The Character of the British Empire Part 1

The Character of the British Empire.

by Ramsay Muir.

NOTE.--_The following essay is based mainly upon a book by the same author ent.i.tled "The Expansion of Europe," in which an attempt is made to estimate the part played by various nations in extending the civilisation of Europe over the whole world. A few references are therefore given to the fuller treatment of various aspects of the subject contained in the book._

I

Nearly all the great self-governing nations of the world are now combined in a desperate struggle against the scarcely-veiled military despotism of the Central European Powers, and the object of the struggle has been well denned by President Wilson as the securing of freedom for democracy, so that it shall be safe from the threats of militarist and conquering empires.

In the forefront of the group of States engaged in the defence of democracy stands the British Empire, the greatest dominion that has ever existed in history, which covers a quarter of the earth's surface, and in which a quarter of the earth's population is subject (at any rate, in form) to the rule of two small European islands.

The very existence of this huge Empire seems to many people to stultify in some degree the cause for which the world's democracies are fighting.

It seems, at first sight, to be simply the greatest example of that spirit of conquest and of military dominion against which we are striving. This is the view taken by some neutrals. "Imperialism is the enemy," says one Swiss writer; "whatever form it takes, German or Russian, British or French, it is equally the foe of free government."

The Germans themselves make great play with this notion. They describe the British Empire as a vast, greedy tyranny, built up by fraud. They invite us to free the oppressed millions of India before we talk hypocritically about liberty. They a.s.sert that the naval supremacy of Britain is far more dangerous to the freedom of the world than the military power of Germany could ever be. Some people even in the allied countries are affected by doubts of this kind. The Russian Socialists, for whom imperialism has in the past meant nothing but a hideous repression of freedom, are ready to a.s.sume that the British Empire, because it is called an empire, must mean the same ugly things. And criticism of the same kind can sometimes be heard in France, in Italy, in the United States, and in Britain herself.

Our purpose, in this short paper, is to examine the truth of these superficial impressions. But before we do so there are two preliminary observations worth making.

The first is that men's minds are extraordinarily easily influenced by mere _words_. The word "Empire" suggests, to many, conquest and dominion over unwilling subjects. In so far as it does so, it begs the question.

As we shall try to show, this word is really misapplied to the British realms. The character of their government and of the bond which holds them together would be much better expressed by a phrase which is now being widely used in Britain--the British _Commonwealth of Nations_. Of course, that t.i.tle also begs the question in a way. But the reader is asked, at the outset, to keep in his mind, while he reads, the question, "Is the t.i.tle 'Empire,' or the t.i.tle 'Commonwealth of Nations,' the truer description of this extraordinary aggregate of lands and peoples?"

The second preliminary observation which we shall make is, that there are certain outstanding features of the war which must have thrown a striking light upon the character of the British Empire.

Over a million volunteer soldiers have come from the great self-governing Colonies of the British Empire without any compulsion being imposed upon them. The princes and peoples of India have vied with one another in their generous and spontaneous gifts to the cause, while Indian forces have fought gallantly in all parts of the world, and at the same time India has been almost denuded of British troops. That is not the sort of thing which happens when the masters of a tyrannical dominion find themselves fighting for their very life. Apart from the unhappy troubles in Ireland (which were the work of a small minority) and the rebellion in South Africa (which was promptly put down by the South African Dutch themselves), there has been no serious disturbance in all the vast realms of this Empire during the three years' strain of war. Even the most recently subdued of African tribes have shown no desire to seize this opportunity for throwing off "the foreign yoke." On the contrary, they have sent touching gifts, and offers of aid, and expressions of good-will. It appears, then, that the subjects of this "Empire" have, for the most part, no quarrel with its government, but are well content that it should survive.

II

The creation of the British Empire has been simply a part (though, perhaps, the greatest part) of that outpouring of the European peoples which has, during the last four centuries, brought the whole world under the influence of western civilisation. That is a great achievement, and it has brought in sight the establishment of a real world-order. It is merely foolish to condemn the "l.u.s.t of conquest"

which has driven the European peoples to subdue the rest of the world, though, of course, we ought to condemn the cruelties and injustices by which it has sometimes been accompanied. But without it North and South America, Australia, and South Africa would have remained deserts, inhabited by scattered bands of savages. Without it India would have been sentenced to the eternal continuance of the sterile and fruitless wars between despotic conquerors which made up her history until the British power was established. Without it the backward peoples of the earth would have stagnated for ever in the barbarism in which they have remained since the beginning. The "imperialism" of the European nations has brought great results to the world. It has made possible that unification of the political and economic interests of the whole globe which we see beginning to-day. It is one of the fine aspects of this grim and horrible war that it affects the interests of the whole world, and that the whole world knows this.

The giant's part which has been played by Britain in the conquest of the world by Western civilisation, and the peculiar character of her work, have been due to two things--British inst.i.tutions and the British Navy.

It ought never to be forgotten that down to the nineteenth century (that is, during all the earlier part of the process of European expansion) Britain was the only one of the greater European States which possessed self-governing inst.i.tutions. She has been, in truth (this is not a boast, but a mere statement of indisputable historical fact), the inventor of political liberty on the scale of the great nation-state, as Greece was the inventor of political liberty on the scale of the little city-state. And wherever free inst.i.tutions exist to-day, they have been derived from Britain, either by inheritance, as in America and the self-governing British colonies, or by imitation, as in all other cases.

When the outpouring of Europe into the rest of the world began, the British peoples alone had the habit and instinct of self-government in their very blood and bones. And the result was that, wherever they went, they carried self-government with them. _Every_ colony of British settlers, from the very first, was endowed with self-governing inst.i.tutions. _No_ colony ever planted by any other nation ever obtained corresponding rights.[1] That is one of the outstanding features of British expansion. In the eighteenth century, and even in the middle of the nineteenth century, Britain herself and the young nations that had sprung from her loins were _almost the only free States existing in the world_. It was because they were free that they throve so greatly. They expanded on their own account, they threw out fresh settlements into the empty lands wherein they were planted, often against the wish of the Mother Country. And this spontaneous growth of vigorous free communities has been one of the princ.i.p.al causes of the immense extension of the British Empire.

Now one of the results of the universal existence of self-governing rights in British colonies was that the colonists were far more prompt to resent and resist any improper exercise of authority by the Mother Country than were the settlers in the colonies of other countries, which had no self-governing rights at all. It was this independent spirit, nurtured by self-government, which led to the revolt of the American colonies in 1775, and to the foundation of the United States as an independent nation. In that great controversy an immensely important question was raised, which was new to human history. It was the question whether unity could be combined with the highest degree of freedom; whether it was possible to create a sort of fellowship or brotherhood of free communities, in which each should be master of its own destinies, and yet all combine for common interests. But the question (being so new) was not understood on either side of the Atlantic. Naturally, Britain thought most of the need of maintaining unity; she thought it unfair that the whole burden of the common defence should fall upon her, and she committed many foolish blunders in trying to enforce her view. Equally naturally the colonists thought primarily of their own self-governing rights, which they very justly demanded should be increased rather than restricted. The result was the unhappy war, which broke up the only family of free peoples that had yet existed in the world, and caused a most unfortunate alienation between them, whereby the cause of liberty in the world was greatly weakened.[2]

Britain learned many valuable lessons from the American Revolution. In the new empire which she began to build up as soon as the old one was lost, it might have been expected that she would have fought shy of those principles of self-government which no other State had ever tried to apply in its over-sea dominions, and which seemed to have led (from the imperialistic point of view) to such disastrous results in America.

But she did not do so; the habits of self-government were too deeply rooted in her sons to make it possible for her to deny them self-governing rights in their new homes. On the contrary, she learnt, during the nineteenth century, to welcome and facilitate every expansion of their freedom,[3] and she gradually felt her way towards a means of realising a partnership of free peoples whereby freedom should be combined with unity. Its success (although it must still undergo much development) has been strikingly shown in the Great War.

Thus British inst.i.tutions--the inst.i.tutions of national self-government, which are peculiarly British in origin--have played a main part both in determining the character of the British Empire and in bringing about its wonderful expansion. The more the British Empire has grown the more freedom has been established on the face of the earth.

The second great factor in the growth of the British Empire has been the power of the British Navy, which has been the greatest sea power of the world practically since the overthrow of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

It is a striking fact that in all her history Britain has never possessed a large army, until the necessities of this war suddenly forced her (as they are now forcing America) to perform the miracle of calling her whole manhood from the pursuits of peace to arms, of training them, and of equipping them, all within two years. In 1775 it was the fact that she possessed only a tiny armed force (some 40,000 men for the defence of all her dominions), which made it necessary for her, for example, to hire Hessian troops in a hurry for the purposes of the American War of Independence. Is not this an astounding paradox, that the power which has acquired dominion over one-quarter of the earth has done it without ever possessing a large army? And does it not suggest that the process by which this empire was acquired must have been very different from the ordinary processes of military conquest? This is a paradox which those who speak of the British Empire as if it were a mere military dominion must somehow explain.

But there has been the supreme British fleet. It has made the creation and preservation of the Empire possible by securing the free transit not merely of soldiers, but, far more important, of settlers, merchants, administrators, organisers, and missionaries. Scattered as it is over all the seas of the world, the British Empire would undoubtedly be broken into fragments if the security of the ocean high-roads by which it is united were ever to be lost. But although the British Navy has made the growth of the Empire possible, and has held it together, it has not conquered it. A fleet _cannot_ conquer great areas of land; it _cannot_ hold ma.s.ses of discontented subjects in an unwilling obedience; it _cannot_ threaten the freedom or independence of any land-power. It is strong only for defence, not for offence.

There are two aspects of the work of the British Navy during the last three centuries which deserve to be noted, because they also help to indicate the character of the work done by the British Empire during this period.

In the first place, the British naval power has never been used to threaten the freedom of any independent State. On the contrary, it has been employed time and again as the last bulwark of freedom against great military Powers which have threatened to overwhelm the freedom of their neighbours by mere brute strength. That was so in the sixteenth century, when Spain seemed to be within an ace of making herself the mistress of the world. It was so a hundred years later, when the highly-organised power of Louis XIV. threatened the liberties of Europe.

It was so again, a century later, when Napoleon's might overshadowed the world. It is so once more to-day, when the German peril menaces the liberty of nations. During each of these desperate crises the British Navy has seemed to neutrals to be interfering unduly with their trade, in so far as their trade helped the enemy. In this connection it is worth noting that it has been for two centuries the invariable rule of the British Navy that in no circ.u.mstances must a neutral vessel ever be sunk, and in no circ.u.mstances must the lives of non-combatants be sacrificed. But is it not reasonable to say that in each of these great wars the theoretic rights of neutral trade were justly subordinated to the struggle for the preservation of liberty? In all the great crises of modern European history, then, British naval power has been the ultimate bulwark of liberty.

But how has this power been used in times of peace? The Spanish naval power, which preceded the British, enforced for its people a monopoly of the use of all the oceans of the world except the North Atlantic. The Dutch naval power, which carried on an equal rivalry with the British during the seventeenth century, established a practical monopoly for Dutch trade in all the waters east of the Straits of Malacca. But the British naval power has never for a moment been used to restrict the free movement of the ships of all nations in times of peace in any of the seas of the world. This, again, is not a boast, but a plain statement of undeniable historical fact. The freedom of the seas in times of peace (which is much more important than the freedom of the seas in times of war) has only existed during the period of British naval supremacy, but it has existed so fully that we have got into the habit of taking it for granted, and of a.s.suming, rather rashly, that it can never be impaired. What is more, it has been entirely during the period of British naval supremacy, and mainly by the work of the British fleet, that the remoter seas have been charted and that piracy has been brought to an end, and the perils of the sailor reduced to the natural perils of wind and wave. This also is a contribution to the freedom of the seas.

British inst.i.tutions, the inst.i.tutions of self-government, and the British Navy, which has at all times been a bulwark of liberty, and has never interfered in times of peace with the use of the seas by any nation--these have been the main explanations of the fabulous growth of the British Empire. We cannot here attempt to trace the story of this growth, but must be content to survey the completed structure and consider on what principles it is governed.

[1] See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapters II. and III.

[2] See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapter IV., where this view of the American Revolution is developed.

[3] See "The Expansion of Europe," Chapter VI., where the "Transformation of the British Empire" during the nineteenth century is a.n.a.lysed.

III

The vast realms of the British Empire fall naturally into three groups: the great self-governing dominions, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland; the lands of ancient civilisation, India and Egypt; and the wide protectorates (mainly in Africa, but also in Asia and the Pacific) which are inhabited by backward and primitive peoples.

There are other regions also, such as the West Indian Islands, or the military posts and calling stations like Gibraltar, Malta, and Aden, which do not fall into any of these three categories. But they are of relatively minor importance, and it will be convenient to concentrate our attention upon each of the three main groups in turn.

Regarding the self-governing dominions, the intelligent reader scarcely needs to be told that they are to all intents and purposes entirely free States, which remain in a.s.sociation with the Mother Country only by their own free will. If they were to claim complete independence, there would certainly be no attempt made by Britain to force them to remain in partnership, though the breach would be a great sorrow to the Mother Country. They make their own laws; they appoint all their own officials (except the Governors, who perform almost purely formal functions, corresponding to those performed by the King in the "crowned republic"

of Britain); they levy their own taxes, and both may and do impose any duties they think fit upon imports from Britain equally with those coming from other States. They pay not a farthing of tribute to the Mother Country. They are not even required to contribute to the cost of the Navy, which protects them all, though some of them make voluntary contributions. The only restriction upon their political independence is that they do not pursue an independent foreign policy or maintain amba.s.sadors or consuls of their own in foreign countries. The responsibility (and the total cost) of this function falls upon Britain.

If Britain should be drawn into war, the great dominions are also technically at war, and if Britain were to pursue a warlike or aggressive policy, this would soon alienate some or all of these young democracies. But it is only by their own free will that they take any part in a war in which Britain is involved, and the Mother Country has neither the right nor the power to demand military aid from them. Yet we have seen what whole-hearted and generous aid they have all given. Would it have been as great, or as valuable, if it had been compulsory?

Gradually they are beginning, through their Prime Ministers or other representatives, to take a more and more effective part in the direction of the common policy of the Empire. The meetings of what was called the "Imperial War Cabinet" in the spring of 1917 marked a definite stage in this development, and incidentally afforded a very striking proof of the elasticity and adaptability of the British system of government. It is certain that this method of co-operation will be carried still further in the future.

Clearly, so far as concerns the great dominions, the British Empire is far from being a military domination imposed by force. It is a voluntary partnership or brotherhood of free peoples, a Commonwealth of Nations.

It is a wonderful achievement in the combination of unity and freedom, an experiment in the unforced co-operation of free States such as has never before been seen in human history. If _that_ is the meaning of Imperialism, who will cavil at it?

Only one series of events has prevented a large part of the world from realising that this was the spirit in which the British Empire was governed. The South African War made Britain appear, in the eyes of most of the world, a vast, greedy, tyrannical power, which, not content with an already immense dominion, must fall upon and devour two tiny, free republics, merely because they contained gold! But the world did not appreciate the real meaning of the South African War.[1] In the British South African colonies (the Cape and Natal) the fullest equality of political rights was enjoyed by Dutch and British residents alike, and their inst.i.tutions were the same as those of other British dominions.

But in the semi-independent Dutch republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State (especially the former) no such equality of rights existed. The ideal they aimed at was that of Dutch predominance, and some of their leaders hoped in time to drive the British out of Africa, and to establish there an exclusively Dutch supremacy. This did not matter so long as the inhabitants of these lands were only a few Dutch farmers. But when the discovery of gold and diamonds brought an immense inrush of British and other settlers, who henceforth produced nearly all the wealth of the country, this denial of equality of rights became serious, and the programme of Dutch conquest, prepared for mainly at the cost of the new settlers, began to seem dangerous. This was the real cause of the South African War. It might, perhaps, have been avoided, and, if so, those who precipitated it unnecessarily were much to blame, whether they were Boers or Britons. There were faults on both sides. But essentially the war was, on Britain's side, a war for equality of rights. What were its results? So far as Britain was concerned, the bones of thousands of her sons lay on the African veldt, and her public debt was vastly increased. She made no direct material gains of any sort: the gold-mines remained in exactly the same hands as before. But so far as South Africa was concerned, the result was that in a very few years the conquered republics were given full self-governing powers, on the basis of equal rights for both races, and a few years later they and the older British colonies combined in the Union of South Africa, a great, free, federal state, in whose affairs Dutch and British have equal rights, and in which a new nation, formed by the blending of the two races, can grow up. _That_ was what British imperialism led to in South Africa.

And now observe the sequel. When the great war began (scarcely more than a dozen years from the time when Dutch and Britons were fighting bitterly) the Germans tried to bring about a revolt among the more ignorant Dutch. It was put down by the forces of the Union, mainly Dutch, led by Louis Botha, who had once been the commander-in-chief of the Transvaal army, and was now the prime minister of a self-governing dominion within the British Empire. And then, still led by Botha, a combined force of Dutch and Britons proceeded to the conquest of German South-West Africa, suffering casualties which, by a happy chance, were exactly equally divided between the two races. And then a South African contingent was sent to East Africa, and the supreme command over them, and over British regulars and Indian regiments and native levies, was a.s.sumed by the Dutch General s.m.u.ts, once a formidable leader against the British. And, lastly, General s.m.u.ts came to England to join in the deliberations of the Imperial War Cabinet, and to make speeches of profound foresight and political wisdom to the British people, in which he sang the praises of the British Commonwealth of free nations as something that deserved every sacrifice from the peoples enrolled under its sheltering aegis.

Is there any parallel to these events in the history of the world? And is the Empire whose spirit leads to such results to be spoken of as if it were a mere, ruthless military dominion?