upon that which is, or ought to be, the predominant purpose of our policy, upon the slow, but in course of time the effective association with those to whom we came in the character of strangers and conquerors-the task of helping them work out for themselves a higher and a better political and social ideal. (Hear, hear.)”

If Mr. Asquith does not know, there are many in England who do know that there is a wide distance between "that which is," and "that which ought to be, the predominant purpose" of English policy. But on the whole, this sounds noble and good, and is very different from the imperialism which is at present in the saddle in England. Moderate as it is, what was the general sentiment of the conference as compared with it? That sentiment will possibly stagger the benevolent people whose clarion voice is now calling us to England's res

cue.

At the afternoon session the Rev. Mr. Jowett-note the "Reverend" and "a man of great note in Birmingham”—‘attacked "Imperialism" in all moods and tenses, in a strong speech.'

'He said an infection was in the air which seemed to have tainted the historic party which had hitherto been the party of peace. It was a tendency which was one of the most perilous of modern days. That word imperialism had become so tainted with suspicion that he was not sure that any self-respecting statesman would aspire to be thought in favor of it. (Cheers.) Imperialism was only a synonym for jingoism-(cheers)-against which they fought and conquered twenty years ago. (Cheers.) He announced the daringly logical conclusion that England was at present playing the part of Stiggins in Europe, “seizing slices of the globe" and glozing it over with "religious posturings."

Sir Wilfrid Lawson said, the only people who liked war were statesmen, music-hall singers, aldermen, bishops, and newspaper editors. (Laughter and cheers.)

*London Daily Chronicle report, Dec. 17, 1898.

Mr. Hirst Hollowell declared that 'it was not a battle of persons or private jealousies that was going on inside the Liberal party, but of principles. The party was not going to be led into jingoism by anybody, and if its leaders or those of any other party were to be disparaged or shunted because they stood up against jingoism, then the members of the party throughout the country would have something to say on the matter. (Loud cheers.)

There were two things with which the Liberal party would never make any terms, and these were sectarianism in education and jingoism in foreign politics. (Cheers.)

"The net result of the whole was summed up by the observers as a demonstration of unexpected strength against the Liberal Imperialists.

It seems, then, that many Englishmen have not the slightest toleration for the talisman by which we are being conjured to expansion-that Anglo-Saxon Imperialism is a blessing to the world.

But no British statesman can speak on this subject with the weight of John Morley, because of his known probity, and Mr. Morley has broken with the new Liberalism because of its "imperialistic jingo policy," which he thus defines :

"First, that territory is territory, and all territory is worth acquiring.

"Second, that all territory, especially if anybody happens to want it, is worth paying any price for.

"Third, that the country possesses the purse of Fortunatus, and is free to fling millions here and millions there, with the certainty that benignant fairies will, by magic, make them good.

"Fourth, do not show the slightest regard for the opinions of other nations. You have no share whatever in the great collective responsibility of civilized peoples as the winged guardians of peace and good order in the state system of Europe.

*London Daily Chronicle report, Dec. 17, 1898

“Fifth, the interests of the people of this country, and advancement in all the arts of civilized life and well-being, are completely and utterly secondary and subordinate questions." *

Mr. Labouchere had already spoken in notable language on some of these points before the Manchester Reform Club. He had said: "The great illusion of the present day was to suppose that an increase of territory meant an increase of trade. As a matter of fact, as could easily be proved by figures, it did not mean any such thing. All the annexations we had made of late were a commercial fallacy, and even the doctrine of the open door had been much exaggerated. The mania at the present time was to spend money in any place excepting England. Instead of spending money in irrigation works in Bahr-el-Ghazal he, as a Londoner, maintained that they ought to spend it rather in providing a good water supply for the inhabitants of the metropolis. When he saw the proposal for the establishment of a school at Khartoum to teach little Arab boys English, he could not help thinking what a wonderful people his countrymen were to spend money on such an object as that instead of supplying food and clothing and education to the thousands of poor little English boys at home.” †

3. British Imperial Bathos.

These unequivocal protests give the noble mission of England a very different hue. Bathos dances behind all the magnificently generous phrases. We find it in Lord Rosebery's eulogy of the awful Sirdar of the Soudan. "Our task," said the Lord, "is the task of our empire all over the world, not merely to erect a standard of civil government for those who have not hitherto had that standard, but to enable the people gradually, at a long distance perhaps, but in time at any rate, to take some part in their own administration, and to have a distinctive share in the

*Speech at Montrose, Jan 1999. See London correspondence of New York Post, Jan. 25

+London Chronicle, Dec. 14, 1898.

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 Associa

tion:

"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.