BRITISH IMPERIALISM NATURALLY PACIFIST.
According to its "Nationalist" opponents, British Imperialism has always
been of a conquering nature, like that of the Roman type and those of
ancient history.
This opinion is formally contradicted by a long succession of undeniable
historical facts. Undoubtedly the splendid structure of the British
Empire was not erected without armed support. The creation, without an
army organization, of a Sovereign State comprising a fourth of the
Globe, which component parts, themselves of colossal proportions,
situated in all the continents, separated by the immensity of the seas,
would have been more than marvellous.
I will not pretend that always and everywhere the expansion of British
Sovereignty has taken place according to the dictates of strict justice.
Still I do not hesitate to say that, on the whole, it has developed
under conditions which were never the outcome of a mere conquering
ambition.
With much reason, English citizens are proud of the fact that their
Empire is the result of a NATURAL GROWTH. When the call to arms had to
be made, it was oftener for DEFENSIVE WARS.
The British Empire, outside the United Kingdom, comprise, for the most
important part, Canada, Australia, the South African Dominion, and
India. It is easy to explain, in a few lines, under what general
circumstances those immense regions were brought under the British flag.
I shall, of course, begin this short historical review by the
acquisition of Canada by England.
The great event of the discovery of the New World, at the end of the
fifteenth century, tempted the western European nations to acquire vast
colonies in the new continent. Spain, France, Portugal, Holland, were
the first in the field. If the craving for large colonies in the new
Hemisphere was of Imperialist inspiration, England does not appear to
have been one of the first Powers infested with the disease so dreaded
by our "Nationalists". She was rather late to catch it. Hollanders
settled in New York before the British.
As all ought to know, Spain took hold of the whole of Southern America.
France displayed her flag on the larger part of Northern America,
commanding the St. Lawrence and Mississippi Rivers, and the Great Lakes.
Those immense regions, extending from the cold north to flowery
Louisiana, were called NEW FRANCE. Later on, that part of North America
bordering on the Atlantic, from Maine to Virginia, became British, and
was subdivided into thirteen provinces, or separate colonies. For such a
dominating Imperialist, as some pretend she has ever been, it must be
admitted that England was rather in a modest frame of mind with regard
to her colonial enterprises. The British Government itself was slow in
moving towards the Imperialist goal which was stirring up Spain and
France to a much greater activity. The first British emigrants were
Puritans looking for that religious liberty, under a new shining sun,
which was denied to them by their native land in those days when
fanaticism was unfortunately too much triumphant in many countries.
As it was inevitable, the European Colonies in America, all satellites
of their metropolis, fell victims to the political rivalries of the
nations who settled them. Not satisfied with fighting in Europe, those
Powers also decided to gratify the New World with a specimen of what
they could do on the battlefields. The Seven Years War did not originate
in America, as it was the outcome of secular European international
difficulties.
If the European nations, in taking possession of America, were making a
conquest, it was that of the white race over the yellow one of the New
World. Spain and France, in raising their flags over four-fifths of the
American continent, were surely strengthening Imperialism. Will our
"Nationalists" accuse them of having unduly saved the New World from the
secular Indian barbarism?
More especially, Spanish Imperialism in America was most despotic. By a
very false political conception, Spain undertook a great settlement work
in America with the sole object of bleeding her colonies to her only
profit. It failed disastrously as it deserved to. It is because she
persevered in her fatal error that, in 1898, she was forced out of Cuba.
The last stone of her immense colonial edifice was cast away.
England shared Spain's error, but much less heavily. Like Spain, she
reaped what she had sowed. The thirteen British American colonies
revolted and conquered their Independence. Alone French Canada remained
loyal to England.
If the French Canadians had sided with the British Colonies to the South
in the contest for their Independence, the Canada of those days would
certainly have been included in the American Republic when England was
forced, by the fate of war, to acknowledge the new Sovereign nation. Her
offspring then violently broke away from the parental home, but has
recently hastened to her defence, at the hour of danger, only
remembering the first happy years of her childhood.
Following the loyal advice of their spiritual leaders, and of their most
trusted civil chieftains, the French Canadians remained true to England,
refusing to desert her, thus maintaining her Sovereign rights over the
Northern half of the Continent destined, a century later, to develop
into the present Dominion, enjoying the free institutions of the Mother
Country.
As previously stated, the American Revolution brought for ever to an end
British absolutism in the new continent. Henceforth, liberty and
autonomy were to be the two foundation stones of a new colonial Policy
which, far from disrupting the Empire as the autocratic one had done,
was to cement its union so strongly as to make possible the gigantic
military effort she has displayed for more than the last four years.
The Treaty of Paris brought the Seven Years War to a close. Once more
the peace of the world was temporarily restored. By the Treaty of Paris,
Canada was ceded to England, our "Nationalists" say. If so, how can they
pretend that the extension of British Sovereignty over the regions which
have become the great autonomous Dominion of Canada was an undue
manifestation of British conquering Imperialism?
An intelligent and impartial student of the early settlements of the two
continents of America can only draw the conclusion that the New World
has not been the theatre of the operations of British Imperialism. Its
first real attempt was tried--with much laudable success--in 1867, by
the federal union of the Canadian provinces, decreed by the Sovereign
legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain, at our own request
and in accordance with our own freely expressed wishes.
Australia is the second autonomous colony of England in extent and
importance. It comprises nearly all the territory of the Oceanic
continent, so called from the geographical position, in the Pacific
Ocean, of the Islands forming it. New Zealand is the second group of
these Islands. It is another autonomous British colony, called, since
1907 "THE DOMINION OF NEW ZEALAND".
Those two Dominions have a combined territorial area of more than
3,000,000 square miles--almost as large as the whole of Europe--with a
population of six millions rapidly increasing. Their two largest cities,
Sydney and Melbourne, each having a population of 700,000, are great
commercial centres.
If British Imperialism has had anything to do with the bringing of
Australia and New Zealand under British Sovereignty, it must be admitted
by all fair minded men that it has worked its way in the most pacific
manner. Deservedly renowned British explorers--Cook, Vancouver, and
others--discovered and took possession of the Oceanic continent in the
name of their Sovereign. Welcomed by the aboriginal tribes, they raised
the British flag over the fair land of such a promising future in the
latter end of the eighteenth century--Cook in 1770. It has ever since
been graciously waving, by the sweet breeze of the Pacific, over one of
the happiest peoples on earth, enjoying the blessings of interior peace
and all the advantages of the political liberties conferred upon these
great colonies, more than half a century ago. As a matter of fact,
England has organized her Australasian possessions into free autonomous
colonies at the very dawn of their political life, dating from the
middle of the last century, when they began that splendid progressive
advance developing more and more every year.
Is it not evident, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the settlement of
the Australasian colonies by England, so satisfactory and so promising,
has not been brought about by the illegitimate ambition of an unmeasured
Sovereign aggrandizement by a guilty sort of Imperialism.
The establishment of British Sovereignty in the Indian country, immense
in extent, wealth and population, is one of the greatest events of the
historical development of the British Empire.
I shall not say that all that took place in the government of India
deserves a blind approval. That British authority was much too long left
in the control of a company was a misfortune. Under such a regime abuses
were sure to develop and increase. They did and were energetically
denounced--more especially on that day when Sheridan rose to such an
eloquence, in the House of Lords, that a motion of adjournment had to be
carried, to allow the peers to recover the free control of their minds
before rendering judgment in the case brought before their tribunal,
impeaching Warren Hastings.
The rule of the Indian Company was abolished, in 1858, by _The
Government of India Act_.
In 1876, the illustrious Disraeli--Lord Beaconsfield--took the
statesmanlike decision of adding a new prestige to the British Crown and
to the Sovereign wearing it. He had Parliament to adopt the _Royal
Titles Act_, by which Her Majesty Queen Victoria was proclaimed EMPRESS
OF INDIA.
Such, in due course, and without any trouble, was accomplished that
great political evolution which substituted, for populations numbering
more than three hundred millions of human beings, an Imperial system in
place of the deplorable government by a company. For the last sixty
years, the new regime has given peace, order and prosperity to India.
A French publicist wrote as follows:--
After troubles of nine centuries duration, India has recovered
peace under the tutelage of England, the best colonizer of the
peoples of Europe. England has rendered an evident service to
India. She has freed her from the intestine wars tearing her
since her historical origin; she has given her a police and an
administrative system.
Nations, like individuals, are not perfect. To judge equitably,
impartially, the government by a Metropolis of the regions under her
Sovereignty, one must not only be scandalized at her failings, but must
take the broader view of her whole history in appreciating its final
good and commendable results. So judging the government of India by
England, every impartial mind must conclude that, on the whole--and more
especially for the last sixty years--it has been beneficient. It
promises to be still more so, as a consequence of the admirable share
India is taking in the present war.
Egypt and the Soudan have a territorial area of 1,335,000 square miles,
with a population of 15,000,000. I pride to be one of those who
congratulate Great Britain to have freed the ancient and glorious
Egyptian country from Turkish tyranny. A proclamation, dated the 18th
of December, 1914, has finally placed Egypt under England's protectorate
with the agreement of France.
In the chapters respecting the Soudanese and South African wars, I have
shown how satisfactory has been the rule of Great Britain in those
African countries.
It being ever true that the earth was Providentially created for men to
live in the legitimate enjoyment of the blessings of peace multiplied by
the fruits of their labours, the Egyptians and the Soudaneses have every
reason to congratulate themselves for their liberation from the Turkish
barbarous yoke, and for the protection they receive from one of the most
civilizing nations.
I sincerely believe that this short review of the respective situation
of five of the principal component parts of the British Empire, is
sufficient to form the honest conviction that if England has practised
Imperialism, she has done so for the real benefit of the peoples living
under the aegis of her Sovereignty, the most favourable to colonial
political liberty.