when that stage is reached in the history of now subject to our rule our task will have been accompli That the newly emancipated States would then wish for total ration there is no reason to suppose; but if they did we must adhere to the principle of liberty, and it would then becom question of whether total separation would in the particular accord with, or be detrimental to, that principle. Liberty, how does not mean the isolation of races; as has already been poi out, no nation has a right to the exclusive and unqualified ap priation of any portion of the earth's surface; and under circumstances Englishmen will be found in all parts of the g whatever the conditions of government may be, and wherever settle in numbers will by force of character exercise a pow influence on that government. A community to be free need consist of only one race; a despotic government can, and exist amongst men of the same race; a democratic government and does, exist amongst men of different races. The point is that every distinct section of the great human family should the power to detach itself from the rest of the world, but tha those, whether belonging to one section or several sections, wh domiciled under a common government should eventually hav equal voice in that government, subject to a common responsib

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, cæteris 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 evolutionary 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 numerical stronger nationality to evince the warmest loyalty to an alien and distant sovereign Power. It is only because these free institutions were ruthlessly overridden, only because the sovereign Power deliberately disregarded the wishes of the majority, only because it called into play the dormant racial instinct and compelled men to choose between the ties of kinship and the ties of allegiance, that the loyalty ceased. Of the egregious blundering 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.1

If we are willing to make a practical step in the direction of emancipation we could most appropriately commence with India. That vast country possesses men who in mental equipment are certainly not below any statesmen England can produce to-daywhich, perhaps, is not saying much, for British statesmanship has seldom been at so low an ebb. The cultured Indian is often superior to the cultured Briton, and competes successfully with him at his own universities; 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 formulated 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, respectively 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

1 "It is a very serious thing, a matter involving most serious consideration, if we are asked to go in opposition to Dutch sentiment."-Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons, February 13, 1896.

VOL. 160.-No. 1.

с