POLITICAL AND LITERARY

ESSAYS

1908-1913

BY THE

EARL OF CROMER

MACMILLAN AND CO. , LIMITEDST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON1913

MACMILLAN AND CO. , LIMITEDLONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA · MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANYNEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO

PREFACE

I have to thank the editors of _The Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly Reviews_, _The Nineteenth Century and After_, and _The Spectator_ for allowing therepublication of these essays, all of which appeared originally in theirrespective columns. 

No important alterations or additions have been made, but I should liketo observe, as regards the first essay of the series--on "The Governmentof Subject Races"--that, although only six years have elapsed since itwas written, events in India have moved rapidly during that shortperiod. I adhere to the opinions expressed in that essay so far as theygo, but it will be obvious to any one who has paid attention to Indianaffairs that, if the subject had to be treated now, many very importantissues, to which I have not alluded, would have to be imported into thediscussion. 

CROMER. 

_September 30, 1913. _

CONTENTS

 PAGE"THE EDINBURGH REVIEW"

I. THE GOVERNMENT OF SUBJECT RACES 3II. TRANSLATION AND PARAPHRASE 54

"THE QUARTERLY REVIEW"

III. SIR ALFRED LYALL 77

"THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER"

IV. ARMY REFORM 107V. THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF FREE TRADE 127VI. CHINA 141VII. THE CAPITULATIONS IN EGYPT 156

"THE SPECTATOR"

VIII. DISRAELI 177IX. RUSSIAN ROMANCE 204X. THE WRITING OF HISTORY 214XI. THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY 226XII. LORD MILNER AND PARTY 237XIII. THE FRENCH IN ALGERIA 250XIV. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 264XV. WELLINGTONIANA 277XVI. BURMA 287XVII. A PSEUDO-HERO OF THE REVOLUTION 298XVIII. THE FUTURE OF THE CLASSICS 307XIX. AN INDIAN IDEALIST 317XX. THE FISCAL QUESTION IN INDIA 227XXI. ROME AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 340XXII. A ROYAL PHILOSOPHER 351XXIII. ANCIENT ART AND RITUAL 361XXIV. PORTUGUESE SLAVERY 372XXV. ENGLAND AND ISLAM 407XXVI. SOME INDIAN PROBLEMS 416XXVII. THE NAPOLEON OF TAINE 427XXVIII. SONGS, PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL 439XXIX. SONGS, NAVAL AND MILITARY 449

 INDEX 459

"THE EDINBURGH REVIEW"

I

THE GOVERNMENT OF SUBJECT RACES[1]

_"The Edinburgh Review, " January 1908_

The "courtly Claudian, " as Mr. Hodgkin, in his admirable and instructivework, calls the poet of the Roman decadence, concluded some lines whichhave often been quoted as applicable to the British Empire, with thedogmatic assertion that no limit could be assigned to the duration ofRoman sway. _Nec terminus unquam Romanae ditionis erit. _ At the timethis hazardous prophecy was made, the huge overgrown Roman Empire wastottering to its fall. Does a similar fate await the British Empire? Arewe so far self-deceived, and are we so incapable of peering into thefuture as to be unable to see that many of the steps which now appearcalculated to enhance and to stereotype Anglo-Saxon domination, are butthe precursors of a period of national decay and senility?

A thorough examination of this vital question would necessarily involvethe treatment of a great variety of subjects. The heart of the BritishEmpire is to be found in Great Britain. It is not proposed in this placeto deal either with the working of British political institutions, orwith the various important social and economic problems which the actualcondition of England presents, but only with the extremities of the bodypolitic, and more especially with those where the inhabitants of thecountries under British rule are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. 

What should be the profession of faith of a sound but reasonableImperialist? He will not be possessed with any secret desire to see thewhole of Africa or of Asia painted red on the maps. He will entertainnot only a moral dislike, but also a political mistrust of thatexcessive earth-hunger, which views with jealous eyes the extension ofother and neighbouring European nations. He will have no fear ofcompetition. He will believe that, in the treatment of subject races, the methods of government practised by England, though sometimes open tolegitimate criticism, are superior, morally and economically, to thoseof any other foreign nation; and that, strong in the possession andmaintenance of those methods, we shall be able to hold our own againstall competitors. 

On the other hand, he will have no sympathy with those who, as LordCromer said in a recent speech, "are so fearful of Imperial greatnessthat they are unwilling that we should accomplish our manifest destiny, and who would thus have us sink into political insignificance byrefusing the main title which makes us great. "

An Imperial policy must, of course, be carried out with reasonableprudence, and the principles of government which guide our relationswith whatsoever races are brought under our control must be politicallyand economically sound and morally defensible. This is, in fact, thekeystone of the Imperial arch. The main justification of Imperialism isto be found in the use which is made of the Imperial power. If we make agood use of our power, we may face the future without fear that we shallbe overtaken by the Nemesis which attended Roman misrule. If the reverseis the case, the British Empire will deserve to fall, and of a surety itwill ultimately fall. There is truth in the saying, of which perhaps wesometimes hear rather too much, that the maintenance of the Empiredepends on the sword; but so little does it depend on the sword alonethat if once we have to draw the sword, not merely to suppress somelocal effervescence, but to overcome a general upheaval of subjectraces goaded to action either by deliberate oppression, which is highlyimprobable, or by unintentional misgovernment, which is far moreconceivable, the sword will assuredly be powerless to defend us forlong, and the days of our Imperial rule will be numbered. 

To those who believe that when they rest from their earthly labourstheir works will follow them, and that they must account to a HigherTribunal for the use or misuse of any powers which may have beenentrusted to them in this world, no further defence of the plea thatImperialism should rest on a moral basis is required. Those whoentertain no such belief may perhaps be convinced by the argument that, from a national point of view, a policy based on principles of soundmorality is wiser, inasmuch as it is likely to be more successful, thanone which excludes all considerations save those of cynicalself-interest. There was truth in the commonplace remark made by asubject of ancient Rome, himself a slave and presumably of Orientalextraction, that bad government will bring the mightiest empire toruin. [2]

Some advantage may perhaps be derived from inquiring, however brieflyand imperfectly, into the causes which led to the ruin of thatpolitical edifice, which in point of grandeur and extent, is aloneworthy of comparison with the British Empire. The subject has beentreated by many of the most able writers and thinkers whom the world hasproduced--Gibbon, Guizot, Mommsen, Milman, Seeley, and others. Forpresent purposes the classification given by Mr. Hodgkin of the causeswhich led to the downfall of the Western Empire has been adopted. Theywere six in number, viz. :

1. The foundation of Constantinople. 

2. Christianity. 

3. Slavery. 

4. The pauperisation of the Roman proletariat. 

5. The destruction of the middle class by the fiscal oppression of the Curiales. 

6. Barbarous finance. 

1. _The Foundation of Constantinople. _--It is, for obvious reasons, unnecessary to discuss this cause. It was one of special application tothe circumstances of the time, notably to the threatening attitudetowards Rome assumed by the now decadent State of Persia. 

2. _Christianity. _--That the foundation of Christianity exercised aprofoundly disintegrating effect on the Roman Empire is unquestionable. Gibbon, although he possibly confounds the tenets of the new creed withthe defects of its hierarchy, dwells with characteristic emphasis onthis congenial subject. [3] Mr. Hodgkin, speaking of the analogy betweenthe British present and the Roman past, says:

 The Christian religion is with us no explosive force threatening the disruption of our most cherished institutions. On the contrary, it has been said, not as a mere figure of speech, that "Christianity is part of the common law of England. " And even the bitterest enemies of our religion will scarcely deny that, upon the whole, a nation imbued with the teaching of the New Testament is more easy to govern than one which derived its notions of divine morality from the stories of the dwellers on Olympus. 

From the special point of view now under consideration, the case forChristianity admits of being even more strongly stated than this, for noattempt will be made to deal with the principles which should guide thegovernment of a people imbued with the teaching of the New Testament, but rather with the subordinate, but still highly important question ofthe treatment which a people, presumed to be already imbued with thatteaching, should accord to subject races who are ignorant or irreceptiveof its precepts. From this point of view it may be said thatChristianity, far from being an explosive force, is not merely apowerful ally. It is an ally without whose assistance continued successis unattainable. Although dictates of worldly prudence and opportunismare alone sufficient to ensure the rejection of a policy of officialproselytism, it is none the less true that the code of Christianmorality is the only sure foundation on which the whole of our vastImperial fabric can be built if it is to be durable. The stability ofour rule depends to a great extent upon whether the forces acting infavour of applying the Christian code of morality to subject races arecapable of overcoming those moving in a somewhat opposite direction. Weare inclined to think that our Teutonic veracity and gravity, ournational conscientiousness, our British spirit of fair play, to use thecant phrase of the day, our free institutions, and our press--which, although it occasionally shows unpleasant symptoms of sinking beneaththe yoke of special and not highly reputable interests, is still greatlysuperior in tone to that of any other nation--are sufficient guaranteesagainst relapse into the morass of political immorality whichcharacterised the relations between nation and nation, and notablybetween the strong and the weak, even so late as the eighteenthcentury. [4] It is to be hoped and believed that, for the time being, this contention is well founded, but what assurance is there--if theBook which embodies the code of Christian morality may withoutirreverence be quoted--that "that which is done is that which shall bedone"?[5] That is the crucial question. 

There appear to be at present existent in England two different Imperialschools of thought, which, without being absolutely antagonistic, represent very opposite principles. One school, which, for want of abetter name, may be styled that of philanthropy, is occasionally taintedwith the zeal which outruns discretion, and with the want of accuracywhich often characterises those whose emotions predominate over theirreason. The violence and want of mental equilibrium at times displayedby the partisans of this school of thought not infrequently give rise tomisgivings lest the Duke of Wellington should have prophesied truly whenhe said, "If you lose India, the House of Commons will lose it foryou. "[6] These manifest defects should not, however, blind us to thefact that the philanthropists and sentimentalists are deeply imbued withthe grave national responsibilities which devolve on England, and withthe lofty aspirations which attach themselves to her civilising andmoralising mission. 

The other is the commercial school. Pitt once said that "British policyis British trade. " The general correctness of this aphorism cannot bechallenged, but, like most aphorisms, it only conveys a portion of thetruth; for the commercial spirit, though eminently beneficent when undersome degree of moral control, may become not merely hurtful, but evensubversive of Imperial dominion, when it is allowed to run riot. Livingstone said that in five hundred years the only thing the nativesof Africa had learnt from the Portuguese was to distil bad spirits withthe help of an old gun barrel. This is, without doubt, an extremecase--so extreme, indeed, that even the hardened conscience ofdiplomatic Europe was eventually shamed into taking some half-heartedaction in the direction of preventing a whole continent from beingdemoralised in order that the distillers and vendors of cheap spiritsmight realise large profits. But it would not be difficult to cite otheranalogous, though less striking, instances. Occasions are, indeed, notinfrequent when the interests of commerce apparently clash with those ofgood government. The word "apparently" is used with intent; for thoughsome few individuals may acquire a temporary benefit by sacrificingmoral principle on the altar of pecuniary gain, it may confidently bestated that, in respect to the wider and more lasting benefits of trade, no real antagonism exists between commercial self-interest and publicmorality. [7]

To be more explicit, what is meant when it is said that the commercialspirit should be under some control is this--that in dealing withIndians or Egyptians, or Shilluks, or Zulus, the first question is toconsider what course is most conducive to Indian, Egyptian, Shilluk, orZulu interests. We need not always inquire too closely what thesepeople, who are all, nationally speaking, more or less _in statupupillari_, themselves think is best in their own interests, althoughthis is a point which deserves serious consideration. But it isessential that each special issue should be decided mainly withreference to what, by the light of Western knowledge and experiencetempered by local considerations, we conscientiously think is best forthe subject race, without reference to any real or supposed advantagewhich may accrue to England as a nation, or--as is more frequently thecase--to the special interests represented by some one or moreinfluential classes of Englishmen. If the British nation as a wholepersistently bears this principle in mind, and insists sternly on itsapplication, though we can never create a patriotism akin to that basedon affinity of race or community of language, we may perhaps foster somesort of cosmopolitan allegiance grounded on the respect always accordedto superior talents and unselfish conduct, and on the gratitude derivedboth from favours conferred and from those to come. [8] There may then atall events be some hope that the Egyptian will hesitate before he throwsin his lot with any future Arabi The Berberine dweller on the banks ofthe Nile may, perhaps, cast no wistful glances back to the time when, albeit he or his progenitors were oppressed, the oppression came fromthe hand of a co-religionist. Even the Central African savage mayeventually learn to chant a hymn in honour of _Astraea Redux_, asrepresented by the British official who denies him gin but gives himjustice. More than this, commerce will gain. It must necessarily followin the train of civilisation, and, whilst it will speedily droop if thatcivilisation is spurious, it will, on the other hand, increase in volumein direct proportion to the extent to which the true principles ofWestern progress are assimilated by the subjects of the British king andthe customers of the British trader. This latter must be taught patienceat the hands, of the statesman and the moralist. It is a somewhatdifficult lesson to learn. The trader not only wishes to acquire wealth;he not infrequently wishes that its acquisition should be rapid, even atthe expense of morality and of the permanent interests of his country. 

 Nam dives qui fieri vult, Et cito vult fieri. Sed quae reverentia legum, Quis metus aut pudor est unquam properantis avari?[9]

This question demands consideration from another point of view. A cleverFrenchman, keenly alive to what he thought was the decadence of his ownnation, published a remarkable book in 1897. He practically admittedthat the Anglophobia so common on the continent of Europe is the outcomeof jealousy. [10] He acknowledged the proved superiority of theAnglo-Saxon over the Latin races, and he set himself to examine thecauses of that superiority. The general conclusion at which he arrivedwas that the strength of the Anglo-Saxon race lay in the fact that itssociety, its government, and its habits of thought were eminently"particularist, " as opposed to the "communitarian" principles prevalenton the continent of Europe. He was probably quite right. It has, indeed, become a commonplace of English political thought that for centuriespast, from the days of Raleigh to those of Rhodes, the position ofEngland in the world has been due more to the exertions, to theresources, and occasionally, perhaps, to the absence of scruple found inthe individual Anglo-Saxon, than to any encouragement or help derivedfrom British Governments, whether of the Elizabethan, Georgian, orVictorian type. The principle of relying largely on individual efforthas, in truth, produced marvellous results. It is singularly suited todevelop some of the best qualities of the vigorous, self-assertiveAnglo-Saxon race. It is to be hoped that self-help may long continue tobe our national watchword. 

It is now somewhat the fashion to regard as benighted the school ofthought which was founded two hundred years ago by Du Quesnay and theFrench Physiocrates, which reached its zenith in the person of AdamSmith, and whose influence rapidly declined in England after the greatbattle of Free Trade had been fought and won. But whatever may have beenthe faults of that school, and however little its philosophy is capableof affording an answer to many of the complex questions which moderngovernment and society present, it laid fast hold of one unquestionablysound principle. It entertained a deep mistrust of Governmentinterference in the social and economic relations of life. Moreover, itsaw, long before the fact became apparent to the rest of the world, that, in spite not only of some outward dissimilarities of methods buteven of an instinctive mutual repulsion, despotic bureaucracy was thenatural ally of those communistic principles which the economists deemedit their main business in life to combat and condemn. Many regard withsome disquietude the frequent concessions which have of late years beenmade in England to demands for State interference. Nevertheless, it isto be hoped that the main principle advocated by the economists stillholds the field, that individualism is not being crushed out ofexistence, and that the majority of our countrymen still believe thatState interference--being an evil, although sometimes admittedly anecessary evil--should be jealously watched and restricted to theminimum amount absolutely necessary in each special case. 

Attention is drawn to this point in order to show that the observationswhich follow are in no degree based on any general desire to exalt thepower of the State at the expense of the individual. 

Our habits of thought, our past history, and our national character all, therefore, point in the direction of allowing individualism as wide ascope as possible in the work of national expansion. Hence the career ofthe East India Company and the tendency displayed more recently inAfrica to govern through the agency of private companies. On the otherhand, it is greatly to be doubted whether the principles, which a wisepolicy would dictate in the treatment of subject races, will receivetheir application to so full an extent at the hands of privateindividuals as would be the case at the hands of the State. Theguarantee for good government is even less solid where power isentrusted to a corporate body, for, as Turgot once said, "La morale descorps les plus scrupuleux ne vaut jamais celle des particuliershonnêtes. "[11] In both cases, public opinion is relatively impotent. Inthe case of direct Government action, on the other hand, the views ofthose who wish to uphold a high standard of public morality can findexpression in Parliament, and the latter can, if it chooses, oblige theGovernment to control its agents and call them to account for unjust, unwise, or overbearing conduct. More than this, State officials, havingno interests to serve but those of good government, are more likely topay regard to the welfare of the subject race than commercial agents, who must necessarily be hampered in their action by the pecuniaryinterests of their employers. 

Our national policy must, of course, be what would be called in staticsthe resultant of the various currents of opinion represented in ournational society. Whether Imperialism will continue to rest on a soundbasis depends, therefore, to no small extent, on the degree to whichthe moralising elements in the nation can, without injury to all thatis sound and healthy in individualist action, control those defectswhich may not improbably spring out of the egotism of the commercialspirit, if it be subject to no effective check. [12]

If this problem can be satisfactorily solved, then Christianity, farfrom being a disruptive force, as was the case with Rome, will prove oneof the strongest elements of Imperial cohesion. 

3. _Slavery. _--It is not necessary to discuss this question, for therecan be no doubt that, in so far as his connexion with subject races isconcerned, the Anglo-Saxon in modern times comes, not to enslave, but toliberate from slavery. The fact that he does so is, indeed, one of hisbest title-deeds to Imperial dominion. 

4. _The Pauperisation of the Roman Proletariat. _--This is the _Panem etCircenses_ policy. Mr. Hodgkin appears to think that in this directionlies the main danger which threatens the British Empire. 

 "Of all the forces, " he says, "which were at work for the destruction of the prosperity of the Roman world, none is more deserving of the careful study of an English statesman than the grain-largesses to the populace of Rome. .. . Will the great Democracies of the twentieth century resist the temptation to use political power as a means of material self-enrichment?"

Possibly Mr. Hodgkin is right. The manner in which the leaders of theParis Commune dealt with the rights of property during their disastrous, but fortunately very brief, period of office in 1871, serves as awarning of what, in an extreme case, may be expected of despoticdemocracy in its most aggravated form. Moreover, misgovernment, and thefiscal oppression which is the almost necessary accompaniment ofmilitarism dominant over a poverty-stricken population, have latterlydeveloped on the continent of Europe, and more especially in Italy, aschool of action--for anarchism can scarcely be dignified by the name ofa school of thought--which regards human life as scarcely more sacredthan property. It may be that some lower depth has yet to be reached, although it is almost inconceivable that such should be the case. Anarchy takes us past the stage of any defined political or socialprogramme. It would appear, so far as can at present be judged, toembody the last despairing cry of ultra-democracy "Furens. "

It is permissible to hope that our national sobriety, coupled with theinherited traditions derived from centuries of free government, willsave us from such extreme manifestations of democratic tyranny as thoseto which allusion has been made above. The special danger in Englandwould appear rather to arise from the probability of gradual dry rot, due to prolonged offence against the infallible and relentless laws ofeconomic science. Both British employers of labour and British workmenare insular in their habits of thought, and insular in the range oftheir acquired knowledge. They do not appear as yet to be thoroughlyalive to the new position created for British trade by foreigncompetition. It is greatly to be hoped that they will awake to therealities of the situation before any permanent harm is done to Britishtrade, for the loss of trade involves as its ultimate result thepauperisation of the proletariat, the adoption of reckless expedientsbased on the _Panem et Circenses_ policy to fill the mouths and quellthe voices of the multitude, and finally the suicide of that Empirewhich is the offspring of trade, and which can only continue to exist solong as its parent continues to thrive and to flourish. 

5. _The Destruction of the Middle Class by the Fiscal Oppression of theCuriales. _--Leaving aside points of detail, which were only of specialapplication to the circumstances of the time, this cause of Roman decaymay, for all purposes of comparison and instruction, be stated in thefollowing terms: funds, which should have been spent by themunicipalities on local objects, were, from about the close of the thirdcentury, diverted to the Imperial Exchequer, by which they were notinfrequently squandered in such a manner as to confer no benefit of anykind on the taxpayers, whether local or Imperial. Thus, the system oflocal self-government, which, Mr. Hodgkin says, was, during the earlycenturies of the Empire, "both in name and fact Republican, " wasshattered. 

It does not appear probable that an attempt will ever be made to divertthe public revenues of the outlying dependencies of Great Britain to theImperial Exchequer. The lesson taught by the loss of the AmericanColonies has sunk deeply into the public mind. Moreover, the example ofSpain stands as a warning to all the world. The principle that localrevenues should be expended locally has become part of the politicalcreed of Englishmen; neither is it at all likely to be infringed, evenin respect to those dependencies whose rights and privileges are notsafeguarded by self-governing institutions. 

There may, however, be some little danger ahead in a sense exactlyopposite to that which was incurred by Rome--the danger, that is tosay, that, under the pressure of Imperialism, backed by influentialclass and personal interests, too large an amount of the Imperialrevenue may be diverted to the outlying dependencies. If this were done, two evils might not improbably ensue. 

In the first place, the British democracy might become restive undertaxation imposed for objects the utility of which would not perhaps befully appreciated, and might therefore be disposed to cast off toohastily the mantle of Imperialism. It is but a short time ago that aninfluential school of politicians persistently dwelt on the theme thatthe colonies were a burthen to the Mother Country. Although, for thetime being, views of this sort are out of fashion, no assurance can befelt that the swing of the pendulum may not bring round anotheranti-Imperialist phase of public opinion. 

In the second place, if financial aid to any considerable extent wereafforded by the British Treasury to the outlying dependencies, a seriousrisk would be run that this concession would be followed at no distantperiod by a plea in favour of financial control from England. Theestablishment of this latter principle would strike a blow at one of themain props on which our Imperial fabric is based. It would tend tosubstitute a centralised, in the place of our present decentralisedsystem. Those who are immediately responsible for the administration ofour outlying dependencies will, therefore, act wisely if they abstainfrom asking too readily for Imperial pecuniary aid in order to solvelocal difficulties. 

These considerations naturally lead to some reflections on theprinciples of government adopted in those dependencies of the Empire, the inhabitants of which are not of the Anglo-Saxon race. Colonies whoseinhabitants are mainly of British origin stand, of course, on a whollydifferent footing. They carry their Anglo-Saxon institutions and habitsof thought with them to their distant homes. 

Englishmen are less imitative than most Europeans in this sense--thatthey are less disposed to apply the administrative and political systemsof their own country to the government of backward populations; but inspite of their relatively high degree of political elasticity, theycannot shake themselves altogether free from politicalconventionalities. Moreover, the experienced minority is constantlybeing pressed by the inexperienced majority in the direction ofimitation. Knowing the somewhat excessive degree of adulation which somesections of the British public are disposed to pay to their specialidol, Lord Dufferin, in 1883, was almost apologetic to his countrymenfor abstaining from an act of political folly. He pleaded strenuouslyfor delay in the introduction of parliamentary institutions into Egypt, on the ground that our attempts "to mitigate predominant absolutism" inIndia had been slow, hesitating, and tentative. He brought poeticmetaphor to his aid. He deprecated paying too much attention to the"murmuring leaves, " in other words, imagining that the establishment ofa Chamber of Notables implied constitutional freedom, and he exhortedhis countrymen "to seek for the roots, " that is to say, to allow eachEgyptian village to elect its own mayor (Sheikh). 

It cannot be too clearly understood that whether we deal with the roots, or the trunk, or the branches, or the leaves, free institutions in thefull sense of the term must for generations to come be wholly unsuitableto countries such as India and Egypt. If the use of a metaphor, thoughof a less polished type, be allowed, it may be said that it willprobably never be possible to make a Western silk purse out of anEastern sow's ear; at all events, if the impossibility of the task becalled in question, it should be recognised that the process ofmanufacture will be extremely lengthy and tedious. 

But it is often urged that, although no rational person would wish toadvocate the premature creation of ultra-liberal institutions inbackward countries, at the same time that for several reasons it isdesirable to move gradually in this direction. The adoption of thismethod is, it is said, the only way to remedy the evils attendant on asystem of personal government in an extreme form; it enables us to learnthe views of the natives of the country, even although we may not accordto the latter full power of deciding whether or not those views shouldbe put in practice; lastly, it constitutes a means of politicaleducation, through the agency of which the subject race will graduallyacquire the qualities necessary to autonomy. 

The force of these arguments cannot be denied, but there should be nodelusion as to the weight which should be attached to them. It has beenvery truly remarked by a writer, who has dealt with the idiosyncrasiesof a singularly versatile nation, whose genius presented in everyrespect a marked contrast to that of Eastern races, that from the dawnof history Eastern politics have been "stricken with a fatalsimplicity. "[13] Do not let us for one moment imagine that the fatallysimple idea of despotic rule will readily give way to the far morecomplex conception of ordered liberty. The transformation, if it evertakes place at all, will probably be the work, not of generations, butof centuries. 

So limited is the stock of political ideas in the world that somemodified copy of parliamentary institutions is, without doubt, the onlymethod which has yet been invented for mitigating the evils attendant onthe personal system of government. But it is a method which isthoroughly uncongenial to Oriental habits of thought. It may be doubtedwhether, by the adoption of this exotic system, we gain any real insightinto native aspirations and opinions. As to the educational process, theexperience of India is not very encouraging. The good government of mostIndian towns depends to this day mainly, not on the MunicipalCommissioners, who are generally natives, but on the influence of thePresident, who is usually an Englishman. 

A further consideration in connection with this point is also of someimportance. It is that British officials in Eastern countries should beencouraged by all possible means to learn the views and the requirementsof the native population. The establishment of mock parliaments tendsrather in the opposite direction, for the official on the spot seesthrough the mockery and is not infrequently disposed to abandon anyattempt to ascertain real native opinion, through disgust at theunreality, crudity, or folly of the views set forth by the putativerepresentatives of native society. 

For these reasons it is important that, in our well-intentionedendeavours to impregnate the Oriental mind with our insular habits ofthought, we should proceed with the utmost caution, and that we shouldremember that our primary duty is, not to introduce a system which, under the specious cloak of free institutions, will enable a smallminority of natives to misgovern their countrymen, but to establish onewhich will enable the mass of the population to be governed according tothe code of Christian morality. A freely elected Egyptian Parliament, supposing such a thing to be possible, would not improbably legislatefor the protection of the slave-owner, if not the slave-dealer, and noassurance can be felt that the electors of Rajputana, if they had theirown way, would not re-establish suttee. Good government has the merit ofpresenting a more or less attainable ideal. Before Orientals can attainanything approaching to the British ideal of self-government they willhave to undergo very numerous transmigrations of political thought. 

The question of local self-government may be considered from another, and almost equally important point of view. 

When writers such as M. Demolins speak of the "particularist" system ofEngland and of the "communitarian" system prevalent on the continent ofEurope, they generally mean to contrast the British plan of actingthrough the agency of private individuals with the Continental practiceof relying almost entirely on the action of the State. This is theprimary and perhaps the most important signification of the two phrases, but the principles which these phrases are intended to represent admitof another application. 

It is difficult for those Englishmen who have not been brought intobusiness relations with Continental officials to realise the extremecentralisation of their administrative and diplomatic procedures. Thetendency of every French central authority is to allow no discretionarypower whatever to his subordinate. He wishes, often from a distance, tocontrol every detail of the administration. The tendency of thesubordinate, on the other hand, is to lean in everything on superiorauthority. He does not dare to take any personal responsibility; indeed, it is possible to go further and say that the corroding action ofbureaucracy renders those who live under its baneful shadow almostincapable of assuming responsibility. By force of habit and training ithas become irksome to them. They fly for refuge to a superior official, who, in his turn, if the case at all admits of the adoption of such acourse, hastens to merge his individuality in the voluminous pages of acode or a Government circular. 

The British official, on the other hand, whether in England or abroad, is an Englishman first and an official afterwards. He possesses his fullshare of national characteristics. He is by inheritance anindividualist. He lives in a society which, so far from being, as is thecase on the Continent, saturated with respect for officialism, issomewhat prone to regard officialism and incompetency as synonymousterms. By such association, any bureaucratic tendency which may exist onthe part of the British official is kept in check, whilst hisindividualism is subjected to a sustained and healthy course of tonictreatment. 

Thus, the British system breeds a race of officials who relatively tothose holding analogous posts on the Continent, are disposed to exercisetheir central authority in a manner sympathetic to individualism; who, if they are inclined to err in the sense of over-centralisation, areoften held in check by statesmen imbued with the decentralising spirit;and who, under these influences, are inclined to accord to local agentsa far wider latitude than those trained in the Continental school ofbureaucracy would consider either safe or desirable. 

On the other hand, looking to the position and attributes of the localagents themselves, it is singular to observe how the habit of assumingresponsibility, coupled with national predispositions acting in the samedirection, generates and fosters a capacity for the beneficial exerciseof power. This feature is not merely noticeable in comparing Britishwith Continental officials, but also in contrasting various classes ofEnglishmen _inter se_. The most highly centralised of all our Englishoffices is the War Office. For this reason, and also because a militarylife necessarily and rightly engenders a habit of implicit obedience toorders, soldiers are generally less disposed than civilians to assumepersonal responsibility and to act on their own initiative. Nevertheless, whether in military or civil life, it may be said that thespirit of decentralisation pervades the whole British administrativesystem, and that it has given birth to a class of officials who haveboth the desire and the capacity to govern, who constitute what Baconcalled[14] the _Participes curarum_, namely, "those upon whom Princesdoe discharge the greatest weight of their affaires, " and who areinstruments of incomparable value in the execution of a policy ofImperialism. 

The method of exercising the central control under the British systemcalls for some further remarks. It varies greatly in differentlocalities. 

Under the Indian system a council of experts is attached to theSecretary of State in England. A good authority on this subject says[15]that there can be no question of the advantage of this system. 

 No man, however experienced and laborious, could properly direct and control the various interests of so vast an Empire, unless he were aided by men with knowledge of different parts of the country, and possessing an intimate acquaintance with the different and complicated subjects involved in the government and welfare of so many incongruous races. 

On the assumption that India is to be governed from London, there can beno doubt of the validity of this argument. But, as has been frequentlypointed out, [16] this system tends inevitably towardsover-centralisation, and if the British Government is to continue toexercise a sort of πανκρατορία to use an expressive Greek phrase, over anumber of outlying dependencies of very various types, over-centralisation is a danger which should be carefully shunned. It iswiser to obtain local knowledge from those on the spot, rather than fromthose whose local experience must necessarily diminish in value indirect proportion to the length of the period during which they havebeen absent from the special locality, and who, moreover, are under astrong temptation, after they leave the dependency, to exercise adetailed control over their successors. It is greatly to be doubted, therefore, whether, should the occasion arise, this portion of theIndian system is deserving of reproduction. 

There is, however, another portion of that system which is in everyrespect admirable, and the creation of which bears the impress of thatkeen political insight which, according to many Continental authorities, is the birthright of the Anglo-Saxon race. India is governed locally bya council composed mainly of officials who have passed their adult livesin the country; but the Viceroy, and occasionally the legal andfinancial members of Council, are sent from England and are usuallychosen by reason of their general qualifications, rather than on accountof any special knowledge of Indian affairs. This system avoids thedangers consequent on over-centralisation, whilst at the same time itassociates with the administration of the country some individuals whoare personally imbued with the general principles of government whichare favoured by the central authority. Its tendency is to correct thedefect from which the officials employed in the outlying portions of theEmpire are most likely to suffer, namely, that of magnifying theimportance of some local event or consideration, and of undulyneglecting arguments based on considerations of wider Imperial import. It enhances the idea of proportion, which is one of the main qualitiesnecessary to any politician or governing body. Long attention to onesubject, or group of subjects, is apt to narrow the vision ofspecialists. The adjunct of an element, which is not Anglo-Indian, tothe Indian Government acts as a corrective to this evil. The members ofthe Government who are sent from England, if they have no localexperience, are at all events exempt from local prejudices. They bringto bear on the questions which come before them a wide general knowledgeand, in many cases, the liberal spirit and vigorous common sense whichare acquired in the course of an English parliamentary career. 

It may be added, as a matter of important detail, that it would bedesirable, in order to give continuity to Indian policy, to select youngmen to fill the place of Viceroy, and to extend the period of officefrom five to seven, or even to ten years. 

Although over-centralisation is to be avoided, a certain amount ofcontrol from a central authority is not only unavoidable; if properlyexercised, it is most beneficial. One danger to which the local agentis exposed is that, being ill-informed of circumstances lying outsidehis range of political vision, he may lose sight of the generalprinciples which guide the policy of the Empire; he may treat subjectsof local interest in a manner calculated to damage, or even tojeopardise, Imperial interests. The central authority is in a positionto obviate any danger arising from this cause. To ensure the harmoniousworking of the different parts of the machine, the central authorityshould endeavour, so far as is possible, to realise the circumstancesattendant on the government of the dependency; whilst the local agentshould be constantly on the watch lest he should overrate the importanceof some local issue, or fail to appreciate fully the difficulties whichbeset the action of the central authority. 

To sum up all that there is to be said on this branch of the subject, itmay be hoped that the fate which befell Rome, in so far as it was due tothe special causes of decay now under consideration, may be averted byclose adherence to two important principles. The first of theseprinciples is that local revenues should be expended locally. The secondis that over-centralisation should above all things be avoided. This maybe done either by the creation of self-governing institutions in thosedependencies whose civilisation is sufficiently advanced to justify theadoption of this course; or by decentralising the executive Governmentin cases where self-government, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, is impossible or undesirable. 

6. _Barbarous Finance. _--Mr. Hodgkin says that the system of Imperialtaxation under the Roman Empire was "wasteful, oppressive, and in aword, barbarous. " He gives, as an instance in point, the RomanIndiction. This was the name given to the system under which the taxablevalue of the land throughout the Empire was reassessed every fifteenyears. At each reassessment, Mr. Hodgkin says, "the few who hadprospered found themselves assessed on the higher value which theirlands had acquired, while the many who were sinking down into povertyobtained, it is to be feared, but little relief from taxation on accountof the higher rate which was charged to all. "

It is somewhat unpleasant to reflect that the system which Mr. Hodgkinso strongly condemns, and which he even regards as one of the causes ofthe downfall of the Roman Empire, is--save in respect to the intervalsof periodical reassessment--very similar to that which exists everywherein India, except in the province of Bengal, where the rights conferredon the zemindars under Lord Cornwallis's Permanent Settlement are stillrespected in spite of occasional unwise suggestions that time and thefall in the value of the rupee have obliterated any moral obligations tomaintain them. Nor are the results obtained in India altogetherdissimilar from those observable under Roman rule. The knowledge thatreassessment was imminent has, it is believed, often discouraged theoutlay of private capital on improving the land. More than this, it isnotorious that, at one time, some provinces suffered greatly from themistakes made by the settlement officers. These latter were animatedwith the best intentions, but, in spite of their marked ability--forthey were all specially selected men--they often found the taskentrusted to them impossible of execution. Unfortunately political oradministrative errors cannot be condoned by reason of good intentions. Like the Greeks of old, the natives of India suffer from the mistakes oftheir rulers. 

The intentions of the British, as compared with the Roman Governmentare, however, noteworthy from one point of view, inasmuch as from acorrect appreciation of those intentions it is possible to evolve aprinciple perhaps in some degree calculated to avert the consequenceswhich befell Rome, partly by reason of fiscal errors. 

In spite of some high-sounding commonplaces which were at timesenunciated by Roman lawgivers and statesmen, and in which a ring ofutilitarian philosophy is to be recognised, [17] and of the further factthat, as in the case of Verres, a check was sometimes applied to theexcesses of local Governors, it is almost certainly true that the rulersof Rome did not habitually act on the recognition of any very strongmoral obligation binding on the Imperial Government in its treatment ofsubject races. The merits of any fiscal system were probably judgedmainly from the point of view of the amount of funds which it pouredinto the Treasury. The fiscal principles on which the Emperors of Romeacted survived long after the fall of the Roman Empire. They deserve theepithet of "barbarous" which Mr. Hodgkin has bestowed upon them. 

The point of departure of the British Government is altogetherdifferent. Its intentions are admirable. Every farthing which has beenspent--and, it may be feared, often wasted--on the numerous militaryexpeditions in which the Government of India has been engaged during thelast century would, in the eyes of many, certainly be considered asexpenditure incurred on objects which were of paramount interest to theIndian taxpayers. Moreover, a whole category of British legislationconnected with fiscal matters has been undertaken, not so much with aview to increase the revenue as with the object of distributing theburthen of taxation equally amongst the different classes of society. Much of this legislation has been perfectly justifiable and evenbeneficial. Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten that it isgenerally based on the purely Western principle that abstract justice isin itself a desirable thing to attain, and that a fiscal oradministrative system stands condemned if it is wanting in symmetry. Itwas against any extreme application of this principle that Burkedirected some of his most forcible diatribes. [18] It has been alreadypointed out that the commendable want of intellectual symmetry which isthe inherited possession of the Englishman gives him a very greatadvantage as an Imperialist agent over those trained in the rigid andbureaucratic school of Continental Europe. But the Englishman is aWestern, albeit an Anglo-Saxon Western, and, from the point of view ofall processes of reasoning, the gulf which separates any one member ofthe European family from another is infinitely less wide than that whichdivides all Westerns from all Orientals. Even the Englishman, therefore, is constrained--sometimes much against his will--to bow down in thattemple of Logic, the existence of which the Oriental is disposedaltogether to ignore. Indeed, sometimes the choice lies between theenforcement on the reluctant Oriental of principles based onlogic--occasionally on the very simple science of arithmetic--orabandoning the work of civilisation altogether. From this point of view, the dangers to which the British Empire is exposed by reason of fiscalmeasures are due not, as was the case with Rome, to barbarous, butrather to ultra-scientific finance. The following is a case in point. 

The land-tax has always been the principal source from which Orientalpotentates have derived their revenues. For all practical purposes itmay be said that the system which they have adopted has generally beento take as much from the cultivators as they could get. Reformers, suchas the Emperor Akbar, have at times endeavoured to introduce moreenlightened methods of taxation, and to carry into practice thetheories upon which the fiscal system in all Moslem countries is based. Those theories are by no means so objectionable as is often supposed. But the reforms which some few capable rulers attempted to introducehave almost always crumbled away under the régime of theirsuccessors. [19] In practice, the only limit to the demands of the rulerof an Oriental State has been the ability of the taxpayers to satisfythem. [20] The only defence of the taxpayers has lain in the concealmentof their incomes at the risk of being tortured till they divulged theiramount. 

Nevertheless, even under such a system as this, the wind is tempered tothe shorn lamb by the fact that Oriental rulers recognise that theycannot get money from a man who possesses none. If, from drought orother causes, the cultivator raises no crop, he is not required to payany land-tax. The idea of expropriation for the non-payment of taxes ispurely Western and modern. Under Roman law, it was the rule in contractsfor rent that a tenant was not bound to pay if any _vis major_ preventedhim from reaping. 

The European system is very different. A far less heavy demand is madeon the cultivator, but he is, at all events in principle and sometimesin practice, called upon to meet it in good and bad years alike. He isexpected to save in years of plenty in order to make good the deficit inlean years. If he is unable to pay, he is liable to be expropriated, andhe often is expropriated. This plan is just, logical, and very Western. It may be questioned whether Oriental cultivators do not sometimesrather prefer the oppression and elasticity of the Eastern to thejustice and rigidity of the Western system. 

Various palliatives have been adopted in India with a view to givingsome elasticity to the working of the Land Revenue system. In Egypt, where the administration is much less Anglicised than in India, andwhere, for various reasons, the treatment of this subject presentsrelatively fewer difficulties, it is the practice now, as was the caseunder purely native rule, to remit the taxes on what is known as_Sharaki_ lands, that is to say, land which, owing to a low Nile, hasnot been irrigated. It is not, however, necessary to dwell on thedetails of this subject. It will be sufficient to draw attention to thedifferent points of view from which the Eastern and the Western approachthe subject of fiscal administration. The latter urges with unanswerablelogic that financial equilibrium must be maintained, and that he cannotframe a trustworthy Budget unless he knows the amount he may count onreceiving from direct taxes, especially from the land-tax. The Easternreplies that he knows nothing of either financial equilibrium or ofbudgets, that it has, indeed, from time immemorial been the custom toleave him nought but a bare pittance when he had money, but to refrainfrom any endeavours to extort money from him when he had none. 

Another instance drawn, not from the practices of fiscal administration, but from legislation on a cognate subject, may be cited. 

Directly Western civilisation comes in contact with a backward OrientalSociety, the relations between debtor and creditor are entirely changed. A social revolution is effected. The Western applies his code with sternand ruthless logic. The child-like Eastern, on the other hand, cannot bemade to understand that his house should be sold over his head becausehe affixed his seal to a document, which, very probably, he had neverread, or, at all events, had never fully understood, and which waspresented to him by a man at one time apparently animated withbenevolent intentions, inasmuch as he wished to lend him money, but whosubsequently showed his malevolence by asking to be repaid his loan withinterest at an exorbitant rate. 

Here, again, many palliatives have been suggested and some have beenapplied, but many of them sin against the economic law, which providesthat legislation intended to protect a man against the consequences ofhis own folly or improvidence is generally unproductive of result. 

In truth, no thoroughly effective remedy can be applied in cases such asthose mentioned above, without abandoning all real attempt at progress. Civilisation must, unfortunately, have its victims, amongst whom are tosome extent inevitably numbered those who do not recognise the paramountnecessities of the Budget system, and those who contract debts with aninadequate appreciation of the _caveat emptor_ principle. Nevertheless, the Western financier will act wisely if, casting aside some portion ofhis Western habit of thought, he recognises the facts with which he hasto deal, and if, fully appreciating the intimate connection betweenfinance and politics in an Eastern country, he endeavours, so far as ispossible, to temper the clean-cut science of his fiscal measures in sucha manner as to suit the customs and intellectual standard of the subjectrace with which he has to deal. 

The question of the amount of taxation levied stands apart from themethod of its imposition. It may be laid down as a principle ofuniversal application that high taxation is incompatible with assuredstability of Imperial rule. [21]

The financier and the hydraulic engineer, who is a powerful ally of thefinancier, have probably a greater potentiality of creating anartificial and self-interested loyalty than even the judge. The reasonsare obvious. In the first place, the number of criminals, or even ofcivil litigants, in any society is limited; whereas practically thewhole population consists of taxpayers. In the second place, thearbitrary methods of administering justice practised by Oriental rulersdo not shock their subjects nearly so much as Europeans are oftendisposed to think. Custom has made it in them a property of easiness. They often, indeed, fail to appreciate the intentions, and are disposedto resent the methods, of those whose object it is to establish justicein the law-courts. On the other hand, the most ignorant Egyptian fellahor Indian ryot can understand the difference between a Government whichtakes nine-tenths of his crop in the shape of land-tax, and one whichonly takes one-third or one-fourth. He can realise that he is better offif the water is allowed to flow periodically on to his fields, than hewas when the influential landowner, who possessed a property up-streamon the canal, made a dam and prevented him from getting any water atall. 

These principles would probably meet with general acceptance from allwho have considered the question of Imperial rule. They are, indeed, almost commonplace. Unfortunately, in practice the necessity ofconforming to them is often forgotten. India is the great instance inpoint. Englishmen are often so convinced that the natives of India oughtto be loyal, they hear so much said of their loyalty, they appreciate solittle the causes which are at work to produce disloyalty, and, in spiteof occasional mistakes due to errors of judgment, they are in reality soearnestly desirous of doing what they consider, sometimes perhapserroneously, their duty towards the native population, that they are aptto lose sight of the fact that the self-interest of the subject race isthe principal basis of the whole Imperial fabric. They forget, whilstthey are adding to the upper story of the house, that the foundationsmay give way. 

This is not the place to enter into any lengthy discussion upon Indianaffairs. It may be said, however, that the Indian history of the lastfew years certainly gives cause for some anxiety. Attention was at onetime too exclusively paid to frontier policy, which constitutes onlyone, and that not the most important, element of the complex Indianproblem. 

That the policy of "masterly inactivity, " to use the phraseepigrammatically, but perhaps somewhat incorrectly, applied to the lineof action advocated by Lord Lawrence in 1869, required somemodifications as the onward movement of Russia in Asia developed, willscarcely be contested by the most devoted of Lawrentian partisans andfollowers. That those modifications were wisely introduced is aproposition the truth of which it is difficult to admit. The portion ofLord Lawrence's programme which was necessarily temporary, inasmuch asit depended on the circumstances of the time, was rejected withouttaking sufficient account of the further and far more important portionwhich was of permanent application. This latter portion was defined inan historic and oft-quoted despatch which he indited on the eve of hisdeparture from India, and which may be regarded as his politicaltestament. In this despatch, Lord Lawrence, speaking with all theauthority due to a lifelong acquaintance with Indian affairs, laid downthe broad general principle that the strongest security of our rule lay"in the contentment, if not in the attachment, of the masses. "[22] Thetruth of this general principle was at one time too much neglected. Under the influence of a predominant militarism acting on too pliantpoliticians, vast military expenditure was incurred. Territory lyingoutside the natural geographical frontier of India was occupied, theacquisition of which was condemned not merely by sound policy, but alsoby sound strategy. Taxation was increased, and, generally, the materialinterests of the natives of India were sacrificed and British Imperialrule exposed to subsequent danger, in order to satisfy the exigencies ofa school of soldier-politicians who only saw one, and that the mosttechnical, aspect of a very wide and complex question. 

Neither, unfortunately, is there any sure guarantee that the mistakes, which it is now almost universally admitted were made, will not recur. Where, indeed, are we to look for any effective check? The rulers ofIndia, whether they sit in Calcutta or London, may again be carried awayby the partial views of an influential class, or of a few masterfulindividuals. It is absurd to speak of creating free institutions inIndia to control the Indian Government. Experience has shown thatparliamentary action in England not infrequently degenerates intoacrimonious discussion and recrimination dictated by party passion; inany case, it is generally too late to change the course of events. Stillless reliance can be placed on the action of the British Press, whichfalls a ready victim to the specious arguments advanced by somestrategical pseudo-Imperialist in high position, or by some ferventacolyte who has learnt at the feet of his master the fatal and facilelesson of how an Empire, built up by statesmen, may be wrecked by thewell-intentioned but mistaken measures recommended by specialists toensure Imperial salvation. The managers of the London newspapers afford, indeed, be it said to their credit, every facility for the publicationof views adverse to those which they themselves advocate. But it is nonethe less true that, during the years when the unwise frontier policy ofa few years ago was being planned and executed, the voices of theopposition, although they were those of Indian statesmen and officialswho could speak with the highest authority, failed to obtain an adequatehearing until the evil was irremediable. On the other hand, the views ofthe strategical specialists went abroad over the land, with the resultthat ill-informed and careless public opinion followed their advicewithout having any very precise idea of whither it was being led. 

It would appear, therefore, that there is need for great care andwatchfulness in the management of Indian affairs. That sameinconsistency of character and absence of definite aim, which are suchnotable Anglo-Saxon qualities and which adapt themselves so admirably tothe requirements of Imperial rule, may in some respects constitute anadditional danger. If we are not to adopt a policy based on securing thecontentment of the subject race by ministering to their materialinterests, we must of necessity make a distinct approach to thecounter-policy of governing by the sword alone. In that case, it wouldbe as well not to allow a free native Press, or to encourage higheducation. Any repressive or retrograde measures in either of thesedirections would, without doubt, meet with strong and, to a greatextent, reasonable opposition in England. A large section of the public, forgetful of the fact that they had stood passively by whilst measures, such as the imposition of increased taxes, which the natives of Indiareally resent, were adopted, would protest loudly against the adoptionof other measures which are, indeed, open to objection, but whichnevertheless touch Oriental in a far less degree than they affectWestern public feeling. The result of this inconsistency is that ourpresent system rather tends to turn out demagogues from our colleges, togive them every facility for sowing their subversive views broadcastover the land, and at the same time to prepare the ground for thereception of the seed which they sow. Now this is the very reverse of asound Imperial policy. We cannot, it is true, effectually prevent themanufacture of demagogues without adopting measures which would renderus false to our acknowledged principles of government and to ourcivilising mission. But we may govern in such a manner as to give thedemagogue no fulcrum with which to move his credulous and ill-informedcountrymen and co-religionists. The leading principle of a government ofthis nature should be that low taxation is the most potent instrumentwith which to conjure discontent. This is the policy which will tendmore than any other to the stability of Imperial rule. If it is to beadopted, two elements of British society will have to be kept in checkat the hands of the statesman acting in concert with the moralist. Theseare Militarism and Commercial Egotism. The Empire depends in a greatdegree on the strength and efficiency of its army. It thrives on itscommerce. But if the soldier and the trader are not kept under somedegree of statesmanlike control, they are capable of becoming the mostformidable, though unconscious, enemies of the British Empire. 

It will be seen, therefore, that though there are some disquietingcircumstances attendant on our Imperial rule, the general result of anexamination into the causes which led to the collapse of Roman power, and a comparison of those causes with the principles on which theBritish Empire is governed, are, on the whole, encouraging. To everydanger which threatens there is a safeguard. To every portion of thebody politic in which symptoms of disease may occur, it is possible toapply a remedy. 

Christianity is our most powerful ally. We are the sworn enemies of theslave-dealer and the slave-owner. The dangers arising from the possiblepauperisation of the proletariat may, it is to be hoped, be averted byour national character and by the natural play of our time-honouredinstitutions. If we adhere steadily to the principle that local revenuesare to be expended locally, and if, at the same time, we give allreasonable encouragement to local self-government and shun any tendencytowards over-centralisation, we shall steer clear of one of the rocks onwhich the Roman ship of state was wrecked. Unskilful or unwise financeis our greatest danger, but here again the remedy lies ready to hand ifwe are wise enough to avail ourselves of it. It consists in adapting ourfiscal methods to the requirements of our subject races, and still morein the steadfast rejection of any proposals which, by rendering hightaxation inevitable, will infringe the cardinal principle on which asound Imperial policy should be based. That principle is that, whilstthe sword should be always ready for use, it should be kept in reservefor great emergencies, and that we should endeavour to find, in thecontentment of the subject race, a more worthy and, it may be hoped, astronger bond of union between the rulers and the ruled. 

If any more sweeping generalisation than this is required, it may besaid that the whole, or nearly the whole, of the essential points of asound Imperial policy admit of being embodied in this one statement, that, whilst steadily avoiding any movement in the direction of officialproselytism, our relations with the various races who are subjects ofthe King of England should be founded on the granite rock of theChristian moral code. 

 Humanity, as it passes through phase after phase of the historical movement, may advance indefinitely in excellence; but its advance will be an indefinite approximation to the Christian type. A divergence from that type, to whatever extent it may take place, will not be progress, but debasement and corruption. In a moral point of view, in short, the world may abandon Christianity, but can never advance beyond it. This is not a matter of authority, or even of revelation. If it is true, it is a matter of reason as much as anything in the world. [23]

[Footnote 1: _Italy and Her Invaders_. Thomas Hodgkin, D. C. L. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1892. ]

[Footnote 2: Male imperando summum imperium amittitur. --PUBLIUSSYRUS. ]

[Footnote 3: _Decline and Fall_, chap. Xx. ]

[Footnote 4: Any one who wishes to gain an insight into the fundamentalprinciples which governed those relations cannot do better than read theopening chapters of Sorel's _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_. ]

[Footnote 5: Ecclesiastes i. 9. ]

[Footnote 6: _Life and Letters of Sir James Graham_, vol. Ii. P. 328. ]

[Footnote 7: Lord Farrer says: "It is the privilege of honourable tradethat, like mercy, it is twice blessed; it blesseth him that gives andhim that takes; each of its dealings is of necessity a benefit to bothparties. But traders and speculators are not always the most scrupulousof mankind. Their dealings with savage and half-civilised nations toooften betray sharp practice, sometimes violence and wrong. The personswho carry on our trade on the outskirts of civilisation are notdistinguished by a special appreciation of the rights of others, nor arethe speculators, who are attracted by the enormous profits to be made byprecarious investments in half-civilised countries, people in whosehands we should desire to place the fortunes or reputation of ourcountry. When a difficulty arises between ourselves and one of theweaker nations, these are the persons whose voice is most loudly raisedfor acts of violence, of aggression, or of revenge. "--_The State in itsRelation to Trade_, p. 177. ]

[Footnote 8: It should never be forgotten that, in Oriental countries, whatever good is done to the masses is necessarily purchased at theexpense of incurring the resentment of the ruling classes, who abusedthe power they formerly possessed. Seeley (_Expansion of England_, p. 320) says with great truth: "It would be very rash to assume that anygratitude, which may have been aroused here and there by ouradministration, can be more than sufficient to counterbalance thediscontent which we have excited among those whom we have ousted fromauthority and influence. "]

[Footnote 9: Juvenal, xiv. 176-8. ]

[Footnote 10: "La supériorité des Anglo-Saxons! Si on ne la proclamepas, on la subit et on la redoute; les craintes, les méfiances etparfois les haines que soulève l'Anglais l'attestent assez haut. .. . 

"Nous ne pouvons faire un pas à travers le monde, sans rencontrerl'Anglais. Nous ne pouvons jeter les yeux sur nos anciennes possessions, sans y voir flotter le pavilion anglais. " _A Quoi tient la Supérioritédes Anglo-Saxons?_--Demolins. This work, as well as another on much thesame subject (_L'Europa giovane_, by Guglielmo Ferrero), were reviewedin the _Edinburgh Review_ for January 1898. ]

[Footnote 11: _Vie de Turgot_, i. 47. In the debate on the India Act in1858, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, whose views were generallydistinguished for their moderation, said: "I do most confidentlymaintain that no civilised Government ever existed on the face of thisearth which was more corrupt, more perfidious, and more capricious thanthe East India Company was from 1758 to 1784, when it was placed underParliamentary control. "]

[Footnote 12: "It still remains true that there is a large body ofpublic opinion in England which carries into all politics a sound moralsense, and which places a just and righteous policy higher than any mereparty interest. It is on the power and pressure of this opinion that thehigh character of English government must ultimately depend. "--_Map ofLife_, Lecky, p. 184. It will be a matter for surprise if theultra-bureaucratic spirit, coupled with a somewhat pronounced degree ofcommercial egotism, do not prove the two rocks on which German colonialenterprise will be eventually shipwrecked. ]

[Footnote 13: Butcher, _Some Aspects of the Greek Genius_, p. 27. ]

[Footnote 14: _Essays_. "Of Honour and Reputation. "]

[Footnote 15: _Sir Charles Wood's Administration of Indian Affairs, 1859-66. _ West. 1867. Sir Algernon West was Private Secretary to SirCharles Wood, afterwards Lord Halifax, who was the first Secretary ofState for India appointed after the passing of the India Act of 1858, and, therefore, inaugurated the new system. ]

[Footnote 16: See, _inter alia_, Chesney's _Indian Polity_, p. 136. ]

[Footnote 17: Perhaps the best-known example is "Salus populi supremalex esto, " a maxim which, as Selden has pointed out (_Table Talk_, ciii. ), is very frequently misapplied. See also the advice given by theEmperor Claudius to the Parthian Mithridates (Tacitus, _Ann. _ xii. 11). ]

[Footnote 18: "The idea of forcing everything to an artificial equalityhas something, at first view, very captivating in it. It has all theappearance imaginable of justice and good order; and very many persons, without any sort of partial purposes, have been led to adopt suchschemes, and to pursue them with great earnestness and warmth. Though Ihave no doubt that the minute, laborious, and very expensive _cadastre_, which was made by the King of Sardinia, has done no sort of good, andthat after all his pains a few years will restore all things to theirfirst inequality, yet it has been the admiration of half the reformingfinanciers of Europe; I mean the official financiers, as well as thespeculative. "--_Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis_, ii. 126. ]

[Footnote 19: Mill, _History of British India_, vi. 433. ]

[Footnote 20: Elphinstone, _History of India_, p. 77. ]

[Footnote 21: Lord Lawrence said: "Light taxation is, in my mind, thepanacea for foreign rule in India. " Bosworth Smith, _Life of LordLawrence_, vol. Ii. P. 497. ]

[Footnote 22: The essential portions of this despatch, in so far as thepurposes of the present argument are concerned, are given in Sir RichardTemple's work (p. 185), and in Bosworth Smith's _Life of Lord Lawrence_, vol. Ii. P. 186. ]

[Footnote 23: Goldwin Smith, _Lectures on the Study of History_, p. 154. ]

II

TRANSLATION AND PARAPHRASE

_"The Edinburgh Review, " July 1913_

When Emerson said "We like everything to do its office, whether it be amilch-cow or a rattlesnake, " he assumed, perhaps somewhat too hastily inthe latter case, that all the world understands the functions which amilch-cow or a rattlesnake is called upon to perform. No one can doubtthat the office of a translator is to translate, but a wide differenceof opinion may exist, and, in fact, has always existed, as to thelatitude which he may allow himself in translating. Is he to adhererigidly to a literal rendering of the original text, or is paraphrasepermissible, and, if permissible, within what limits may it be adopted?In deciding which of these courses to pursue, the translator standsbetween Scylla and Charybdis. If he departs too widely from the precisewords of the text, he incurs the blame of the purist, who will accusehim of foisting language on the original author which the latter neveremployed, with the possible result that even the ideas or sentimentswhich it had been intended to convey have been disfigured. If, on theother hand, he renders word for word, he will often find, moreespecially if his translation be in verse, that in a cacophonous attemptto force the genius of one language into an unnatural channel, the wholeof the beauty and even, possibly, some of the real meaning of theoriginal have been allowed to evaporate. Dr. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, in aninstructive article on Translation contributed to the _EncyclopaediaBritannica_ quotes the high authority of Dryden as to the course whichshould be followed in the execution of an ideal translation. 

 A translator (Dryden writes) that would write with any force or spirit of an original must never dwell on the words of his author. He ought to possess himself entirely, and perfectly comprehend the genius and sense of his author, the nature of the subject, and the terms of the art or subject treated of; and then he will express himself as justly, and with as much life, as if he wrote an original; whereas he who copies word for word loses all the spirit in the tedious transfusion. 

In the application of Dryden's canon a distinction has to be madebetween prose and verse. The composition of good prose, which Coleridgedescribed as "words in the right order, " is, indeed, of the utmostimportance for all the purposes of the historian, the writer onphilosophy, or the orator. An example of the manner in which fine prosecan bring to the mind a vivid conception of a striking event is JeremyCollier's description of Cranmer's death, which excited the enthusiasticadmiration of Mr. Gladstone. [24] He seemed [Collier wrote] "to repel theforce of the fire and to overlook the torture, by strength of thought. "Nevertheless, the main object of the prose writer, and still more of theorator, should be to state his facts or to prove his case. Cato laiddown the very sound principle "rem tene, verba sequentur, " andQuintilian held that "no speaker, when important interests are involved, should be very solicitous about his words. " It is true that thisprinciple is one that has been more often honoured in the breach thanthe observance. Lucian, in his _Lexiphanes_, [25] directs the shafts ofhis keen satire against the meticulous attention to phraseologypractised by his contemporaries. Cardinal Bembo sacrificed substance toform to the extent of advising young men not to read St. Paul for fearthat their style should be injured, and Professor Saintsbury[26]mentions the case of a French author, Paul de Saint-Victor, who "used, when sitting down to write, to put words that had struck his fancy atintervals over the sheet, and write his matter in and up to them. " Theseare instances of that word-worship run mad which has not infrequentlyled to dire results, inasmuch as it has tended to engender the beliefthat statesmanship is synonymous with fine writing or perfervid oratory. The oratory in which Demosthenes excelled, Professor Bury says, [27] "wasone of the curses of Greek politics. "

The attention paid by the ancients to what may be termed tricks of stylehas probably in some degree enhanced the difficulties of prosetranslation. It may not always be easy in a foreign language toreproduce the subtle linguistic shades of Demosthenic oratory--theAnaphora (repetition of the same word at the beginning of co-ordinatesentences following one another), the Anastrophe (the final word of asentence repeated at the beginning of one immediately following), thePolysyndeton (the same conjunction repeated), or the Epidiorthosis (thecorrection of an expression). Nevertheless, in dealing with a prosecomposition, the weight of the arguments, the lucidity with which thefacts are set forth, and the force with which the conclusions are drivenhome, rank, or should rank, in the mind of the reader higher than anyfeelings which are derived from the music of the words or the skilfulorder in which they are arranged. Moreover, in prose more frequentlythan in verse, it is the beauty of the idea expressed which attractsrather than the language in which it is clothed. Thus, for instance, there can be no difficulty in translating the celebrated metaphor ofPericles[28] that "the loss of the youth of the city was as if thespring was taken out of the year, " because the beauty of the idea can inno way suffer by presenting it in English, French, or German rather thanin the original Greek. Again, to quote another instance from Latin, thefine epitaph to St. Ovinus in Ely Cathedral: "Lucem tuam Ovino da, Deus, et requiem, " loses nothing of its terse pathos by being rendered intoEnglish. Occasionally, indeed, the truth is forced upon us that even inprose "a thing may be well said once but cannot be well said twice" (τὸκαλῶς εἰπεῖν ἅπαξ περιγίγνεται, δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται), but this isgenerally because the genius of one language lends itself with specialease to some singularly felicitous and often epigrammatic form ofexpression which is almost or sometimes even quite untranslatable. Who, for instance, would dare to translate into English the followingdescription which the Duchesse de Dino[29] gave of a lady of heracquaintance: "Elle n'a jamais été jolie, mais elle était blanche etfraîche, _avec quelques jolis détails"_? On the whole, however, it maybe said that if the prose translator is thoroughly well acquainted withboth of the languages which he has to handle, he ought to be able to payadequate homage to the genius of the one without offering undue violenceto that of the other. 

The case of the translator of poetry, which Coleridge defined as "thebest words in the best order, " is manifestly very different. A phrasewhich is harmonious or pregnant with fire in one language may becomediscordant, flat, and vapid when translated into another. Shelley spokeof "the vanity of translation. " "It were as wise (he said) to cast aviolet into a crucible that you might discover the formal principle ofits colour and odour, as seek to transfuse from one language intoanother the creations of a poet. "

Longinus has told us[30] that "beautiful words are the very light ofthought" (φῶς γὰρ τῷ ὄντι ἴδιον τοῦ νοῦ τὰ καλὰ ὀνόματα), but it willoften happen, in reading a fine passage, that on analysing thesentiments evoked, it is difficult to decide whether they are due tothe thought or to the beauty of the words. A mere word, as in the caseof Edgar Poe's "Nevermore, " has at times inspired a poet. When Keats, speaking of Melancholy, says:

 She lives with Beauty--Beauty that must die-- And Joy, whose hand is ever on his lips, Bidding adieu, or when Mrs. Browning writes:

 . .. Young As Eve with Nature's daybreak on her face, the pleasure, both of sense and sentiment, is in each case derived alikefrom the music of the language and the beauty of the ideas. But in suchlines as

 Arethusa arose from her couch of snows, etc. , or Coleridge's description of the river Alph running

 Through caverns measureless to man Down to a sunless sea, it is the language rather than the idea which fascinates. ProfessorWalker, speaking of the most exquisitely harmonious lyric ever writtenin English, or perhaps in any other language, [31] says with great truth:"The reader of _Lycidas_ rises from it ready to grasp the 'two-handedengine' and smite; though he may be doubtful what the engine is, andwhat is to be smitten. "

It may be observed, moreover, that one of the main difficulties to beencountered in translating some of the masterpieces of ancientliterature arises from their exquisite simplicity. Although theindulgence in glaring improprieties of language in the pursuit ofnovelty of thought was not altogether unknown to the ancients, and was, indeed, stigmatised by Longinus with the epithet of "corybantising, "[32]the full development of this pernicious practice has been reserved forthe modern world. Dryden made himself indirectly responsible for a gooddeal of bad poetry when he said that great wits were allied to madness. The late Professor Butcher, [33] as also Lamb in his essay on "The Sanityof True Genius, " have both pointed out that genius and high ability areeminently sane. 

In some respects it may be said that didactic poetry affords specialfacilities to the translator, inasmuch as it bears a more close relationto prose than verse of other descriptions. Didactic poets, such asLucretius and Pope, are almost forced by the inexorable necessities oftheir subjects to think in prose. However much we may admire theirverse, it is impossible not to perceive that, in dealing with subjectsthat require great precision of thought, they have felt themselveshampered by the necessities of metre and rhythm. They may, indeed, resort to blank verse, which is a sort of half-way house between proseand rhyme, as was done by Mr. Leonard in his excellent translation ofEmpedocles, of which the following specimen may be given:

 οὐκ ἔστιν πελάσασθαι ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἐφεκτὸν ἡμετέροις ἢ χερσὶ λαβεῖν, ᾗπερ τε μεγίστη πειθοῦς ἀνθρώποισιν ἁμαξιτὸς εἰς φρένα πίπτει. 

 We may not bring It near us with our eyes, We may not grasp It with our human hands. With neither hands nor eyes, those highways twain, Whereby Belief drops into the minds of men. 

But Dr. Symmons, one of the numerous translators of Virgil, said, withsome truth, that the adoption of blank verse only involves "a laboriousand doubtful struggle to escape from the fangs of prose. "[34]

A good example of what can be done in this branch of literature isfurnished by Dryden. Lucretius[35] wrote:

 Tu vero dubitabis et indignabere obire? Mortua cui vita est prope iam vivo atque videnti, Qui somno partem maiorem conteris aevi, Et vigilans stertis nec somnia cernere cessas Sollicitamque geris cassa formidine mentem Nec reperire potes tibi quid sit saepe mali, cum Ebrius urgeris multis miser undique curis, Atque animi incerto fluitans errore vagaris. 

Dryden's translation departs but slightly from the original text and atthe same time presents the ideas of Lucretius in rhythmical andmelodious English:

 And thou, dost thou disdain to yield thy breath, Whose very life is little more than death? More than one-half by lazy sleep possest, And when awake, thy soul but nods at best, Day-dreams and sickly thoughts revolving in thy breast. Eternal troubles haunt thy anxious mind, Whose cause and case thou never hopest to find, But still uncertain, with thyself at strife, Thou wanderest in the labyrinth of life. 

Descriptive poetry also lends itself with comparative ease totranslation. Nothing can be better than the translation made by Mr. Gladstone[36] of _Iliad_ iv. 422-32. The original Greek runs thus:

 ὡς δ' ὅτ' ἐν αἰγιαλῷ πολυηχέι· κῦμα θαλάσσης ὄρνυτ' ἐπασσύτερον Ζεφύρου ὕπο κινήσαντος· πόντῳ μέν τε πρῶτα κορύσσεται, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα χέρσῳ ῥηγνύμενον μεγάλα βρέμει, ἀμφὶ δέ τ' ἄκρας κυρτὸν ἐὸν κορυφοῦται, ἀποπτύει δ' ἁλὸς ἄχνην· ὧς τότ' ἐπασσύτεραι Δαναῶν κίνυντο φάλαγγες νωλεμέως πόλεμόνδε. κέλευε δὲ οἷσιν ἕκαστος ἡγεμόνων· οἱ δ' ἄλλοι ἀκὴν ἴσαν, οὐδέ κε φαίης τόσσον λαὸν ἕπεσθαι ἔχοντ' ἐν στήθεσιν αὐδήν, σιγῇ, δειδιότες σημάντορας· ἀμφὶ δὲ πᾶσι τεύχεα ποικίλ' ἔλαμπε, τὰ εἱμένοι ἐστιχόωντο. 

Mr. Gladstone, who evidently drew his inspiration from the author of"Marmion" and "The Lady of the Lake, " translated as follows:

 As when the billow gathers fast With slow and sullen roar, Beneath the keen north-western blast, Against the sounding shore. First far at sea it rears its crest, Then bursts upon the beach; Or with proud arch and swelling breast, Where headlands outward reach, It smites their strength, and bellowing flings Its silver foam afar-- So stern and thick the Danaan kings And soldiers marched to war. Each leader gave his men the word, Each warrior deep in silence heard, So mute they marched, them couldst not ken They were a mass of speaking men; And as they strode in martial might Their flickering arms shot back the light. 

It is, however, in dealing with poetry which is neither didactic nordescriptive that the difficulty--indeed often the impossibility--ofreconciling the genius of the two languages becomes most apparent. Itmay be said with truth that the best way of ascertaining how a fine orluminous idea can be presented in any particular language is to setaside altogether the idea of translation, and to inquire how some masterin the particular language has presented the case without reference tothe utterances of his predecessors in other languages. A good example ofthis process may be found in comparing the language in which others havetreated Vauvenargues' well-known saying: "Pour exécuter de grandeschoses, il faut vivre comme si on ne devait jamais mourir. "Bacchylides[37] put the same idea in the following words:

 θνατὸν εὖντα χρὴ διδύμους ἀέξειν γνώμας, ὅτι τ' αὔριον ὄψεαι μοῦνον ἁλίου φάος, χὥτι πεντήκοντ' ἔτεα ζωὰν βαθύπλουτον τελεῖς. [38]

And the great Arab poet Abu'l'Ala, whose verse has been admirablytranslated by Mr. Baerlein, wrote:

 If you will do some deed before you die, Remember not this caravan of death, But have belief that every little breath Will stay with you for an eternity. 

Another instance of the same kind, which may be cited without in any waywishing to advance what Professor Courthope[39] very justly calls "themean charge of plagiarism, " is Tennyson's line, "His honour rooted indishonour stood. " Euripides[40] expressed the same idea in the followingwords:

 ἐκ τῶν γὰρ αἰσχρῶν ἐσθλὰ μηχανώμεθα. 

To cite another case, the following lines of _Paradise Lost_ may becompared with the treatment accorded by Euripides to the same subject:

 Oh, why did God, Creator wise, that peopled highest Heaven With spirits masculine, create at last This novelty on Earth, this fair defect Of Nature, and not fill the World at once With men as Angels, without feminine; Or find some other way to generate Mankind?

Euripides wrote:

 ὦ Ζεῦ, τί δὴ κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις κακόν, γυναῖκας ἐς φῶς ἡλίου κατῴκισας; εἰ γὰρ βρότειον ἤθελες σπεῖραι γένος, οὐκ ἐκ γυναικῶν χρῆν παρασχέσθαι τόδε. [41]

Apart, however, from the process to which allusion is made above, verymany instances may, of course, be cited, of translations properly socalled which have reproduced not merely the exact sense but the vigourof the original idea in a foreign language with little or no resort toparaphrase. What can be better than Cowley's translation of Claudian'slines?--

 Ingentem meminit parvo qui germine quercum Aequaevumque videt consenuisse nemus. 

 A neighbouring wood born with himself he sees, And loves his old contemporary trees, thus, as Gibbon says, [42] improving on the original, inasmuch as, beinga good botanist, Cowley "concealed the oaks under a more generalexpression. "

Take also the case of the well-known Latin epigram:

 Omne epigramma sit instar apis: sit aculeus illi; Sint sua mella; sit et corporis exigui. 

It has frequently been translated, but never more felicitously oraccurately than by the late Lord Wensleydale:

 Be epigrams like bees; let them have stings; And Honey too, and let them be small things. 

On the other hand, the attempt to adhere too closely to the text of theoriginal and to reject paraphrase sometimes leads to results which canscarcely be described as other than the reverse of felicitous. Aninstance in point is Sappho's lines:

 καὶ γὰρ αἰ φεύγει, ταχέως διώξει, αἰ δὲ δῶρα μὴ δέκετ', ἄλλα δώσει, αἰ δὲ μὴ φίλει, ταχέως φιλήσει κωὐκ ἐθέλοισα. 

So great a master of verse as Mr. Headlam translated thus:

 The pursued shall soon be the pursuer! Gifts, though now refusing, yet shall bring Love the lover yet, and woo the wooer, Though heart it wring!

Many of Mr. Headlam's translations are, however, excellent, moreespecially those from English into Greek. He says in his preface:"Greek, in my experience, is easier to write than English. " He hasadmirably reproduced the pathetic simplicity of Herrick's lines:

 Here a pretty baby lies, Sung to sleep with Lullabies; Pray be silent and not stir The easy earth that covers her. 

 μήτηρ βαυκαλόωσά μ' ἐκοίμισεν· ἀτρέμα βαῖνε μὴ 'γείρῃς κούφην γῆν μ' ἐπιεσσόμενον. 

Many singularly happy attempts to render English into Latin or Greekverse are given in Mr. Kennedy's fascinating little volume _BetweenWhiles_, of which the following example may be quoted:

 Few the words that I have spoken; True love's words are ever few; Yet by many a speechless token Hath my heart discoursed to you. 

 οἶδα παῦρ' ἔπη λαλήσας· παῦρ' ἔρως λαλεῖν φιλεῖ· ξυμβόλοις δ' ὅμως ἀναύδοις σοὶ τὸ πᾶν ᾐνιξάμην. 

The extent to which it is necessary to resort to paraphrase will, ofcourse, vary greatly, and will largely depend upon whether the languageinto which the translation is made happens to furnish epithets andexpressions which are rhythmical and at the same time correspondaccurately to those of the original. Take, for instance, a case such asthe following fragment of Euripides:

 τὰ μὲν διδακτὰ μανθάνω, τὰ δ' εὑρετὰ ζητῶ, τὰ δ' εὐκτὰ παρὰ θεῶν ᾐτησάμην. 

There is but little difficulty in turning this into English verse withbut slight resort to paraphrase:

 I learn what may be taught; I seek what may be sought; My other wants I dare To ask from Heaven in prayer, But in a large majority of cases paraphrase is almost imposed on thetranslator by the necessities of the case. Mr. William Cory's renderingof the famous verses of Callimachus on his friend Heraclitus, which istoo well known to need quotation, has been justly admired as one of thebest and most poetic translations ever made from Greek, but it canscarcely be called a translation in the sense in which that term isemployed by purists. It is a paraphrase. 

It is needless to dwell on the difficulty of finding any suitable wordscapable of being adapted to the necessities of English metre and rhythmfor the numerous and highly poetic adjectives in which the Greeklanguage abounds. It would tax the ingenuity of any translator to weaveinto his verse expressions corresponding to the ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι(sea-constraining cliffs) or the Μναμοσύνας λιπαράμπυκος (Mnemosyne ofthe shining fillet) of Pindar. Neither is the difficulty wholly confinedto poetry. A good many epithets have from time to time been applied tothe Nile, but none so graphic or so perfectly accurate as that employedby Herodotus, [43] who uses the phrase ὑπὸ τοσούτου τε ποταμοῦ καὶ οὕτωἐργατικοῦ. The English translation "that vast river, so constantly atwork" is a poor equivalent for the original Greek. German possesses to agreater degree than any other modern language the word-coining powerwhich was such a marked characteristic of Greek, with the result that itoffers special difficulties to the translator of verse. Mr. Brandes[44]quotes the following lines of the German poet Bücher:

 Welche Heldenfreudigkeit der Liebe, Welche Stärke muthigen Entsagens, Welche himmlisch erdentschwungene Triebe, Welche Gottbegeistrung des Ertragens! Welche Sich-Erhebung, Sich-Erwiedrung, Sich-Entäussrung, völl'ge Hin-sich-gebung, Seelenaustausch, Ineinanderlebung!

It is probable that these lines have never been translated into Englishverse, and it is obvious that no translation, which did not largelyconsist of paraphrase, would be possible. 

Alliteration, which is a powerful literary instrument in the hands of askilful writer, but which may easily be allowed to degenerate into amere jingle, is of less common occurrence in Greek than in English, notably early English, literature. It was, however, occasionallyemployed by both poets and dramatists. Euripides, for instance, in the_Cyclops_ (l. 120) makes use of the following expression, which wouldserve as a good motto for an Anarchist club, ἀκούει δ' οὐδὲν οὐδεὶςοὐδενός. Clytemnestra, also, in speaking of the murder of her husband(_Ag. _ 1551-52) says:

 πρὸς ἡμῶν κάππεσε, κάτθανε, καὶ καταθάψομεν. [45]

That Greek alliteration is capable of imitation is shown by Pope'stranslation of the well-known line[46]:

 πολλὰ δ' ἄναντα κάταντα πάραντά τε δόχμιὰ τ' ἦλθον·

 O'er hills, o'er dales, o'er crags, o'er rocks, they go. 

Pope at times brought alliteration to his aid in cases where no suchdevice had been adopted by Homer, as when, in describing the labours ofSisyphus, [47] he wrote:

 With many a weary step, and many a groan, Up the high hill he heaves a huge round stone. 

On the whole, although a good deal more than is contained in thisarticle may be said on either side, it would appear that, broadlyspeaking, Dryden's principle holds good for prose translations, and thatexperience has shown, in respect to translations in verse, that, save inrare instances, a resort to paraphrase is necessary. 

The writer ventures, in conclusion, to give two instances, in one ofwhich there has been comparatively but slight departure from the text ofthe original Greek, whilst in the other there has been greaterindulgence in paraphrase. Both are taken from the Anthology. The firstis an epitaph on a shipwrecked sailor by an unknown author:

 Ναυτίλε, μὴ πεύθου τίνος ἐνθάδε τύμβος ὅδ' εἰμί, ἀλλ' αὐτὸς πόντου τύγχανε χρηστοτέρου. 

 No matter who I was; but may the sea To you prove kindlier than it was to me. 

The other is by Macedonius:

 Αὔριον ἀθρήσω σε· τὸ δ' οὔ ποτε γίνεται ἡμῖν ἠθάδος ἀμβολίης αἰὲν ἀεξομένης· ταῦτά μοι ἱμείροντι χαρίζεαι, ἄλλα δ' ἐς ἄλλους δῶρα φέρεις, ἐμεθέν πίστιν ἀπειπαμένη. ὄψομαι ἑσπερίη σε. τί δ' ἕσπερός έστι γυναικῶν; γῆρας ἀμετρήτῳ πληθόμενον ῥυτίδι. 

 Ever "To-morrow" thou dost say; When will to-morrow's sun arise? Thus custom ratifies delay; My faithfulness thou dost despise. Others are welcomed, whilst to me "At even come, " thou say'st, "not now. " What will life's evening bring to thee? Old age--a many-wrinkled brow. 

Dryden's well-known lines in _Aurengzebe_ embody the idea of Macedoniusin epigrammatic and felicitous verse:

 Trust on, and think to-morrow will repay, To-morrow's falser than the former day. 

[Footnote 24: Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. Iii. P. 467. ]

[Footnote 25: Weise, 1841, vol. Ii. P. 303. ]

[Footnote 26: _Loci Critici_, p. 40. ]

[Footnote 27: _History of Greece_, vol. Ii. P. 326. ]

[Footnote 28: The use by Pericles of this metaphor rests on theauthority of Aristotle (_Rhet. _ i. 7. 34). Herodotus (vii. 162) ascribesalmost the identical words to Gelo, and a similar idea is given byEuripides in _Supp. _ 447-49. ]

[Footnote 29: _Memoirs_, vol. I. P. 328. ]

[Footnote 30: _On the Sublime_, xxx. ]

[Footnote 31: _Literature of the Victorian Era_, p. 382. ]

[Footnote 32: _On the Sublime_, c. V. ]

[Footnote 33: Aristotle's _Theory of Poetry and Fine Art_, p. 398. ]

[Footnote 34: _Miscellaneous Writings_, Conington, vol. I. P. 162. ]

[Footnote 35: iii. 1045 ff. ]

[Footnote 36: Mr. Gladstone's merits as a translator were great. HisLatin translation of Toplady's hymn "Rock of Ages, " beginning "Jesus, pro me perforatus, " is altogether admirable. ]

[Footnote 37: _Od. _ iii. 78-82. ]

[Footnote 38: "As a mortal, thou must nourish each of twoforebodings--that to-morrow's sunlight will be the last that thou shaltsee: and that for fifty years thou wilt live out thy life in amplewealth. "]

[Footnote 39: _History of English Poetry_, iii. , 394. ]

[Footnote 40: _Hipp. _ 331. ]

[Footnote 41: "Great Zeus, why didst thou, to man's sorrow, put woman, evil counterfeit, to dwell where shines the sun? If thou wert mindedthat the human race should multiply, it was not from women they shouldhave drawn their stock. "--_Hipp. _ 616-19. ]

[Footnote 42: _Decline and Fall_, v. 185. ]

[Footnote 43: Book ii. C. 11. ]

[Footnote 44: _Eighteenth Century Literature_, vol. Vi. P. 331. ]

[Footnote 45: "By us he fell, he died, and we will bury him. "]

[Footnote 46: _Il. _ xxiii. 116. ]

[Footnote 47: _Od. _ xi. 733. ]

"THE QUARTERLY REVIEW"

III

SIR ALFRED LYALL

_"Quarterly Review, " July 1913_

After reading and admiring Sir Mortimer Durand's life of Alfred Lyall, Iam tempted to exclaim in the words of Shenstone's exquisite inscription, which has always seemed to me about the best thing that Shenstone everwrote, "Heu quanto minus est cum reliquis versari quam tui meminisse!"He was one of my oldest and best of friends. More than this, althoughour characters differed widely, and although I should never for a momentthink of rating my intellectual attainments on a par with his, at thesame time I may say that in the course of a long life I do not thinkthat I have ever been brought in contact with any one with whom I foundmyself in more thorough community of opinion and sentiment upon thesundry and manifold questions which excited our common interest. He wasa strong Unionist, a strong Free Trader, and a strong anti-suffragist. I am, for good or evil, all these things. He was a sincere Liberal inthe non-party sense of that very elastic word. So was I. That is to say, there was a time when we both thought ourselves good mid-VictorianLiberals--a school of politicians whose ideas have now been swept intothe limbo of forgotten things, the only surviving principles of that agebeing apparently those associated with a faint and somewhat fantasticcult of the primrose. In 1866 he wrote to his sister--and I cannot butsmile on reading the letter--"I am more and more Radical every year";and he expressed regret that circumstances did not permit of his settingup as "a fierce demagogue" in England. I could have conscientiouslywritten in much the same spirit at the same period, but it has not takenme nearly half a century to discover that two persons more unfitted bynature and temperament to be "fierce demagogues" than Alfred Lyall andmyself were probably never born. In respect to the Indian politicalquestions which were current during his day--such as the controversybetween the Lawrentian and "Forward" schools of frontier policy, theCurzon-Kitchener episode, and the adaptation of Western reforms to meetthe growing requirements to which education has given birth--his views, although perhaps rather in my opinion unduly pessimistic anddesponding, were generally identical with my own. 

Albeit he was an earnest reformer, he was a warm advocate of strong andcapable government, and, in writing to our common friend, Lord Morley, in 1882, he anathematised what he considered the weakness shown by theGladstone Government in dealing with disorder in Ireland. Himself notonly the kindest, but also the most just and judicially-minded of men, he feared that a maudlin and misplaced sentimentalism would destroy themore virile elements in the national character. "I should like, " hesaid, in words which must not, of course, be taken too literally, "alittle more fierceness and honest brutality in the nationaltemperament. " His heart went out, in a manner which is only possible tothose who have watched them closely at work, to those Englishmen, whether soldiers or civilians, who, but little known and even at timesdepreciated by their own countrymen, are carrying the fame, the glory, the justice and humanity of England to the four quarters of the globe. 

 The roving Englishman (he said) is the salt of English land. .. . Only those who go out of this civilised country, to see the rough work on the frontiers and in the far lands, properly understand what our men are like and can do. .. . They cannot manage a steam-engine, but they can drive restive and ill-trained horses over rough roads. 

He felt--and as one who has humbly dabbled in literature at the close ofan active political life, I can fully sympathise with him--that "whenone has once taken a hand in the world's affairs, literature is likerowing in a picturesque reach of the Thames after a bout in the opensea. " Yet, in the case of Lyall, literature was not a matter of mereacademic interest. "His incessant study was history. " He thought, withLord Acton, that an historical student should be "a politician with hisface turned backwards. " His mind was eminently objective. He was forever seeking to know the causes of things; and though far too observantto push to extreme lengths analogies between the past and the present, he nevertheless sought, notably in the history of Imperial Rome, for anyfacts or commentaries gleaned from ancient times which might be ofservice to the modern empire of which he was so justly proud, and in thefoundation of which the splendid service of which he was an illustriousmember had played so conspicuous a part. "I wonder, " he wrote in 1901, "how far the Roman Empire profited by high education. "

Lyall was by nature a poet. Sir Mortimer Durand says, truly enough, thathis volume of verses, "if not great poetry, as some hold, was yet truepoetry. " Poetic expressions, in fact, bubbled up in his mind almostunconsciously in dealing with every incident of his life. Lord Tennysontells us in his _Memoir_ that one evening, when his father and motherwere rowing across the Solent, they saw a heron. His father describedthis incident in the following language: "One dark heron flew over thesea, backed by a daffodil sky. " Similarly, Lyall, writing with theenthusiasm of a young father for his firstborn, said: "The child haseyes like the fish-pools of Heshbon, with wondrous depth of intelligentgaze. " But, though a poet, it would be a great error to suppose thatLyall was an idealist, if by that term is meant one who, after aplatonic fashion, indulges in ideas which are wholly visionary andunpractical. He had, indeed, ideals. No man of his imagination andmental calibre could be without them. But they were ideals based on asolid foundation of facts. It was here that, in spite of some sympathybased on common literary tastes, he altogether parted company from abrother poet, Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, who has invariably left his facts totake care of themselves. Though eminently meditative and reflective, Lyall's mind, his biographer says, "seemed always hungry for facts. ""Though he had an unusual degree of imagination, he never allowedhimself to be tempted too far from the region of the known or theknowable. " The reason why he at times appeared to vacillate was that hedid not consider he sufficiently understood all the facts to justify hisforming an opinion capable of satisfying his somewhat hypercriticaljudgment. He was, in fact, very difficult to convince of the truth of anopinion, not because of his prejudices, for he had none, but by reasonof his constitutional scepticism. He acted throughout life on theprinciple laid down by the Greek philosopher Epicharmus: "Be sober, andremember to disbelieve. These are the sinews of the mind. " I have beeninformed on unimpeachable authority that when he was a member of theTreasury Committee which sat on the question of providing facilities forthe study of Oriental languages in this country, he constantly asked thewitnesses whom he examined leading questions from which it might ratherbe inferred that he held opinions diametrically opposed to those whichin reality he entertained. His sole object was to arrive at a soundconclusion. He wished to elicit all possible objections to any views towhich he was personally inclined. It is very probable that his Orientalexperience led him to adopt this procedure; for, as any one who haslived much in the East will recognise, it is the only possible safeguardagainst the illusions which may arise from the common Oriental habit ofendeavouring to say what is pleasant to the interrogator, especially ifhe occupies some position of authority. 

Only half-reconciled, in the first instance, to Indian exile, and, whenonce he had taken the final step of departure, constantly brooding overthe intellectual attractions rather than the material comforts ofEuropean life, Lyall speedily came to the conclusion that, if he was tobear a hand in governing India, the first thing he had to do was tounderstand Indians. He therefore brought his acutely analyticalintellect to the task of comprehending the Indian habit of thought. Inthe course of his researches he displayed that thoroughness andpassionate love of truth which was the distinguishing feature of hischaracter throughout life. That he succeeded in a manner which has beensurpassed by none, and only faintly rivalled by a very few, is nowgenerally recognised both by his own countrymen and also--which is farmore remarkable--by the inhabitants of the country which formed thesubject of his study. So far as it is possible for any Western toachieve that very difficult task, he may be said to have got to the backof the Oriental mind. He embodied the results of his long experience attimes in sweeping and profound generalisations, which covered the wholefield of Oriental thought and action, and at others in pithyepigrammatic sayings in which the racy humour, sometimes tinged with ashade of cynical irony, never obscured the deep feeling of sympathy heentertained for everything that was worthy of respect and admiration. 

Lyall had read history to some purpose. He knew, in the words whichGregorovius applied to the rule of Theodosius in Italy, that "not eventhe wisest and most humane of princes, if he be an alien in race, incustoms and religion, can ever win the hearts of the people. " He hadread De Tocqueville, and from the pages of an author whose habit ofthought must have been most congenial to him, he drew the conclusionthat "it was the increased prosperity and enlightenment of the Frenchpeople which produced the grand crash. " He therefore thought that "thewildest, as well as the shallowest notion of all is that universallyprevalent belief that education, civilisation and increased materialprosperity will reconcile the people of India eventually to our rule. "Hence he was prepared to accept--perhaps rather more entirely than itdeserved to be accepted--the statement of that very astute Brahmin, SirDinkur Rao, himself the minister of an important native State, that "thenatives prefer a bad native Government to our best patent institutions. "These, and similar oracular statements, have now become the commonplacesof all who deal with questions affecting India. That there is muchtruth in them cannot be gainsaid, but they are still often too muchignored by one section of the British public, who, carried away byhome-made sentiment, forget that of all national virtues gratitude forfavours received is the most rare, while by another section they areapplied to the advocacy of a degree of autonomous rule which would bedisastrous to the interests, not only of India itself, but also to thecause of all real civilised progress. 

The point, however, on which in conversation Lyall was wont to insistmost strongly was that the West was almost incomprehensible to the East, and, _vice versa_, that the Western could never thoroughly understandthe Oriental. In point of fact, when we talk of progress, it isnecessary to fix some standard by which progress may be measured. Weknow our Western standard; we endeavour to enforce it; and we are soconvinced that it gives an accurate measure of human moral and materialadvancement that we experience a shock on hearing that there are largenumbers of even highly educated human beings who hold that the standardis altogether false. Yet that, Lyall would argue, is generally theOriental frame of mind. Fatalism, natural conservatism and ignorancelead the uneducated to reject our ideas, while the highly educated oftenhold that our standard of progress is too material to be a truemeasure, and that consequently, far from advancing, we are standingstill or even retrograding. Lyall, personifying a Brahmin, said, "Politics I cannot help regarding as the superficial aspect of deeperproblems; and for progress, the latest incarnation of Europeanmaterialism, I have an incurable distrust. " These subtle intellectuals, in fact, as Surendranath Banerjee, one of the leaders of the Swadeshimovement, told Dr. Wegener, [48] hold that the English are "stupid andignorant, " and, therefore, wholly unfit to govern India. 

I remember Lyall, who, as Sir Mortimer Durand says, had a very keensense of humour, telling me an anecdote which is what Bacon would havecalled "luciferous, " as an illustration of the views held by theuneducated classes in India on the subject of Western reforms. Theofficer in charge of a district either in Bengal or the North-WestProvinces got up a cattle-show, with a view to improving the breed ofcattle. Shortly afterwards, an Englishman, whilst out shooting, enteredinto conversation with a peasant who happened to be passing by. He askedthe man what he thought of the cattle-show, and added that he supposedit had done a great deal of good. "Yes, " the native, who was probably aMoslem, replied after some reflection, "last year there was cholera. This year there was Cattle Show. We have to bear these afflictions withwhat patience we may. Are they not all sent by God?"

But it was naturally the opinions entertained by the intellectualclasses which most interested Lyall, and which he endeavoured tointerpret to his countrymen. The East is asymmetrical in all things. Iremember Lyall saying to me, "Accuracy is abhorrent to the Orientalmind. " The West, on the other hand, delights beyond all things insymmetry and accuracy. Moreover, it would almost seem as if in the mosttrivial incidents in life some unseen influence generally impels theEastern to do the exact opposite to the Western--a point, I may observe, which Lyall was never tired of illustrating by all kinds of quaintexamples. A shepherd in Perthshire will walk behind his sheep and drivethem. In the Deccan he will walk in front of his flock. A European willgenerally place his umbrella point downwards against the wall. AnOriental will, with far greater reason, do exactly the reverse. 

But, in respect to the main question of mutual comprehension, there are, at all events in so far as the European is concerned, degrees ofdifficulty--degrees which depend very largely on religious differences, for in the theocratic East religion covers the whole social andpolitical field to a far greater extent than in the West. Now, thereligion of the Moslem is, comparatively speaking, very easy tounderstand. There are, indeed, a few ritualistic and other minor pointsas to which a Western may at times have some difficulty in grasping theOriental point of view. But the foundations of monotheistic Islam aresimplicity itself; indeed, it may be said that they are far more simplethan those of Christianity. The case of the Hindu religion is verydifferent. Dr. Barth in his _Religions of India_ says:

 Already in the Veda, Hindu thought is profoundly tainted with the malady, of which it will never be able to get rid, of affecting a greater air of mystery the less there is to conceal, of making a parade of symbols which at bottom signify nothing, and of playing with enigmas which are not worth the trouble of trying to unriddle. .. . At the present time it is next to impossible to say exactly what Hinduism is, where it begins, and where it ends. 

I cannot profess to express any valuable opinion on a subject on which Iam very imperfectly informed, and which, save as a matter of politicalnecessity, fails to interest me--for, personally, I think that a book ofthe _Iliad_ or a play of Aristophanes is far more valuable than all thelucubrations that have ever been spun by the subtle minds of learnedHindu Pundits--but, so far as I am able to judge, Dr. Barth'sdescription is quite accurate. None the less, the importance to theIndian politician of gaining some insight into the inner recesses of theHindu mind cannot for a moment be doubted. Lyall said, "I fancy that theHindu philosophy, which teaches that everything we see or feel is a vastcosmic illusion, projected into space by that which is the manifestationof the infinite and unconscious spirit, has an unsettling effect ontheir political beliefs. " Lyall, therefore, rendered a very greatpolitical service to his countrymen when he took in hand the duty ofexpounding to them the true nature of Hindu religious belief. He did thework very thoroughly. Passing lightly by the "windy moralities" ofBrahmo Somaj teachers of the type of Keshub Chunder Sen, whom he left to"drifting Deans such as Stanley and Alford, " he grasped the fullsignificance of true orthodox Brahmanism, and under the pseudonym ofVamadeo Shastri wrote an essay which has "become a classic for thestudent of comparative religion, and for all who desire to know, inparticular, the religious mind of the Hindu. " In the course of hisenquiries Lyall incidentally performed the useful historical service ofshowing that Euhemerism is, or very recently was, a living force inIndia, [49] and that the solar myth theory supported by Max Müller andothers had, to say the least, been pushed much too far. 

I turn to another point. All who were brought in contact with Lyallspeedily recognised his social charm and high intellectual gifts, butwas he a man of action? Did he possess the qualifications necessary tothose who take part in the government of the outlying dominions of theEmpire? I have often been asked that question. It is one to which SirMortimer Durand frequently reverts, his general conclusion being thatLyall was "a man of action with literary tastes. " I will endeavourbriefly to express my own opinion on this subject. 

There have been many cases of notable men of action who were alsostudents. Napier said that no example can be shown in history of a greatgeneral who was not also a well-read man. But Lyall was more than a merestudent. He was a thinker, and a very deep thinker, not merely onpolitical but also on social and religious subjects. There may be someparallel in the history of our own or of other countries to the peculiarcombination of thought and action which characterised Lyall's career, but for the moment none which meets all the necessary requirementsoccurs to me. The case is, I think, almost if not quite unique. ThatLyall had a warm admiration for men of action is abundantly clear. Hisenthusiasm on their behalf comes out in every stanza of his poetry, and, when any suitable occasion offered, in every line of his prose. Heeulogised the strong man who ruled and acted, and he reserved a veryspecial note of sympathy for those who sacrificed their lives for theircountry. Shortly before his own death he spoke in terms of warmadmiration of Mr. Newbolt's fine lines:

 Qui procul hinc--the legend's writ, The frontier grave is far away-- Qui ante diem periit Sed miles, sed pro patriâ. 

But he shared these views with many thinkers who, like Carlyle, haveformed their opinions in their studies. The fact that he entertainedthem does not help us to answer the question whether he can or cannot behimself classed in the category of men of action. 

As a young man he took a distinguished part in the suppression of theMutiny, and showed courage and decision of character in all his acts. Hewas a good, though not perhaps an exceptionally good administrator. Hishorror of disorder in any form led him to approve without hesitation theadoption of strong measures for its suppression. On the occasion of thepunishment administered to those guilty of the Manipur massacres in1891, he wrote to Sir Mortimer Durand, "I do most heartily admire thejustice and firmness of purpose displayed in executing the Senapati. Ihope there will be no interference, in my absence, from the IndiaOffice. " On the whole, the verdict passed by Lord George Hamilton is, Ibelieve, eminently correct, and is entirely in accordance with my ownexperience. Lord George, who had excellent opportunities for forming asound opinion on the subject, wrote:

 Great as were Lyall's literary attributes and powers of initiation and construction, his critical faculties were even more fully developed. This made him at times somewhat difficult to deal with, for he was very critical and cautious in the tendering of advice as regards any new policy or any suggested change. When once he could see his way through difficulties, or came to the conclusion that those difficulties must be faced, then his caution and critical instincts disappeared, and he was prepared to be as bold in the prosecution of what he advocated as he had previously been reluctant to start. 

The mental attitude which Lord George Hamilton thus describes is by nomeans uncommon in the case of very conscientious and brilliantlyintellectual men, such, for instance, as the late Lord Goschen, whopossessed many characteristics in common with Lyall. They can cite, injustification of their procedure, the authority of one who was probablythe greatest man of action that the world has ever produced. Roedererrelates in his journal that on one occasion Napoleon said to him:

 Il n'y a pas un homme plus pusillanime que moi quand je fais un plan militaire; je me grossis tous les dangers et tous les maux possibles dans les circonstances; je suis dans une agitation tout à fait pénible; je suis comme une fille qui accouche. Et quand ma résolution est prise, tout est oublié, hors ce qui peut la faire réussir. 

Within reasonable limits, caution is, indeed, altogether commendable. Onthe other hand, it cannot be doubted that, carried to excess, it is attimes apt to paralyse all effective and timely action, to disqualifythose who exercise it from being pilots possessed of sufficient daringto steer the ship of state in troublous times, and to exclude them fromthe category of men of action in the sense in which that term isgenerally used. In spite of my great affection for Alfred Lyall, I amforced to admit that, in his case, caution was, I think, at timescarried to excess. He never appeared to me to realise sufficiently thatthe conduct of public affairs, notably in this democratic age, is atbest a very rough unscientific process; that it is occasionallynecessary to make a choice of evils or to act on imperfect evidence; andthat at times, to quote the words which I remember Lord Northbrook onceused to me, it is even better to have a wrong opinion than to have nodefinite opinion at all. So early as 1868, he wrote to his mother, "There are many topics on which I have not definitely discovered what Ido think"; and to the day of his death he very generally maintained inrespect to current politics the frame of mind set forth in this verycharacteristic utterance. Every general has to risk the loss of abattle, and every active politician has at times to run the risk ofmaking a wrong forecast. Before running that risk, Lyall was generallyinclined to exhaust the chances of error to an extent which was oftenimpossible, or at all events hurtful. 

Sir Mortimer Durand refers to the history of the Ilbert Bill, a measureunder which Lord Ripon's Government proposed to give native magistratesjurisdiction over Europeans in certain circumstances. I was at the time(1882-83) Financial Member of the Viceroy's Council. After a lapse ofthirty years, there can, I think, be no objection to my stating myrecollections of what occurred in connexion with this subject. I should, in the first instance, mention that the association of Mr. (now SirCourtenay) Ilbert's name with this measure was purely accidental. He hadnothing to do with its initiation. The proposals, which were eventuallyembodied in the Bill, originated with Sir Ashley Eden, who wasLieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and who certainly could not be accused ofany wish to neglect European opinion, or of any desire to push forwardextreme liberal measures conceived in native interests. The measure hadbeen under the consideration of the Legislative Department in the timeof Mr. Ilbert's predecessor in the office of Legal Member of Council, and it was only the accident that he vacated his office before it wasintroduced into the Legislative Council that associated Mr. Ilbert'sname with the Bill. 

As was customary in such cases, all the local Governments had beenconsulted; and they again consulted the Commissioners, Deputy-Commissioners, Collectors, etc. , within their respectiveprovinces. The result was that Lord Ripon had before him the opinions ofpractically the whole Civil Service of India. Divers views were held asto the actual extent to which the law should be altered, but, in thewords of a despatch addressed by the Government of India to theSecretary of State on September 9, 1882, the local reports showed "anoverwhelming consensus of opinion that the time had come for modifyingthe existing law and removing the present absolute bar upon theinvestment of native magistrates in the interior with powers overEuropean British subjects. " Not one single official gave anythingapproaching an indication of the storm of opposition that this ill-fatedmeasure was about to raise. I do not think that this is verysurprising, for the opposition came almost exclusively from theunofficial Europeans, who for the most part congregate in a few largecommercial centres, with the result that the majority of the civilians, who are scattered throughout the country, are not much brought incontact with them. Nevertheless, the fact that so great a miscalculationof the state of public opinion could be made left a deep impression onmy mind. The main lesson which I carried away from the Ilbert Billcontroversy was, indeed, that in spite of their great merits, which noone recognises more fully than myself, it is possible at times for thewhole body of Indian civilians, taken collectively, to be somewhatunsafe guides in matters of state policy. Curiously enough, the onlydanger-signal which was raised was hoisted by Sir Henry Maine, who hadbeen in India as Legal Member of Council, but who did not belong to theIndian Civil Service. He was at the time a member of the India Council. When the despatch of the Government of India on the subject reachedLondon, Sir Henry Maine was travelling on the Continent. The papers weresent to him. He called to mind the bitter controversy which arose overwhat was known as "the Black Act" in Lord William Bentinck's time, andwrote privately a few words of warning to Lord Hartington, who was atthe time Secretary of State for India. Lord Hartington put the letterin his great-coat pocket, went to Newmarket, and forgot all about it, with the result that Sir Henry Maine's warning never reached Lord Ripon. 

I well remember being present when Mr. Ilbert introduced the measureinto the Legislative Council. It attracted but little attention and ledto only a very brief discussion, in which I took no part. The papers hadbeen circulated to all Members of Council, including myself. When Ireceived them I saw at a glance that the subject was not one thatconcerned my own department, or one as to which my opinion could be ofany value. I, therefore, merely endorsed the papers with my initials andsent them on, without having given the subject much attention. In commonwith all my colleagues, I was soon to learn the gravity of the stepwhich had been taken. A furious storm of opposition, which profoundlyshook the prestige and authority of the Government of India, and notablyof the Viceroy, arose. It was clear that a mistake had been made. Themeasure was in itself not very important. It was obviously undesirable, as Lyall remarked, to "set fire to an important wing of the house inorder to roast a healthy but small pig. " The best plan, had it beenpossible, would have been to admit the mistake and to withdraw themeasure; and this would certainly have been done had it not been for theunseemly and extravagant violence of the European unofficial community, notably that of Calcutta. It should, however, in fairness be stated thatthey were irritated and alarmed, not so much at the acts of Lord Ripon'sGovernment, but at some rather indiscreet language which had at timesbeen used, and which led them, quite erroneously, to suspect thatextreme measures were in contemplation, of a nature calculated to shakethe foundations of British supremacy in India. This violent attitudenaturally led to reprisals and bitter recriminations from the nativepress, with the result that the total withdrawal of the measure wouldhave been construed as a decisive defeat to the adoption of even themost moderate measures of liberal reform in India. The project of totalwithdrawal could not, therefore, be entertained. 

In these circumstances, the duty of a practical rough-and-readypolitician was very clearly indicated. However little he might care forthe measure on its own merits, political instinct pointed unmistakablyto the absolute necessity of affording strong support to the Viceroy. Lyall failed to realise this fully. He admired Lord Ripon's courage. "Wemust, " he said, "all do our best to pull the Viceroy through. " Butwithal it is clear, by his own admission, that he only gave the Viceroy"rather lukewarm support. " "I have intrenched myself, " he wrote in acharacteristic letter, "behind cautious proposals, and am quoted on bothsides. " This attitude was not due to any want of moral courage, for amore courageous man, both physically and morally, than Lyall neverlived. It was simply the result of what Lord Lytton called "the Lyallhabit of seeing both sides of a question, " and not being able to decidebetimes which side to support. That a man of Lyall's philosophical andreflective turn of mind should see both sides of a question is not onlynatural but commendable, but this frame of mind is not one that can beadopted without hazard by a man of action at the head of affairs at atime of acute crisis. 

There is, however, a reverse side to this picture. The same mentalattributes which rendered Lyall somewhat unfit, in my opinion, to dealwith an incident such as the Ilbert Bill episode, enabled him to comewith credit and distinction out of a situation of extreme difficulty inwhich the reputation of many another man would have foundered. I have nowish or intention to stir up again the embers of past Afghancontroversies. It will be sufficient for my purpose to say that LordLytton, immensely to his credit, recognised Lyall's abilities andappointed him Foreign Secretary, in spite of the fact that he wasassociated with the execution of a policy to which Lord Lytton himselfwas strongly opposed, and which he had decided to reverse. Lyall did notconceal his opinions, but, as always, he was open to conviction, and sawboth sides of a difficult question. In 1878, he was "quite in favour ofvigorous action to counteract the Russians"; but two years later, in1880, after the Cavagnari murder, he records in a characteristic letterthat he "was mentally edging back towards old John Lawrence's counselnever to embark on the shoreless sea of Afghan politics. " On the whole, it may be said that Lyall passed through this supreme test in a mannerwhich would not have been possible to any man unless endowed not merelywith great abilities, but with the highest degree of moral courage andhonesty of purpose. He preserved his own self-esteem, and by hisunswerving honesty and loyalty gained that of the partisans on bothsides of the controversy. 

It is pleasant to turn from these episodes to other features in Lyall'scareer and character, in respect to which unstinted eulogy, without thequalification of a shade of criticism, may be recorded. It was moreespecially in dealing with the larger and more general aspects ofEastern affairs that Lyall's genius shone most brightly. He had whatthe French call a _flair_ in dealing with the main issues of Orientalpolitics such as, so far as my experience goes, is possessed by few. Itwas very similar to the qualities displayed by the late Lord Salisburyin dealing with foreign affairs generally. I give an instance in point. 

In 1884, almost every newspaper in England was declaiming loudly aboutthe dangers to be apprehended if the rebellion excited by the Mahdi inthe Soudan was not promptly crushed. It was thought that this rebellionwas but the precursor of a general and formidable offensive movementthroughout the Islamic world. "What, " General Gordon, whose opinion atthe time carried great weight, had asked, "is to prevent the Mahdi'sadherents gaining Mecca? Once at Mecca we may look out for squalls inTurkey, " etc. He, as also Lord Wolseley, insisted on the absolutenecessity of "smashing the Mahdi. " We now know that these fears wereexaggerated, and that the Mahdist movement was of purely localimportance. Lyall had no special acquaintance with Egyptian or Soudaneseaffairs, but his general knowledge of the East and of Easterns enabledhim at once to gauge correctly the true nature of the danger. Undisturbed by the clamour which prevailed around him, he wrote to Mr. Henry Reeve on March 21, 1884: "The Mahdi's fortunes do not interestIndia. The talk in some of the papers about the necessity of smashinghim, in order to avert the risk of some general Mahomedan uprising, isfutile and imaginative. "[50]

I need say no more. I am glad, for the sake of Lyall's own reputation, that the offer of the Viceroyalty was never made to him. Apart from thequestion of his age, which, in 1894, was somewhat too advanced to admitof his undertaking such onerous duties, I doubt if he possessedsufficient experience of English public life--a qualification which isyearly becoming of greater importance--to enable him to fill the post ina satisfactory manner. In spite, moreover, of his splendid intellectualgifts and moral elevation of thought, it is very questionable whether onthe whole he would have been the right man in the right place. 

Lyall's name will not, like those of some other Indian notabilities, godown to posterity as having been specially connected with any oneepisode or event of supreme historical importance; but, when those ofthe present generation who regarded him with esteem and affection havepassed away, he will still deserve an important niche in the Temple ofFame as a thinker who thoroughly understood the East, and who probablydid more than any of his contemporaries or predecessors to make hiscountrymen understand and sympathise with the views held by the manymillions in India whose destinies are committed to their charge. Hisexperience and special mental equipment eminently fitted him to performthe task he took in hand. England, albeit a prolific mother of great menin every department of thought and action, has not produced many Lyalls. 

[Footnote 48: _Nineteenth Century_, May 1913, p. 972. ]

[Footnote 49: When I was at Delhi in 1881, a Nikolsaini, _i. E. _ aworshipper of John Nicholson, came to see me. He showed me a miniatureof Nicholson with his head surrounded by an aureole. ]

[Footnote 50: _Memoirs of Henry Reeve_, ii. 329. ]

"THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER"

IV

ARMY REFORM

_"The Nineteenth Century and After, " February 1904_

The autobiography[51] of my old and highly esteemed friend, LordWolseley, constitutes an honourable record of a well-spent life. LordWolseley may justifiably be proud of the services which he has renderedto his country. The British nation, and its principal executiveofficials in the past, may also be proud of having quickly discoveredLord Wolseley's talents and merits, and of having advanced him to highposition. 

Obviously, certain conclusions of public interest may be drawn from thecareer of this very distinguished soldier. Sir George Arthur, in theDecember number of the _Fortnightly Review_, has stated what are thespecial lessons which, in his opinion, are to be derived from aconsideration of that career. 

Those lessons are, indeed, sufficiently numerous. I propose, however, todeal with only two of them. They are those which, apparently, LordWolseley himself wishes to be inculcated. Both involve questions ofprinciple of no little importance. 

In the first place, Lord Wolseley, if I understand rightly, considersthat the army has suffered greatly from civilian interference. Heappears to think that it should be more exclusively than heretoforeunder military control. 

In the second place, he thinks that, in certain cases, the political anddiplomatic negotiations, which generally follow on a war, should beconducted, not by a diplomatist or politician, but by the officer whohas conducted the previous military operations. 

As regards the first point, I am not now dealing with Lord Wolseley'sremarks in connection with our general unpreparedness for war, nor withthose on the various defects, past or present, of our militaryorganisation. In a great deal that he has said on these subjects, LordWolseley carries me heartily with him. I confine myself strictly to theissue as I have defined it above. 

Possibly, I have mistaken the significance of Lord Wolseley's words. Ifso, my error is shared by Sir George Arthur, who, in dealing with theWar Office, dwells with emphasis on the occasions when "this great warexpert was thwarted in respect of his best considered plans by thecivilian element in that citadel of inefficiency, "[52] and speaks withapproval of Lord Wolseley's "severe strictures on blundering civilianinterference with the army, " as also of the "censure reserved for thecriminal negligence and miserable cowardice of successive Cabinets. "

It seems to me that Lord Wolseley is rather hard on civilians ingeneral--those "iconoclastic civilian officials who meddle and muddle inarmy matters"[53]--on politicians in particular, who, I cannot butthink, are not quite so black as he has painted them; and most of all onSecretaries of State, with the single exception of Lord Cardwell, towhom generous and very well deserved praise is accorded. 

It is not quite clear, from a perusal of these volumes, what is theprecise nature of the change which Lord Wolseley wishes to advocate, although in one passage a specific proposal is made. It is that "acertificate should be annually laid before Parliament by thenon-political Commander-in-Chief, that the whole of the military forcesof the Empire can be completely and effectively equipped for war in afortnight. " The general tendency of the reform which commends itself toLord Wolseley may, however, readily be inferred. He complains that thesoldiers, "though in office, are never in power. " Nevertheless, as heexplains with military frankness, "the cunning politician, " whenanything goes wrong, is able "to turn the wrath of a deceived peopleupon the military authorities, and those who are exclusively to blameare too often allowed to sneak off unhurt in the turmoil of execrationthey have raised against the soldiers. " I may remark incidentally thatexception might perhaps reasonably be taken to the use of the word"exclusively" in this passage; but the main point to which I wish todraw attention is that clearly, in Lord Wolseley's opinion, thesoldiers, under the existing system, have not sufficient power, and thatit would be advisable that they should, under a reformed system, beinvested with more ample power. I dare say Lord Wolseley is quite right, at all events to this extent, that it is desirable that the power, asalso the responsibility, of the highest military authorities should beas clearly defined as is possible under our peculiar system ofgovernment. But it is essential to ascertain more accurately in whatmanner Lord Wolseley, speaking with all the high authority whichdeservedly attaches itself to his name, thinks that effect should begiven to the principle which he advocates. In order to obtain thisinformation, I turn to vol. I. P. 92, where I find the followingpassage: "A man who is not a soldier, and who is entirely ignorant ofwar, is selected solely for political reasons to be Secretary of Statefor War. I might with quite as great propriety be selected to be thechief surgeon in a hospital. "

I would here digress for a moment to deal with the argument advanced inthe latter part of this sentence. It is very plausible, and, at firstsight, appears convincing. It is also very commonly used. Over and overagain, I have heard the presumed analogy between the surgeon and thesoldier advanced as a proof of the absurdity of the English system. Ibelieve that no such analogy exists. Surgery is an exact science. Toperform even the most trifling surgical operation requires carefultechnical training and experience. It is far otherwise with the case ofthe soldier. I do not suppose that any civilian in his senses wouldpresume, on a purely technical matter, to weigh his own opinion againstthat of a trained soldier, like Lord Wolseley, who is thoroughly versedin the theory of his profession, and who has been through the school ofactual war. But a large number of the most important questions affectingmilitary organisation and the conduct of military affairs, require fortheir solution little or no technical knowledge. Any man of ordinarycommon sense can form an opinion on them, and any man of good businesshabits may readily become a capable agent for giving effect to theopinions which he, or which others have formed. 

I may here perhaps give a page from my own personal experience bearingon the point under discussion. 

The Soudan campaign of 1896-98 was, in official circles, dubbed a"Foreign Office war. " For a variety of reasons, to which it isunnecessary to allude in detail, the Sirdar was, from the commencementof the operations, placed exclusively under my orders in all matters. The War Office assumed no responsibility, and issued no orders. [54] Acorresponding position was occupied by the Headquarters Staff of theArmy of Occupation in Cairo. The result was that I found myself in thesomewhat singular position of a civilian, who had had some littlemilitary training in his youth, but who had had no experience ofwar, [55] whose proper functions were diplomacy and administration, butwho, under the stress of circumstances in the Land of Paradox, had to beultimately responsible for the maintenance, and even, to some extent, for the movements of an army of some 25, 000 men in the field. 

That good results were obtained under this system cannot be doubted. Itwill not, therefore, be devoid of interest to explain how it worked inpractice, and what were the main reasons which contributed towardssuccess. 

I have no wish to disparage the strategical and tactical ability whichwere displayed in the conduct of the campaign. It is, however, a factthat no occasion arose for the display of any great skill in thesebranches of military knowledge. When once the British and Egyptiantroops were brought face to face with the enemy, there could--unlessthe conditions under which they fought were altogether extraordinary--belittle doubt of the result. The speedy and successful issue of thecampaign depended, in fact, almost entirely upon the methods adopted forovercoming the very exceptional difficulties connected with the supplyand transport of the troops. The main quality required to meet thesedifficulties was a good head for business. By one of those fortunateaccidents which have been frequent in the history of Anglo-Saxonenterprise, a man was found equal to the occasion. Lord Kitchener ofKhartoum won his well-deserved peerage because he was a good man ofbusiness; he looked carefully after all important detail, and heenforced economy. 

My own merits, such as they were, were of a purely negative character. They may be summed up in a single phrase. I abstained from mischievousactivity, and I acted as a check on the interference of others. I hadfull confidence in the abilities of the commander, whom I hadpractically myself chosen, and, except when he asked for my assistance, I left him entirely alone. I encouraged him to pay no attention to thosevexatious bureaucratic formalities with which, under the slang phrase of"red tape" our military system is overburdened. I exercised some littlecontrol over the demands for stores which were sent to the London WarOffice; and the mere fact that these demands passed through my hands, and that I declined to forward any request unless, besides being inaccordance with existing regulations--a point to which I attached butslight importance--it had been authorised by the Sirdar, probably tendedto check wastefulness in that quarter where it was most to be feared. Beyond this I did nothing, and I found--somewhat to my ownastonishment--that, with my ordinary staff of four diplomaticsecretaries, the general direction of a war of no inconsiderabledimensions added but little to my ordinary labours. 

I do not say that this system would always work as successfully as wasthe case during the Khartoum campaign. The facts, as I have alreadysaid, were peculiar. The commander, on whom everything practicallydepended, was a man of marked military and administrative ability. Nevertheless, I feel certain that Lord Kitchener would bear me out insaying that here was a case in which general civilian control, far fromexercising any detrimental effect, was on the whole beneficial. 

To return to the main thread of my argument. The passage which I havequoted from Lord Wolseley's book would certainly appear to point to theconclusion that, in his opinion, the Secretary of State for War shouldbe a soldier unconnected with politics. Even although Lord Wolseley doesnot state this conclusion in so many words, it is notorious to any onewho is familiar with the views current in army circles that the adoptionof this plan is considered by many to be the best, if it be not theonly, solution of all our military difficulties. 

I am not concerned with the constitutional objections which may be urgedagainst the change of system now under discussion. Neither need I dwellon the difficulty of making it harmonise with our system of partygovernment, for which it is quite possible to entertain a certainfeeling of respect and admiration without being in any degree apolitical partisan. I approach the question exclusively from the pointof view of its effects on the army. From that point of view, I ventureto think that the change is to be deprecated. 

In dealing with Lord Cardwell's attitude in respect to army reform, LordWolseley says: "Never was Minister in my time more generally hated bythe army. " He points out how this hatred was extended to all whosupported Lord Cardwell's views. His own conduct was "looked upon as aspecies of high treason. " I was at the time employed in a subordinateposition at the War Office. I can testify that this language is by nomeans exaggerated. Nevertheless, after events showed clearly enoughthat, in resisting the abolition of purchase, the formation of areserve, and the other admirable reforms with which Lord Cardwell'sname, equally with that of Lord Wolseley, is now honourably associated, the bulk of army opinion was wholly in the wrong. I believe such armyopinion as now objects to a civilian being Secretary of State for War tobe equally in the wrong. 

There would appear, indeed, to be some inconsistency between LordWolseley's unstinted praise of Lord Cardwell--that "greatest" of WarMinisters, who, "though absolutely ignorant of our army and of war, "responded so "readily to the demands made on him by his militaryadvisers, " and "gave new life to our old army"--and his depreciation ofthe system which gave official birth to Lord Cardwell. There would be nocontradiction in the two positions if the civilian Minister, in 1871, had been obliged to use his position in Parliament and his influence onpublic opinion to force on an unwilling nation reforms which weregenerally advocated by the army. But the very contrary of this was thecase. What Lord Cardwell had principally to encounter was "the fiercehatred" of the old school of soldiers, and Lord Wolseley tells usclearly enough what would have happened to the small band of armyreformers within the army, if they had been unable to rely on civiliansupport. 

 "Had it not been, " he says, "for Mr. Cardwell's and Lord Northbrook's constant support and encouragement, those of us who were bold enough to advocate a thorough reorganisation of our military system, would have been 'provided for' in distant quarters of the British world, 'where no mention of us more should be heard. '"

There can be no such thing as finality in army reform. There will bereformers in the future, as there have been in the past. There will, without doubt, be vested interests and conservative instincts to beovercome in the future, as there were at the time when Lord Wolseley sogallantly fought the battle of army reform. What guarantee can LordWolseley afford that a soldier at the head of the army will always be areformer, and that he will not "provide for" those of his subordinateswho have the courage to raise their voices in favour of reform, even asLord Wolseley thinks he would himself have been "provided for" had itnot been for the sturdy support he received from his civilian superiors?I greatly doubt the possibility of giving any such guarantee. 

But I go further than this. It is now more than thirty years since Iserved under the War Office. I am, therefore, less intimately acquaintedwith the present than with the past. But, during those thirty years, Ihave been constantly brought in contact with the War Office, and I haveseen no reason whatever to change the opinion I formed in LordCardwell's time, namely, that it will be an evil day for the army whenit is laid down, as a system, that no civilian should be Secretary ofState for War. My belief is that, if ever the history of our militaryadministration of recent years comes to be impartially written, it willbe found that most of the large reforms, which have beneficiallyaffected the army, have been warmly supported, and sometimes initiated, by the superior civilian element in the War Office. Who, indeed, everheard of a profession being reformed from within? One of the greatestlaw reformers of the last century was the author of _Bleak House_. 

It may, indeed, be urged--perhaps Lord Wolseley would himself urge--thatit is no defence of a bad system to say that under one man (LordCardwell), whom Lord Wolseley describes as "a clear-headed, logical-minded lawyer, " it worked very well. To this I reply that Icannot believe that the race of clear-headed, logical-minded individualsof Cabinet rank, belonging to either great party of the State, isextinct. 

I have been induced to make these remarks because, in past years, I wasa good deal associated with army reform, and because, since then, I havecontinued to take an interest in the matter. Also because I am convincedthat those officers in the army who, with the best intentions, advocatethe particular change now under discussion, are making a mistake in armyinterests. They may depend upon it that the cause they have at heartwill best be furthered by maintaining at the head of the army a civilianof intelligence and of good business habits, who, although, equally witha soldier, he may sometimes make mistakes, will give an impartialhearing to army reformers, and will probably be more alive than any onebelonging to their own profession to all that is best in the outside andparliamentary pressure to which he is exposed. 

I turn to the second point to which allusion was made at thecommencement of this article. 

Speaking of the Chinese war in 1860, Lord Wolseley says: "In treatingwith barbarian nations during a war . .. The general to command the armyand the ambassador to make peace should be one and the same man. Toseparate the two functions is, according to my experience, folly gonemad. " Lord Wolseley reverts to this subject in describing the Ashanteewar of 1873-74. I gather from his allusions to Sir John Moore'scampaign in Spain, and to the fact that evil results ensued fromallowing Dutch deputies to accompany Marlborough's army, that he is infavour of extending the principle which he advocates to wars other thanthose waged against "barbarian nations. "

The objections to anything in the nature of a division ofresponsibility, at all events so long as military operations are inactual progress, are, indeed, obvious, and are now very generallyrecognised. Those who are familiar with the history of the revolutionarywar will remember the baneful influence exercised by the Aulic Councilover the actions of the Austrian commanders. [56] There can, in fact, belittle doubt that circumstances may occur when the principle advocatedby Lord Wolseley may most advantageously be adopted; but it is, Iventure to think, one which has to be applied with much caution, especially when the question is not whether there should be a temporarycessation of hostilities--a point on which the view of the officer incommand of the troops would naturally carry the greatest weight--butalso involves the larger issue of the terms on which peace shouldfinally be concluded. I am not at all sure that, in deciding on theissues which, under the latter contingency, must necessarily come underconsideration, the employment of a soldier, in preference to apolitician or diplomatist, is always a wise proceeding. Soldiers, equally with civilians, are liable to make erroneous forecasts of thefuture, and to mistake the general situation with which they have todeal. I can give a case in point. 

When, in January 1885, Khartoum fell, the question whether the Britisharmy should be withdrawn, or should advance and reconquer the Soudan, had to be decided. Gordon, whose influence on public opinion, greatbefore, had been enhanced by his tragic death, had strongly recommendedthe policy of "smashing the Mahdi. " Lord Wolseley adopted Gordon'sopinion. "No frontier force, " he said, "can keep Mahdiism out of Egypt, and the Mahdi sooner or later must be smashed, or he will smash you. "These views were shared by Lord Kitchener, Sir Redvers Buller, SirCharles Wilson, and by the military authorities generally. [57] Further, the alleged necessity of "smashing the Mahdi, " on the ground that hissuccess in the Soudan would be productive of serious results elsewhere, exercised a powerful influence on British public opinion at this period, although the best authorities on Eastern politics were at the time awarethat the fears so generally entertained in this connection were eithergroundless or, at all events, greatly exaggerated. [58] Under thesecircumstances, it was decided to "smash the Mahdi, " and accordingly aproclamation, giving effect to the declared policy of the BritishGovernment, was issued. Shortly afterwards, the Penjdeh incidentoccurred. Public opinion in England somewhat calmed down, having foundits natural safety-valve in an acrimonious parliamentary debate, inwhich the Government narrowly escaped defeat. The voices of politiciansand diplomatists, which had been to some degree hushed by the din ofarms, began to be heard. The proclamation was cancelled. The project ofreconquering the Soudan was postponed to a more convenient period. Itwas, in fact, accomplished thirteen years later, under circumstanceswhich differed very materially from those which prevailed in 1885. InJune 1885, the Government of Lord Salisbury succeeded to that of Mr. Gladstone, and, though strongly urged to undertake the reconquest of theSoudan, confirmed the decision of its predecessors. 

Sir George Arthur, writing in the _Fortnightly Review_, stronglycondemns this "cynical disavowal" of Lord Wolseley's proclamation. Ihave nothing to say in favour of the issue of that proclamation. I amvery clearly of opinion that, as it was issued, it was wise that itshould be cancelled. For, in truth, subsequent events showed that theforecast made by Lord Wolseley and by Gordon was erroneous, in that itcredited the Mahdi with a power of offence which he was far frompossessing. No serious difficulty arose in defending the frontier ofEgypt from Dervish attack. The overthrow of the Mahdi's power, thougheminently desirable, was very far from constituting an imperiousnecessity such as was commonly supposed to exist in 1885. In thisinstance, therefore, it appears to me that the diplomatists andpoliticians gauged the true nature of the situation somewhat moreaccurately than the soldiers. 

More than this, I conceive that, in all civilised countries, the theoryof government is that a question of peace or war is one to be decided bypoliticians. The functions of the soldier are supposed to be confined, in the first place, to advising on the purely military aspects of theissue involved; and, in the second place, to giving effect to anydecisions at which the Government may arrive. The practice in thismatter not infrequently differs somewhat from the theory. The soldier, who is generally prone to advocate vigorous action, is inclined toencroach on the sphere which should properly be reserved for thepolitician. The former is often masterful, and the latter may be dazzledby the glitter of arms, or too readily lured onwards by the persuasivevoice of some strategist to acquire an almost endless succession ofwhat, in technical language, are called "keys" to some position, or--toemploy a metaphor of which the late Lord Salisbury once made use inwriting to me--"to try and annex the moon in order to prevent its beingappropriated by the planet Mars. " When this happens, a risk is run thatthe soldier, who is himself unconsciously influenced by a very laudabledesire to obtain personal distinction, may practically dictate thepolicy of the nation without taking a sufficiently comprehensive view ofnational interests. Considerations of this nature have more especiallybeen, from time to time, advanced in connection with the numerousfrontier wars which have occurred in India. That they contain a certainelement of truth can scarcely be doubted. 

For these reasons, it appears to me that the application of theprinciple advocated by Lord Wolseley requires much care andwatchfulness. Probably, the wisest plan will be that each case should bedecided on its own merits with reference to the special circumstancesof the situation, which may sometimes demand the fusion, and sometimesthe separation, of military and political functions. 

I was talking, a short time ago, to a very intelligent, and alsoAnglophile, French friend of mine. He knew England well, but, untilquite recently, had not visited the country for a few years. He told methat what struck him most was the profound change which had come overBritish opinion since the occasion of his last visit. We had beeninvaded, he said, by _le militarisme continental_. In common with thevast majority of my countrymen, I am earnestly desirous of seeing ourmilitary organisation and military establishments placed on a thoroughlysound footing, but I have no wish whatever to see any portion of ourinstitutions overwhelmed by a wave of _militarisme continental_. It isbecause I think that the views advocated by Lord Wolseleytend--although, I do not doubt, unconsciously to their distinguishedauthor--in the direction of a somewhat too pronounced _militarisme_, that I venture in some degree to differ from one for whom I have formany years entertained the highest admiration and the most cordialpersonal esteem. 

[Footnote 51: _The Story of a Soldier's Life_. Field-Marshal ViscountWolseley. Constable. ]

[Footnote 52: After carefully reading the book, I am in doubt as to thespecific occasions to which allusion is here made. ]

[Footnote 53: This expression is used with reference to a warning tocivilians that they should "keep their hands off the regiment. " I do notknow if any recent instances have occurred when civilians have wished totouch the essential portions of what is known as the "regimentalsystem, " but I have a very distinct recollection of the fact that thisaccusation was very freely, and very unjustly, brought against the armyreformers in Lord Cardwell's time. Of these, Lord Wolseley was certainlythe most distinguished. I think he will bear me out in the assertionthat it was only by civilian support that, in the special instances towhich I allude, the opposition was overcome. ]

[Footnote 54: Much the same proceeding appears to have been adopted inthe Red River expedition, which was conducted with such eminent successby Lord Wolseley in 1870. But there was a difference. Lord Wolseley, indescribing that expedition, says: "The Cabinet and parliamentary elementin the War Office, that has marred so many a good military scheme, had, I may say, little or nothing to do with it from first to last. When willcivilian Secretaries of State for War cease from troubling in waraffairs?" In the case of the Soudan campaigns, on the other hand, LordKitchener and I had to rely--and our reliance was not misplaced--on theCabinet and on the parliamentary elements of the Government, to preventexcessive interference from the London offices. ]

[Footnote 55: I was present for a few weeks, as a spectator, withGrant's army at the siege of Petersburg in 1864, but the experience wastoo short to be of much value. ]

[Footnote 56: _Art of War_, Jomini, p. 59. ]

[Footnote 57: I think I am correct in saying that Sir Evelyn Wood was ofa contrary opinion, but I have been unable to verify this statement byreference to any contemporaneous document. ]

[Footnote 58: On the 21st of March 1884 Sir Alfred Lyall wrote to Mr. Henry Reeve: "The Mahdi's fortunes do not interest India. The talk insome of the papers about the necessity of smashing him, in order toavert the risk of some general Mahomedan uprising, is futile andimaginative. "--_Memoirs of Henry Reeve_, vol. Ii. P. 329. ]

V

THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF FREE TRADE

PAPER READ AT THE INTERNATIONAL FREE TRADE CONGRESS AT ANTWERP, _August 9-21, 1910_[59]

I have been asked to state my opinion on the effect of Free Trade uponthe political relations between States. The subject is a very wide one. I am fully aware that the brief remarks which I am about to make fail todo justice to it. 

A taunt very frequently levelled at modern Free Traders is that theanticipations of their predecessors in respect to the influence whichFree Trade would be likely to exercise on international relations havenot been realised. A single extract from Mr. Cobden's writings willsuffice to show the nature of those anticipations. In 1842, he describedFree Trade "as the best human means for securing universal and permanentpeace. "[60] Inasmuch as numerous wars have occurred since this opinionwas expressed, it is often held that events have falsified Mr. Cobden'sprediction. 

In dealing with this argument, I have, in the first place, to remarkthat modern Free Traders are under no sort of obligation to be"Cobdenite" to the extent of adopting or defending the whole of theteaching of the so-called Manchester School. It may readily be admittedthat the programme of that school is, in many respects, inadequate todeal with modern problems. 

In the second place, I wish to point out that Mr. Cobden and hisassociates, whilst rightly holding that trade was to some extent thenatural foe to war, appear to me to have pushed the consequences to bederived from that argument much too far. They allowed too little forother causes which tend to subvert peace, such as racial and religiousdifferences, dynastic considerations, the wish to acquire nationalunity, which tends to the agglomeration of small States, and theambition which excites the desire of hegemony. 

In the third place, I have to observe that the world has not as yet hadany adequate opportunity for judging of the accuracy or inaccuracy ofMr. Cobden's prediction, for only one great commercial nation has, up tothe present time, adopted a policy of Free Trade. It was, indeed, heremore than in any other direction that some of the early British FreeTraders erred on the side of excessive optimism. [61] They thought, andrightly thought, that Free Trade would confer enormous benefits on theirown country; and they held that the object-lesson thus afforded mightvery probably induce other nations speedily to follow the example ofEngland. They forgot that the special conditions which existed at thetime their noble aspirations were conceived were liable to change; thatthe extraordinary advantages which Free Trade for a time secured werelargely due to the fact that seventy years ago England possessed a farlarger supply of mechanical aptitude than any other country; that hermarked commercial supremacy, which was then practically undisputed, could not be fully maintained in the face of the advance likely to bemade by other nations; that if those nations persisted in adhering toProtection, their progress--which has really been achieved, not byreason of, but in spite of Protection--would almost inevitably bemainly attributed to their fiscal policy to the exclusion of othercontributory causes, such as education; and that thus a revived demandfor protective measures would not improbably arise, even in Englanditself. These are, in fact, the results which have accrued. Withoutdoubt, it was difficult to foresee them, but it is worthy of note that, in spite of all adverse and possibly ephemeral appearances, symptoms arenot wanting which encourage the belief that the prescience of the earlyFree Traders may, in the end, be tardily vindicated. It is the irony ofcurrent politics that at a time when England is meditating a return toProtection--but is as yet, I am glad to say, very far from beingpersuaded that the adoption of such a policy would be wise--the mostadvanced thinkers in some Protectionist states are beginning to turntheir eyes towards the possibility and desirability of casting asidethose swaddling-clothes which were originally assumed in order to fostertheir budding industries. Many of the most competent German economists, whilst advocating Protection as a temporary measure, have for many yearsfully recognised that, when once a country has firmly established itsindustrial and commercial status in the markets of the world, it canbest maintain and extend its acquired position by permitting the freestpossible trade. Even Friedrich List, though an ardent Protectionist, "always had before him universal Free Trade as the goal of hisendeavours. "[62] Before long, Germany will have well-nigh completed thetransition from agriculture to manufactures in which she has beenengaged for the last thirty or forty years; and when that transition isfully accomplished, it may be predicted with some degree of confidencethat a nation so highly educated, and endowed with so keen a perceptionof cause and effect, will begin to move in the direction of Free Trade. Similarly, in the United States of America, the campaign which hasrecently been waged against the huge Trusts, which are the offspring ofProtection, as well as the rising complaints of the dearness of living, are so many indications that arguments, which must eventually lead tothe consideration--and probably to the ultimate adoption--if not of FreeTrade, at all events of Freer Trade than now prevails, are graduallygaining ground. Much the same may be said of Canada. A Canadiangentleman, who can speak with authority on the subject, recently wrote:

 The feeling in favour of Free Trade is growing fast in Western Canada, and I believe I am right in adding the United States. 

 We have our strong and rapidly growing farmers' organisations, such as the United Farmers of Alberta, and of each Western province, so that farmers are now making themselves heard and felt in politics, and farmers realise that they are being exploited for the benefit of the manufacturer. Excellent articles appear almost weekly in the _Grain Growers' Guide_, published in Winnipeg, showing the curse of Protection. 

 A Canadian Free Trade Union, affiliated with the International Free Trade League, has just been formed in Winnipeg, and many prominent business and professional men are connected with it. 

 It ought to be better known among the electors of Great Britain how Free Trade is growing in Canada, that they may be less inclined to commit the fatal mistake of changing England's policy. Canada is often quoted in English politics now, and the real facts should be known. 

No experience has, therefore, as yet been acquired which would enable amatured judgment to be formed as to the extent to which Free Trade maybe regarded as a preventive to war. The question remains substantiallymuch in the same condition as it was seventy years ago. In forming anopinion upon it, we have still to rely largely on conjecture and onacademic considerations. All that has been proved is that numerous warshave taken place during a period of history when Protection was therule, and Free Trade the exception; though the _post hoc ergo propterhoc_ fallacy would, of course, be involved, if on that account it wereinferred that the protection of national industries has necessarilybeen the chief cause of war. 

Without indulging in any utopian dreams as to the possibility ofinaugurating an era of universal peace, it may, I think, be held that, in spite of the wars which have occurred during the last half century, not merely an ardent desire for peace, but also a dislike--I may almostsay a genuine horror--of war has grown apace amongst the civilisednations of the world. The destructiveness of modern weapons of offence, the fearful personal responsibility devolving on the individuals whoorder the first shot to be fired, the complete uncertainty whichprevails as to the naval, military, and political results which willensue if the huge armaments of modern States are brought into collision, the growth of a benevolent, if at times somewhat eccentrichumanitarianism, possibly also the advance of democracy--though it is attimes somewhat too readily assumed that democracies must of necessity bepeaceful--have all contributed to create a public opinion which holdsthat to engage in an avoidable war is the worst of political crimes. This feeling has found expression in the more ready recourse which, ascompared to former times, is now made to arbitration in order to settleinternational disputes. Nevertheless, so long as human nature remainsunchanged, and more especially so long as the huge armaments at presentexisting are maintained, it is the imperative duty of everyself-respecting nation to provide adequately for its own defence. Thatduty is more especially imposed on those nations who, for one reason oranother, have been driven into adopting that policy of expansion, whichis now almost universal. Within the last few years, the United States ofAmerica have abandoned what has been aptly termed their former system of"industrial monasticism, "[63] whilst in the Far East a new world-powerhas suddenly sprung into existence. Speaking as one unit belonging to acountry whose dominions are more extensive and more widely dispersedthan those of any other nation, I entertain a strong opinion that ifGreat Britain continues to maintain her present policy of Free Trade--asI trust will be the case--her means of defence should, within the limitsof human foresight, be such as to render her empire impregnable; and, further, that should that policy unfortunately be reversed, it will be awise precaution that those means of defence should, if possible, bestill further strengthened. But I also entertain an equally strongopinion that an imperial nation should seek to fortify its position andto provide guarantees for the durability of its empire, not merely byrendering itself, so far as is possible, impregnable, but also by usingits vast world-power in such a manner as to secure in some degree themoral acquiescence of other nations in its _imperium_, and thus providean antidote--albeit it may only be a partial antidote--against thejealousy and emulation which its extensive dominions are calculated toincite. 

I am aware that an argument of this sort is singularly liable tomisrepresentation. Militant patriotism rejects it with scorn. It is saidto involve an ignoble degree of truckling to foreign nations. Itinvolves nothing of the kind. I should certainly be the last torecommend anything approaching to pusillanimity in the conduct of theforeign affairs of my country. If I thought that the introduction of apolicy of Protection was really demanded in the interests of theinhabitants of the United Kingdom, I should warmly advocate it, whatevermight be the effect produced on the public opinion of other countries. British Free Traders do not advocate the cause which they have at heartin order to benefit the countries which send their goods to GreatBritain, but because they think it advantageous to their own country toprocure certain foreign products without any artificial enhancement ofprice. [64] If they are right in coming to this conclusion, it is surelyan incidental advantage of much importance that a policy of Free Trade, besides being advantageous to the United Kingdom, tends to give anadditional element of stability to the British Empire and to preservethe peace of the world. 

From the dawn of history, uncontrolled commercialism has been one of theprincipal causes of misgovernment, and more especially of themisgovernment of subject races. The early history of the Spaniards inSouth and Central America, as well as the more recent history of otherStates, testify to the truth of this generalisation. Similarly, Trade--that is to say exclusive trade--far from tending to promotepeace, has not infrequently been accompanied by aggression, and hasrather tended to promote war. Tariff wars, which are the natural outcomeof the protective system, have been of frequent occurrence, and, although I am not at all prepared to admit that under no circumstancesis a policy of retaliation justifiable, it is certain that that policy, carried to excess, has at times endangered European peace. There isample proof that the Tariff war between Russia and Germany in 1893, "wasregarded by both responsible parties as likely to lead to a state ofthings dangerous to the peace of Europe. "[65] Professor Dietzel, in hisvery remarkable and exhaustive work on _Retaliatory Duties_, shows veryclearly that the example of Tariff wars is highly contagious. Speakingof the events which occurred in 1902 and subsequent years, he says:"Germany set the bad example. .. . Russia, Austria-Hungary, Roumania, Switzerland, Portugal, Holland, Servia, followed suit. .. . Aninternational arming epidemic broke out. Everywhere, indeed, it wassaid: We are not at all desirous of a Tariff war. We are acting only onthe maxim so often proclaimed among us, _Si vis pacem, para bellum_. "

Can it be doubted that there is a distinct connection between theseTariff wars and the huge armaments which are now maintained by everyEuropean state? The connection is, in fact, very close. Tariff warsengender the belief that wars carried on by shot and shell may notimprobably follow. They thus encourage, and even necessitate, the costlypreparations for war which weigh so heavily, not only on theindustries, but also on the moral and intellectual progress of theworld. 

Mr. Oliver, in his interesting biography of Alexander Hamilton, gives avery remarkable instance of the menace to peace arising, even amongst awholly homogeneous community, from the creation of hostile tariffs. Thefirst step which the thirteen States of America took after they hadacquired their independence was "to indulge themselves in the costlyluxury of an internecine tariff war. .. . Pennsylvania attacked Delaware. Connecticut was oppressed by Rhode Island and New York. .. . It was adangerous game, ruinous in itself, and, behind the Custom-Houseofficers, men were beginning to furbish up the locks of theirmuskets. .. . At one time war between Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Yorkseemed all but inevitable. "

To sum up all I have to say on this subject--I do not for a momentsuppose that Universal Free Trade--even if the adoption of such a policywere conceivable--would inaugurate an era of universal and permanentpeace. Whatever fiscal policy be adopted by the great commercial nationsof the world, it is wholly illusory to suppose that the risk of war canbe altogether avoided in the future, any more than has been the case inthe past. But I am equally certain that, whereas exclusive trade tendsto exacerbate international relations, Free Trade, by mutuallyenlisting a number of influential material interests in the cause ofpeace, tends to ameliorate those relations and thus, _pro tanto_, todiminish the probability of war. No nation has, of course, the leastright to dictate the fiscal policy of its neighbours, neither has it anylegitimate cause to complain when its neighbours exercise theirunquestionable right to make whatever fiscal arrangements they considerconducive to their own interests. But the real and ostensible causes ofwar are not always identical. When once irritation begins to rankle, andrival interests clash to an excessive degree, the guns are apt to go offby themselves, and an adroit diplomacy may confidently be trusted todiscover some plausible pretext for their explosion. 

In a speech which I made in London some three years ago, I gave anexample, gathered from facts with which I was intimately acquainted, ofthe pacifying influence exerted by adopting a policy of Free Trade inthe execution of a policy of expansion. I may as well repeat it now. Some twelve years ago the British flag was hoisted in the Soudan side byside with the Egyptian. Europe tacitly acquiesced. Why did it do so? Itwas because a clause was introduced into the Anglo-Egyptian Conventionof 1899, under which no trade preference was to be accorded to anynation. All were placed on a footing of perfect equality. Indeed, thewhole fiscal policy adopted in Egypt since the British occupation in1883 has been based on distinctly Free Trade principles. Indirect taxeshave been, in some instances, reduced. Those that remain in force areimposed, not for protective, but for revenue purposes, whilst in oneimportant instance--that of cotton goods--an excise duty has beenimposed, in order to avoid the risk of customs duties actingprotectively. 

Free Trade mitigates, though it is powerless to remove, internationalanimosities. Exclusive trade stimulates and aggravates thoseanimosities. I do not by any means maintain that this argument is byitself conclusive against the adoption of a policy of Protection, if, onother grounds, the adoption of such a policy is deemed desirable; but itis one aspect of the question which, when the whole issue is underconsideration, should not be left out of account. 

[Footnote 59: Subsequently published in _The Nineteenth Century andAfter_ for September 1910. ]

[Footnote 60: _Life of Cobden_, Morley, vol. I. P. 231. ]

[Footnote 61: Sir Robert Peel, as is well known, did not fall into thiserror, and even Mr. Cobden appears to have recognised so early as 1849that his original forecasts on this point were too optimistic. Speakingon January 10, 1849, he said: "At the last stage of the Anti-Corn LawAgitation, our opponents were driven to this position: 'Free Trade is avery good thing, but you cannot have it until other countries adopt ittoo. ' And I used to say: 'If Free Trade be a good thing for us, we willhave it; let others take it if it be a good thing for them; if not, letthem do without it. '"]

[Footnote 62: Hirst, _Life of Friedrich List_, p. 134. ]

[Footnote 63: Essay on the Influence of Commerce on InternationalConflicts; F. Greenwood, _Ency. Brit. _ (Tenth Edition). ]

[Footnote 64: In connection with this branch of the question, I wish todraw attention to the fact that Professor Shield Nicholson, in hisrecent brilliant work, _A Project of Empire_, has conclusively shownthat it is a misapprehension to suppose that Adam Smith, in advocatingFree Trade, looked merely to the interests of the consumer, andneglected altogether those of the producer. Mr. Gladstone's statement onthis subject, made in 1860, is well known. ]

[Footnote 65: Reports on the Tariff wars between certain EuropeanStates, Parliamentary paper, Commercial, No. 1 (1904), p. 46. ]

VI

CHINA

_"The Nineteenth Century and After, " May 1913_

Mr. Bland's book, entitled _Recent Events and Present Policies in China_(1912), is full of instruction not only for those who are speciallyconcerned in the affairs of China, but also for all who are interestedin watching the new developments which are constantly arising from theever-increasing contact between the East and the West. 

The Eastern world is at present strewn with the _débris_ of paperconstitutions, which are, or are probably about to become, derelict. Thecase of Egypt is somewhat special, and would require separate treatment. But in Turkey, in Persia, and in China, the epidemic, which is of anexotic character, appears to be following its normal course. 

Constitutions when first promulgated are received with wild enthusiasm. In Italy, during the most frenzied period of Garibaldian worship, myold friend, Lear the artist, asked a patriotic inn-keeper, who was in awild state of excitement, to give him breakfast, to which the manreplied: "Colazione! Che colazione! Tutto è amore e libertà!" In theAlbanian village in which Miss Durham was residing when the Young Turksproclaimed their constitution, the Moslem inhabitants expressed greatdelight at the news, and forthwith asked when the massacre of theGiaours--without which a constitution would wholly miss its mark--was tobegin. [66] Similarly, Mr. Bland says that throughout China, although"the word 'Republic' meant no more to the people at large than theblessed word 'Mesopotamia, ' men embraced each other publicly and weptfor joy at the coming of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. "

These ebullitions provoke laughter. 

 Sed facilis cuivis rigidi censura cachinni. 

We Europeans have ourselves passed through much the same phases. Vandaland others have told us of the Utopia which was created in the minds ofthe French when the old régime crashed to the ground. Sydney Smithcaricatured the delusive hopes excited by the passing of the Reform Billof 1832, when he said that all the unmarried young women thought thatthey would at once get husbands, and that all the schoolboys expected aheavy fall in the price of jam tarts. A process of disillusionment mayconfidently be anticipated in Ireland if the Home Rule Bill becomes law, and the fairy prospects held out to the Irish people by Mr. Redmond andthe other stage managers of the piece are chilled by the cold shade ofreality. 

We English are largely responsible for creating the frame of mind whichis even now luring Young Turks, Chinamen, and other Easterns into thepolitical wilderness by the display of false signals. We have, indeed, our Blands in China, our Milners in Egypt, our Miss Durhams in theBalkan Peninsula, and our Miss Bells in Mesopotamia, who wander farafield, gleaning valuable facts and laying before their countrymen andcountrywomen conclusions based on acquired knowledge and wideexperience. But their efforts are only partially successful. They areoften shivered on the solid rock of preconceived prejudices, and genuinebut ill-informed sentimentalism. A large section of the English publicare, in fact, singularly wanting in political imagination. Although theywould not, in so many words, admit the truth of the statement, they nonethe less act and speak as if sound national development in whatsoeverquarter of the world must of necessity proceed along their ownconventional, insular, and time-honoured lines, and along those linesalone. There is a whole class of newspaper readers, and also ofnewspaper writers, who resemble that eminent but now deceased Member ofParliament, who told me that during the four hours' railway journey fromPort Said to Cairo he had come to the definite conclusion that Egyptcould not be prosperous because he had observed that there were nostacks of corn standing in the fields; neither was this conclusion inany way shaken when it was explained to him that the Egyptians were notin the habit of erecting corn stacks after the English model. All theseclasses readily lend an ear to quack, though often very well-intentionedpoliticians, who go about the world preaching that countries can beregenerated by shibboleths, and that the characters of nations can bechanged by Acts of Parliament. This frame of mind appeals withirresistible force to the untrained Eastern habit of thought. T'ang--aleading Chinese Republican--Mr. Bland says, "like all educated Chinese, believes in the magic virtue of words and forms of government in makinga nation wise and strong by Acts of Parliament. " And what poor, self-deluded T'ang is saying and thinking in Canton is said and thoughtdaily by countless Ahmeds, Ibrahims, and Rizas in the bazaars ofConstantinople, Cairo, and Teheran. 

What has Mr. Bland to tell us of all the welter of loan-mongering, rococo constitution-tinkering, Confucianism, and genuine if at timesmisdirected philanthropy, which is now seething in the Chinesemelting-pot?

In the first place, he has to say that the main obstacle to all realprogress in China is one that cannot be removed by any change in theform of government, whether the ruling spirit be a full-fledgedRepublican of the Sun Yat-Sen type, aided by a number of "imitationforeigners, " as they are termed by their countrymen, or a savage, albeitstatesmanlike "Old Buddha, " who, at the close of a life stained by allmanner of blood-guiltiness, at last turned her weary face towardsWestern reform as the only hope of saving her country and her dynasty. The main disease is not political, and is incapable of being cured bythe most approved constitutional formulae. It is economic. Polygamy, aided by excessive philo-progenitiveness, the result ofancestor-worship, has produced a highly congested population. Vastmasses of people are living in normal times on the verge of starvation. Hence come famines and savage revolts of the hungry. "Amidst all thespecifics of political leaders, " Mr. Bland says, "there has been as yethardly a voice raised against marriages of minors or polygamy, andreckless over-breeding, which are the basic causes of China's chronicunrest. "

The same difficulty, though perhaps in a less acute form, exists inIndia. Not only cannot it be remedied by mere philanthropy, but it isabsolutely certain--cruel and paradoxical though it may appear to sayso--that philanthropy enhances the evil. In the days of Akhbar or ShahJehan, cholera, famine, and internal strife kept down the population. Only the fittest survived. Now, internal strife is forbidden, andphilanthropy steps in and says that no single life shall be sacrificedif science and Western energy or skill can save it. Hence the growth ofa highly congested population, vast numbers of whom are living on a baremargin of subsistence. I need hardly say that I am not condemningphilanthropy. On the contrary, I hold strongly that ananti-philanthropic basis of government is not merely degrading andinhuman, but also fortunately nowadays impracticable. None the less, thefact that one of the greatest difficulties of governing the teemingmasses in the East is caused by good and humane government should berecognised. It is too often ignored. 

A partial remedy to the state of things now existing in China would beto encourage emigration; but a resort to this expedient is impossible, for Europeans and Americans alike, being scared by the prospect ofcompeting with Chinese cheap labour, which is the only real YellowPeril, [67] as also by the demoralisation consequent on a large influx ofChinamen into their dominions, close their ports to the emigrants. ThatYoung China should feel this as a gross injustice can be no matter forsurprise. The Chinaman may, with inexorable logic, state his case thus:"You, Europeans and Americans, insist on my receiving and protectingyour missionaries. I do not want them. I have, in Confucianism, a systemof philosophy, which, whatever you may think of it, suits all myspiritual requirements, and which has been sufficient to hold Chinesesociety together for long centuries past. Nevertheless, I bow to yourwishes. But then surely you ought in justice to allow free entry intoyour dominions to my carpenters and bricklayers, of whom I have a largesurplus, of which I should be glad to be rid. Is not your boastedphilanthropy somewhat vicarious, and does not your public moralitysavour in some degree of mere opportunist cant?"

To all of which, Europeans and Americans can only reply that theinstinct of self-preservation, which is strong within them, pointsclearly to the absolute necessity of excluding the Chinese carpentersand bricklayers; and, further, as regards the missionaries, that therecan be but one answer, and that in a Christian sense, to the questionasked by jesting Pilate. In effect they say that circumstances altercases, and that might is right--a plea which may perhaps suffice tosalve the conscience of an opportunist politician, but ought to appealless forcibly to a stern moralist. 

Foreign emigration, even if it were possible, would, however, be a merepalliative. A more thorough and effective remedy would be to facilitatethe dispersion of the population in the congested districts over thosewide tracts of China itself which are suffering in a less degree fromcongestion. I conceive that the execution of a policy of this naturewould not be altogether impossible. It could be carried into effect byimproving the means of locomotion, possibly by the construction ofirrigation works on a large scale, and by developing the resources ofthe country, which are admittedly very great. But there is one conditionwhich is essential to the execution of this programme, and that is thatthe financial administration of the country should be sufficientlyhonest to inspire the confidence of those European investors who alonecan provide the necessary capital. Now, according to Mr. Bland, thisfundamental quality of honesty is not to be found throughout the lengthand breadth of China, whether in the ranks of the old Mandarins or inthose of the young Republicans. 

 The essential virtue of personal integrity [he says], the capacity to handle public funds with common honesty, has been conspicuously lacking in Young China. The leopard has not changed his spots; the sons and brothers of the classical Mandarin remain, in spite of Western learning, Mandarins by instinct and in practice. 

A very close observer of Eastern affairs--Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole--hassaid that the East has an extraordinary facility for assimilating allthe worst features of any new civilisation with which it is brought incontact. This is what has happened in India, in Turkey, in Egypt, and inPersia. Even in Japan it has yet to be seen whether the old nationalvirtues will survive prolonged contact with the West. Hear now what Mr. Bland has to say of China:

 Where Young China has cast off the ethical restraints and patriotic morality of Confucianism, it has failed to assimilate, or even to understand, the moral foundations of Europe's civilisation. It has exchanged its old lamp for a new, but it has not found the oil, which the new vessel needs, to lighten the darkness withal. 

In the opinion of so highly qualified an authority as Prince Ito, "thesentiments of foreign educated Young China are hopelessly out of touchwith the masses. " But while there has been alienation from the ideals ofthe East, there has been no real approach to the ideals of the West. 

 Education at Harvard or Oxford may imbue the Chinese student with ideas and social tendencies, apparently antagonistic to those of the patriarchal system of his native land; but they do not, and cannot, create in him (as some would have us believe) the Anglo-Saxon outlook on life, the standards of conduct and the beliefs which are the results of centuries of our process of civilisation and structural character. Under his top dressing of Western learning, the Chinese remains true to type, instinctively detached from the practical and scientific attitude, contemplatively philosophical, with the fatalistic philosophy of the prophet Job, concerned rather with the causes than the results of things. Your barrister at Lincoln's Inn, after ten years of cosmopolitan experience in London or Washington, will revert in six months to the ancestral type of morals and manners; the spectacle is so common, even in the case of exceptionally assimilative men like Wu Ting-fang, or the late Marquis Tseng, that it evokes little or no comment amongst Europeans in China. 

Notably from the point of view of financial honesty, which, as I havealready mentioned, is of cardinal importance if the regeneration of thecountry is to be undertaken by other means than by mock constitutions, the results of Western education are most disappointing. 

 The opinion [Mr. Bland says] is widely held amongst European residents and traders that the section of Young China which has received its education in Foreign Mission schools displays no more honesty than the rest. 

What is the conclusion to be drawn from these facts? It is that not onlyin order to obtain adequate security for the bond-holders--in whom I amnot in any way personally interested, for I shall certainly not be oneof them--but also in the interests of the Chinese people, it isessential, before any loan is contracted, to insist on a strictsupervision of the expenditure of the loan funds. That Young China, partly on genuine patriotic grounds and also possibly in some cases ongrounds which are less worthy of respect and sympathy, should resent theexercise of this supervision, is natural enough, but it can scarcely bedoubted that unless it be exercised a large portion of the moneyadvanced by European capitalists will be wasted, and that no reallyeffective step forward will be taken in the solution of the economicproblem which constitutes the main Chinese difficulty. The veryrudimentary ideas entertained by the Chinese themselves in the matter ofapplying funds to productive works is sufficiently illustrated by theepisode mentioned by Mr. Bland, where he tells us that "the SzechuanRailway Company directors made provision for the building of their lineby the appointment of station-masters"; while the fact that but a shorttime ago 1400 German machine guns, costing £500 apiece, which had neverbeen used or paid for, were lying at Shanghai, indicates the manner inwhich it is not only possible but highly probable that the loan fundsunder exclusively Chinese supervision would be frittered away onunproductive objects. 

Those, indeed, who have had some practical experience of financialadministration in Eastern countries may well entertain some doubts as towhether supervision which only embraces the expenditure, and does notapply to the revenue, will be sufficient to meet all the requirements ofthe case. The results so far attained by the more limited scheme ofsupervision do not appear to have been satisfactory. Herr Rump wasappointed auditor to the German section of the Tientsin-P'ukou Railway, but Mr. Bland tells us that "the auditorship on this railway has provedworse than useless as a preventive of official peculation. " On the otherhand, the system of collecting the revenue is in the highest degreedefective. It violates flagrantly a principle which, from the days ofAdam Smith downwards, has always been regarded as the corner-stone ofany sound financial administration. "For every tael officially accountedfor by the provincial authorities, " Mr. Bland says, in words whichrecall to my mind the Egyptian fiscal system under the régime of IsmailPasha, "at least five are actually collected from the taxpayers. "

It is, therefore, earnestly to be hoped that the diplomatists andcapitalists of Europe will--both in the interests of the investingpublic and in those of the Chinese people--stand firm and insist onadequate financial control as a preliminary and essential condition tothe advance of funds. 

As to whether the recently established Republic is destined to last orwhether it will prove a mere ephemeral episode in the life-history ofChina, there seems to be much divergence of opinion among thoseauthorities who are most qualified to speak on the subject. Mr. Bland'sviews on this point are, however, quite clear. He thinks thatConfucianism, and all the political and social habits of thought whichare the outcome of Confucianism, have "become ingrained in every fibreof the national life, " and that they constitute the "fundamental causeof the longevity of China's social structure and of the innate strengthof her civilisation. " He refuses to believe that Young China, which isimbued with "a doctrinaire spirit of political speculation, " though itmay tinker with the superstructure, will be able seriously to shake thefoundations of this hoary edifice. He has watched the opinions andactivities in every province from the beginning of the presentrevolution, and he "is compelled to the conviction that salvation fromthis quarter is impossible. " He thinks that although in Canton and theKuang Provinces, which are the most intellectually advanced portions ofChina, a system of popular representation may be introduced with somehope of beneficial results, . .. As regards the rest of China, as every educated Chinese knows (unless, like Sun Yat-Sen, he has been brought up abroad), the idea of rapidly transforming the masses of the population into an intelligent electorate, and of making a Chinese Parliament the expression of their collective political vitality, is a vain dream, possible only for those who ignore the inherent character of the Chinese people. 

There is, however, one consideration set forth by Mr. Bland, which maypossibly prove, at all events for a time, the salvation, while itassuredly connotes the condemnation of the present system of government, and that is that the Chinese Republic may continue to exist byabrogating all republican principles. According to Mr. Bland this "granrifiuto" has already been made. "The actual government of China, " hesays, "contains none of the elements of genuine Republicanism, but ismerely the old despotism, the old Mandarinate, under new names. " "Theinauguration of the Republican idea of constitutional Government inChina, " he says in another passage, "can only mean, in the present stateof the people, continual transference of an illegal despotism from onegroup of political adventurers to another, the pretence of popularrepresentation serving merely to increase and perpetuate instability. "

It would require a far greater knowledge of Chinese affairs than any towhich I can pretend to express either unqualified adherence to ordissent from Mr. Bland's views. But it is clear that his diagnosis ofthe past is based on a very thorough acquaintance with the facts, while, on _a priori_ grounds, his prognosis of the future is calculated tocommend itself to those of general experience who have studied Orientalcharacter and are acquainted with Oriental history. 

[Footnote 66: _High Albania_, p. 311. ]

[Footnote 67: See on this subject the final remarks in Mr. Bland's veryinstructive chapter xiv. ]

VII

THE CAPITULATIONS IN EGYPT

_"The Nineteenth Century and After, " July 1913_

During the six years which have elapsed since I left Cairo I have, forvarious reasons on which it is unnecessary to dwell, carefully abstainedfrom taking any part in whatever discussions have arisen on currentEgyptian affairs. If I now depart from the reticence which I havehitherto observed it is because there appears at all events some slightprospect that the main reform which is required to render the governmentand administration of Egypt efficient will be seriously considered. Asso frequently happens in political affairs, a casual incident hasdirected public attention to the need of reform. A short time ago aRussian subject was, at the request of the Consular authorities, arrested by the Egyptian police and handed over to them for deportationto Russia. I am not familiar with the details of the case, neither, forthe purposes of my present argument, is any knowledge of those detailsrequired. The nature of the offence of which this man, Adamovitch byname, was accused, as also the question of whether he was guilty orinnocent of that offence, are altogether beside the point. The legalobligation of the Egyptian Government to comply with the request thatthe man should be handed over to the Russian Consular authorities wouldhave been precisely the same if he had been accused of no offence atall. The result, however, has been to touch one of the most tenderpoints in the English political conscience. It has become clear that acountry which is not, indeed, British territory, but which is held by aBritish garrison, and in which British influence is predominant, affordsno safe asylum for a political refugee. Without in any way wishing tounderrate the importance of this consideration, I think it necessary topoint out that this is only one out of the many anomalies which might beindicated in the working of that most perplexing political creationentitled the Egyptian Government and administration. Many instancesmight, in fact, be cited which, albeit they are less calculated toattract public attention in this country, afford even stronger groundfor holding that the time has come for reforming the system hithertoknown as that of the Capitulations. 

Before attempting to deal with this question I may perhaps be pardonedif, at the risk of appearing egotistical, I indulge in a very shortchapter of autobiography. My own action in Egypt has formed the subjectof frequent comment in this country; neither, assuredly, in spite ofoccasional blame, have I any reason to complain of the measure ofpraise--often, I fear, somewhat unmerited praise--which has beenaccorded to me. But I may perhaps be allowed to say what, in my ownopinion, are the main objects achieved during my twenty-four-years'tenure of office. Those achievements are four in number, and let me addthat they were not the results of a hand-to-mouth conduct of affairs inwhich the direction afforded to political events was constantly shifted, but of a deliberate plan persistently pursued with only such temporarydeviations and delays as the circumstances of the time renderedinevitable. 

In the first place, the tension with the French Government, which lastedfor twenty-one years and which might at any moment have become veryserious, was never allowed to go beyond a certain point. In spite of agood deal of provocation, a policy of conciliation was persistentlyadopted, with the result that the conclusion of the Anglo-FrenchAgreement of 1904 became eventually possible. It is on this particularfeature of my Egyptian career that personally I look back with fargreater pride and pleasure than any other, all the more so because, although it has, comparatively speaking, attracted little publicattention, it was, in reality, by far the most difficult and responsiblepart of my task. 

In the second place, bankruptcy was averted and the finances of thecountry placed on a sound footing. 

In the third place, by the relief of taxation and other reforms whichremedied any really substantial grievances, the ground was cut away fromunder the feet of the demagogues whom it was easy to foresee wouldspring into existence as education advanced. 

In the fourth place, the Soudan, which had to be abandoned in 1884-85, was eventually recovered. 

These, I say, are the things which were done. Let me now state what wasnot done. Although, of course, the number of Egyptians employed in theservice of the Government was largely increased, and although thecharges which have occasionally been made that education was undulyneglected admit of easy refutation, it is none the less true thatlittle, if any, progress was made in the direction of conferringautonomy on Egypt. The reasons why so little progress was made in thisdirection were twofold. 

In the first place, it would have been premature even to think of thequestion until the long struggle against bankruptcy had been fought andwon, and also until, by the conclusion of the Anglo-French Agreement in1904, the acute international tension which heretofore existed had beenrelaxed. 

In the second place, the idea of what constituted autonomy entertainedby those Egyptians who were most in a position to make their voicesheard, as also by some of their English sympathisers, differed widelyfrom that entertained by myself and others who were well acquainted withthe circumstances of the country, and on whom the responsibility ofdevising and executing any plan for granting autonomy would naturallydevolve. We were, in fact, the poles asunder. The Egyptian idea was thatthe native Egyptians should rule Egypt. They therefore urged thatgreatly increased powers should be given to the Legislative Council andAssembly originally instituted by Lord Dufferin. The counter-idea wasnot based on any alleged incapacity of the Egyptians to governthemselves--a point which, for the purposes of my present argument, itis unnecessary to discuss. Neither was it based on any disinclinationgradually to extend the powers of Egyptians in dealing with purelynative Egyptian questions. [68] I, and others who shared my views, considered that those who cried "Egypt for the Egyptians" on thehouse-tops had gone off on an entirely wrong scent because, even hadthey attained their ends, nothing approaching to Egyptian autonomy wouldhave been realised. The Capitulations would still have barred the way toall important legislation and to the removal of those defects in theadministration of which the Egyptians most complained. When theprominent part played by resident Europeans in the political and sociallife of Egypt is considered, it is indeed little short of ridiculous tospeak of Egyptian autonomy if at the same time a system is preservedunder which no important law can be made applicable to an Englishman, aFrenchman, or a German, without its detailed provisions having receivedthe consent, not only of the King of England, the President of theFrench Republic, and the German Emperor, but also that of the Presidentof the United States, the King of Denmark, and every other rulingPotentate in Europe. We therefore held that the only possible method bywhich the evils of extreme personal government could be averted, and bywhich the country could be provided with a workable legislative machine, was to include in the term "Egyptians" all the dwellers in Egypt, and todevise some plan by which the European and Egyptian elements of societywould be fused together to such an extent at all events as to renderthem capable of cooperating in legislative effort. It may perhaps behoped that by taking a first step in this direction some more thoroughfusion may possibly follow in the future. 

As I have already mentioned, it would have been premature to deal withthis question prior to 1904, for any serious modification of the régimeof the Capitulations could not be considered as within the domain ofpractical politics so long as all the Powers, and more especially Franceand England, were pulling different ways. But directly that agreementwas signed I resolved to take the question up, all the more so becausewhat was then known as the Secret Agreement, but which has since thattime been published, contained the following very important clause:

 In the event of their (His Britannic Majesty's Government) considering it desirable to introduce in Egypt reforms tending to assimilate the Egyptian legislative system to that in force in other civilised countries, the Government of the French Republic will not refuse to entertain any such proposals, on the understanding that His Britannic Majesty's Government will agree to entertain the suggestions that the Government of the French Republic may have to make to them with a view of introducing similar reforms in Morocco. 

I was under no delusion as to the formidable nature of the obstacleswhich stood in the way of reform. Moreover, I held very strongly thateven if it had been possible, by diplomatic negotiations with the otherPowers, to come to some arrangement which would be binding on theEuropeans resident in Egypt, and to force it on them without theirconsent being obtained, it was most undesirable to adopt anythingapproaching to this procedure. The European colonists in Egypt, althoughof course numerically far inferior to the native population, represent alarge portion of the wealth, and a still larger portion of theintelligence and energy in the country. Moreover, although the word"privilege" always rather grates on the ear in this democratic age, itis none the less true that in the past the misgovernment of Egypt hasafforded excellent reasons why even those Europeans who are mostfavourably disposed towards native aspirations should demur to anysacrifice of their capitulary rights. My view, therefore, was that theEuropeans should not be coerced but persuaded. It had to be proved tothem that, under the changed condition of affairs, the Capitulationswere not only unnecessary but absolutely detrimental to their owninterests. Personally, I was very fully convinced of the truth of thisstatement, neither was it difficult to convince those who, being behindthe scenes of government, were in a position to judge of the extent towhich the Capitulations clogged progress in many very importantdirections. But it was more difficult to convince the general public, many of whom entertained very erroneous ideas as to the extent andnature of the proposed reforms, and could see nothing but the fact thatit was intended to deprive them of certain privileges which they thenpossessed. It cannot be too distinctly understood that there neverwas--neither do I suppose there is now--the smallest intention of"abolishing the Capitulations, " if by that term is meant a completeabrogation of all those safeguards against arbitrary proceedings on thepart of the Government which the Capitulations are intended to prevent. Capitulations or no Capitulations, the European charged with a criminaloffence must be tried either by European judges or an European jury. Allmatters connected with the personal status of any European must bejudged by the laws in force in his own country. Adequate safeguardsmust be contrived to guard against any abuse of power on the part of thepolice. Whatever reforms are introduced into the Mixed Tribunals must beconfined to comparatively minor points, and must not touch fundamentalprinciples. In fact, the Capitulations have not to be abolished, but tobe modified. An eminent French jurist, M. Gabriel Louis Jaray, indiscussing the Egyptian situation a few years ago, wrote:

 On peut considérer comme admis qu'une simple occupation ou un protectorat de fait, reconnu par les Puissances Européennes, suffit pour mettre à néant les Capitulations, quand la réorganisation du pays est suffisante pour donner aux Européens pleine garantie de bonne juridiction. 

I contend that the reorganisation of Egypt is now sufficiently advancedto admit of the guarantees for the good administration of justice, whichM. Jaray very rightly claimed, being afforded to all Europeans withouthaving recourse to the clumsy methods of the Capitulations in theirpresent form. 

In the last two reports which I wrote before I left Egypt I developedthese and some cognate arguments at considerable length. But from thefirst moment of taking up the question I never thought that it wouldfall to my lot to bring the campaign against the Capitulations to aconclusion. The question was eminently one as to which it wasundesirable to force the pace. Time was required in order to let publicopinion mature. I therefore contented myself with indicating the defectsof the present system and the general direction which reform shouldtake, leaving it to those younger than myself to carry on the work whenadvancing years obliged me to retire. I may add that the manner in whichmy proposals were received and discussed by the European public in Egyptafforded good reason for supposing that the obstacles to be overcomebefore any serious reforms could be effected, though formidable, were byno means insuperable. After my departure in 1907, events occurred whichrendered it impossible that the subject should at once come under theconsideration of the Government, but in 1911 Lord Kitchener was able toreport that the legislative powers of the Court of Appeal sitting atAlexandria had been somewhat increased. Sir Malcolm M'Ilwraith, theJudicial Adviser of the Egyptian Government, in commenting on thischange, says:

 The new scheme, while assuredly a progressive step, and in notable advance of the previous state of affairs . .. Can hardly be regarded, in its ensemble, as more than a temporary makeshift, and a more or less satisfactory palliative of the legislative impotence under which the Government has suffered for so long. 

It is most earnestly to be hoped that the question will now be taken upseriously with a view to more drastic reform than any which has as yetbeen effected. 

There is one, and only one, method by which the evils of the existingsystem can be made to disappear. The British Government should requestthe other Powers of Europe to vest in them the legislative power whicheach now exercises separately. Simultaneously with this request, alegislative Chamber should be created in Egypt for enacting laws towhich Europeans will be amenable. 

There is, of course, one essential preliminary to the execution of thisprogramme. It is that the Powers of Europe, as also the Europeanresidents in Egypt, should have thorough confidence in the intentions ofthe British Government, by which I mean confidence in the duration ofthe occupation, and also confidence in the manner in which the affairsof the country will be administered. 

As regards the first point, there is certainly no cause for doubt. Underthe Anglo-French Agreement of 1904 the French Government specificallydeclared that "they will not obstruct the action of government in Egyptby asking that a limit of time be fixed for the British occupation, orin any other manner. " Moreover, one of the last acts that I performedbefore I left Egypt in 1907 was to communicate to the British Chamber ofCommerce at Alexandria a letter from Sir Edward Grey in which I wasauthorised to state that His Majesty's Government "recognise that themaintenance and development of such reforms as have hitherto beeneffected in Egypt depend upon the British occupation. This considerationwill apply with equal strength to any changes effected in the régime ofthe Capitulations. His Majesty's Government, therefore, wish it to beunderstood that there is no reason for allowing the prospect of anymodifications in that régime to be prejudiced by the existence of anydoubt as to the continuance of the British occupation of the country. "It is, of course, conceivable that in some remote future the Britishgarrison may be withdrawn from Egypt. If any fear is entertained on thisground it may easily be calmed by an arrangement with the Powers that inthe event of the British Government wishing to withdraw their troops, they would previously enter into communications with the various Powersof Europe with a view to re-establishing whatever safeguards they mightthink necessary in the interests of their countrymen. 

As regards the second point, that is to say, confidence in the manner inwhich the administration of the country is conducted, I need only saythat, so far as I am able to judge, Lord Kitchener's administration, although one of his measures--the Five Feddan law--has, not unnaturally, been subjected to a good deal of hostile criticism, has inspired thefullest confidence in the minds of the whole of the population of Egypt, whether European or native. I cannot doubt that, when the time arrivesfor Lord Kitchener, in his turn, to retire, no brusque or radical changewill be allowed to take place in the general principles under which heis now administering the country. 

The rights and duties of any such Chamber as that which I propose, itscomposition, its mode of election or nomination, the degree of controlto be exercised over it by the Egyptian or British Governments, are, ofcourse, all points which require very careful consideration, and whichadmit of solution in a great variety of ways. In my report for the year1906 I put forward certain suggestions in connection with each of thesesubjects, but I do not doubt that, as the result of furtherconsideration and discussion, my proposals admit of improvement. I neednot now dwell on these details, important though they be. I wish, however, to allude to one point which involves a question of principle. I trust that no endeavour will for the present be made to create oneChamber, composed of both Europeans and Egyptians, with power tolegislate for all the inhabitants of Egypt. I am strongly convincedthat, under the present condition of society in Egypt, any such attemptmust end in complete failure. It is, I believe, quite impossible todevise any plan for an united Chamber which would satisfy the verynatural aspirations of the Egyptians, and at the same time provide forthe Europeans adequate guarantees that their own legitimate rights wouldbe properly safeguarded. I am fully aware of the theoretical objectionswhich may be urged against trying the novel experiment of creating twoChambers in the same country, each of which would deal with separateclasses of the community, but I submit that, in the specialcircumstances of the case, those objections must be set aside, and thatone more anomaly should, for the time being at all events, be added tothe many strange institutions which exist in the "Land of Paradox. "Whether at some probably remote future period it will be possible tocreate a Chamber in which Europeans and Egyptians will sit side by sidewill depend very largely on the conduct of the Egyptians themselves. Ifthey follow the advice of those who do not flatter them, but who, however little they may recognise the fact, are in reality their bestfriends--if, in a word, they act in such a manner as to inspire theEuropean residents of Egypt with confidence in their judgment andabsence of class or religious prejudice, it may be that thisconsummation will eventually be reached. If, on the other hand, theyallow themselves to be guided by the class of men who have of late yearsoccasionally posed as their representatives, the prospect of anycomplete legislative amalgamation will become not merely gloomy butpractically hopeless. The true Egyptian patriot is not the man who byhis conduct and language stimulates racial animosity in the pursuit ofan ideal which can never be realised, but rather one who recognises thetrue facts of the political situation. Now, the dominating fact of thatsituation is that Egypt can never become autonomous in the sense inwhich that word is understood by the Egyptian nationalists. It is, andwill always remain, a cosmopolitan country. The real future of Egypt, therefore, lies not in the direction of a narrow nationalism, which willonly embrace native Egyptians, nor in that of any endeavour to convertEgypt into a British possession on the model of India or Ceylon, butrather in that of an enlarged cosmopolitanism, which, whilst discardingall the obstructive fetters of the cumbersome old international system, will tend to amalgamate all the inhabitants of the Nile Valley andenable them all alike to share in the government of their native oradopted country. 

For the rest, the various points of detail to which I have alluded abovepresent difficulties which are by no means insuperable, if--as I trustmay be the case--the various parties concerned approach the subject witha real desire to arrive at some practical solutions. The same may besaid as regards almost all the points to which Europeans resident inEgypt attach special importance, such, for instance, as the compositionof criminal courts for trying Europeans, the regulation of domiciliaryvisits by the police, and cognate issues. In all these cases it is by nomeans difficult to devise methods for preserving all that is reallyworth keeping in the present system, and at the same time discardingthose portions which seriously hinder the progress of the country. Thereis, however, one important point of detail which, I must admit, presentsconsiderable practical difficulties. It is certain that the services ofsome of the European judges of the Mixed Tribunals might be utilised inconstituting the new Chamber. Their presence would be of great use, andit is highly probable that they will in practice become the real workingmen of any Chamber which may be created. But apart from the objection inprinciple to confiding the making as also the administration of the lawwholly to the same individuals, it is to be observed that, in order tocreate a really representative body, it would be essential that otherEuropeans--merchants, bankers, landowners, and professional men--shouldbe seated in the Chamber. Almost all the Europeans resident in Europeare busy men, and the question will arise whether those whose assistancewould, on general grounds, be of special value, are prepared tosacrifice the time required for paying adequate attention to theirlegislative duties. I can only say that I hope that sufficient publicspirit is to be found amongst the many highly qualified Europeanresidents in Egypt of divers nationalities to enable this question to beanswered in the affirmative. 

It is, of course, impossible within the space allotted to me to dealfully on the present occasion with all the aspects of this verydifficult and complicated question. I can only attempt to directattention to the main issue, and that issue, I repeat, is how to devisesome plan which shall take the place of the present Egyptian system oflegislation by diplomacy. The late Lord Salisbury once epigrammaticallydescribed that system to me by saying that it was like the _liberumveto_ of the old Polish Diet, "without being able to have recourse tothe alternative of striking off the head of any recalcitrant voter. " Itis high time that such a system should be swept away and some otheradopted which will be more in harmony with the actual facts of theEgyptian situation. If, as I trust may be the case, Lord Kitchener isable to devise and to carry into execution some plan which will rescueEgypt from its present legislative Slough of Despond, he will havedeserved well, not only of his country, but also of all those Egyptianinterests, whether native or European, which are committed to hischarge. 

[Footnote 68: It is believed that a proposal to reform the constitutionof the Egyptian Legislative Council and to extend somewhat its powers isnow under consideration. Any reasonable proposals of this nature shouldbe welcomed, but they will do little or nothing towards grantingautonomy to Egypt in the sense in which I understand that word. ]

"THE SPECTATOR"

VIII

DISRAELI

_"The Spectator, " November 1912_

No one who has lived much in the East can, in reading Mr. Monypenny'svolumes, fail to be struck with the fact that Disraeli was a thoroughOriental. The taste for tawdry finery, the habit of enveloping inmystery matters as to which there was nothing to conceal, the love ofintrigue, the tenacity of purpose--though this is perhaps more a Jewishthan an invariably Oriental characteristic--the luxuriance of theimaginative faculties, the strong addiction to plausible generalitiesset forth in florid language, the passionate outbursts of griefexpressed at times in words so artificial as to leave a doubt in theAnglo-Saxon mind as to whether the sentiments can be genuine, thespasmodic eruption of real kindness of heart into a character steeped incynicism, the excess of flattery accorded at one time to Peel for purelypersonal objects contrasted with the excess of vituperation pouredforth on O'Connell for purposes of advertisement, and the total absenceof any moral principle as a guide of life--all these features, in acharacter which is perhaps not quite so complex as is often supposed, hail from the East. What is not Eastern is his unconventionality, hisundaunted moral courage, and his ready conception of novel politicalideas--often specious ideas, resting on no very solid foundation, butalways attractive, and always capable of being defended by glitteringplausibilities. He was certainly a man of genius, and he used thatgenius to found a political school based on extreme self-seekingopportunism. In this respect he cannot be acquitted of the charge ofhaving contributed towards the degradation of English political life. 

Mr. Monypenny's first volume deals with Disraeli's immature youth. Inthe second, the story of the period (1837-46) during which Disraeli roseto power is admirably told, and a most interesting story it is. 

Whatever views one may adopt of Disraeli's character and career, it isimpossible not to be fascinated in watching the moral and intellectualdevelopment of this very remarkable man, whose conduct throughout life, far from being wayward and erratic, as has at times been somewhatsuperficially supposed, was in reality in the highest degreemethodical, being directed with unflagging persistency to one end, thegratification of his own ambition--an ambition, it should always beremembered, which, albeit it was honourable, inasmuch as it was directedto no ignoble ends, was wholly personal. If ever there was a man to whomMilton's well-known lines could fitly be applied it was Disraeli. Hescorned delights. He lived laborious days. In his youth he eschewedpleasures which generally attract others whose ambition only soars to alower plane. In the most intimate relations of life he subordinated allprivate inclinations to the main object he had in view. He avowedlymarried, in the first instance, for money, although at a later stage hiswife was able to afford herself the consolation, and to pay him thegraceful compliment of obliterating the sordid reproach by declaringthat "if he had the chance again he would marry her for love"--astatement confirmed by his passionate, albeit somewhat histrioniclove-letters. The desire of fame, which may easily degenerate into amere craving for notoriety, was unquestionably the spur which in hiscase raised his "clear spirit. " So early as 1833, on being asked uponwhat principles he was going to stand at a forthcoming election, hereplied, "On my head. " He cared, in fact, little for principles of anykind, provided the goal of his ambition could be reached. Throughout hiscareer his main object was to rule his countrymen, and that object heattained by the adoption of methods which, whether they be regarded astortuous or straightforward, morally justifiable or worthy ofcondemnation, were of a surety eminently successful. 

The interest in Mr. Monypenny's work is enormously enhanced by thepersonality of his hero. In dealing with the careers of other Englishstatesmen--for instance, with Cromwell, Chatham, or Gladstone--we do, indeed, glance--and more than glance--at the personality of the man, butour mature judgment is, or at all events should be, formed mainly on hismeasures. We inquire what was their ultimate result, and what effectthey produced? We ask ourselves what degree of foresight the statesmandisplayed. Did he rightly gauge the true nature of the political, economic, or social forces with which he had to deal, or did he mistakethe signs of the times and allow himself to be lured away by someephemeral will-o'-the-wisp in the pursuit of objects of secondary oreven fallacious importance? It is necessary to ask these questions indealing with the career of Disraeli, but this mental process is, in hiscase, obscured to a very high degree by the absorbing personality of theman. The individual fills the whole canvas almost to the extent ofexcluding all other objects from view. 

No tale of fiction is, indeed, more strange than that which tells howthis nimble-witted alien adventurer, with his poetic temperament, hisweird Eastern imagination and excessive Western cynicism, his elasticmind which he himself described as "revolutionary, " and his apparentlywayward but in reality carefully regulated unconventionality, succeeded, in spite of every initial disadvantage of race, birth, manners, andhabits of thought, in dominating a proud aristocracy and using itsmembers as so many pawns on the chess-board which he had arranged tosuit his own purposes. Thrust into a society which was steeped inconventionality, he enforced attention to his will by a studied neglectof everything that was conventional. Dealing with a class who honouredtradition, he startled the members of that class by shattering all thetraditions which they had been taught to revere, and by endeavouring, with the help of specious arguments which many of them only halfunderstood, to substitute others of an entirely novel character in theirplace. Following much on the lines of those religious reformers who haveat times sought to revive the early discipline and practices of theChurch, he endeavoured to destroy the Toryism of his day by invokingthe shade of a semi-mythical Toryism of the past. Bolingbroke was themodel to be followed, Shelburne was the tutelary genius of Pitt, andCharles I. Was made to pose as "a virtuous and able monarch, " who was"the holocaust of direct taxation. " Never, he declared, "did man laydown his heroic life for so great a cause, the cause of the Church andthe cause of the Poor. "[69] Aspiring to rise to power through the agencyof Conservatives, whose narrow-minded conventional conservatism hedespised, and to whose defects he was keenly alive, he wisely judgedthat it was a necessity, if his programme were to be executed, that theassociation of political power with landed possessions should be thesheet-anchor of his system; and, strong in the support afforded by thatmaterial bond of sympathy, he did not hesitate to ridicule the foiblesof those "patricians"--to use his own somewhat stilted expression--who, whilst they sneered at his apparent eccentricities, despised their ownchosen mouthpiece, and occasionally writhed under his yoke, were nonethe less so fascinated by the powerful will and keen intellect whichheld them captive that they blindly followed his lead, even to theverge of being duped. 

From earliest youth to green old age his confidence in his own powerswas never shaken. He persistently acted up to the sentiment--slightlyparaphrased from Terence--which he had characteristically adopted as hisfamily motto, _Forti nihil difficile_; neither could there be anyquestion as to the genuine nature either of his strength or his courage, albeit hostile critics might seek to confound the latter quality withsheer impudence. [70] He abhorred the commonplace, and it is notably thisabhorrence which gives a vivid, albeit somewhat meretricious sparkle tohis personality. For although truth is generally dull, and althoughprobably most of the reforms and changes which have really benefitedmankind partake largely of the commonplace, the attraction ofunconventionality and sensationalism cannot be denied. Disraeli madeEnglish politics interesting, just as Ismail Pasha gave at one time aspurious interest to the politics of Egypt. No one could tell what wouldbe the next step taken by the juggler in Cairo or by that meteoricstatesman in London whom John Bright once called "the great wizard ofBuckinghamshire. " When Disraeli disappeared from the stage, theatmosphere may have become clearer, and possibly more healthy for thebody politic in the aggregate, but the level of interest fell, whilstthe barometer of dulness rose. 

If the saying generally attributed to Buffon[71] that "the style is theman, " is correct, an examination of Disraeli's style ought to give atrue insight into his character. There can be no question of thereadiness of his wit or of his superabundant power of sarcasm. Besidesthe classic instances which have almost passed into proverbs, others, less well known, are recorded in these pages. The statement that "fromthe Chancellor of the Exchequer to an Undersecretary of State is adescent from the sublime to the ridiculous" is very witty. Thewell-known description of Lord Derby as "the Rupert of debate" is bothwitty and felicitous, whilst the sarcasm in the context, which is lesswell known, is both witty and biting. The noble lord, Disraeli said, waslike Prince Rupert, because "his charge was resistless, but when hereturned from the pursuit he always found his camp in the possession ofthe enemy. "

A favourite subject of Disraeli's sarcasm in his campaign against Peelwas that the latter habitually borrowed the ideas of others. "His(Peel's) life, " he said, "has been a great appropriation clause. He is aburglar of others' intellect. .. . From the days of the Conqueror to thetermination of the last reign there is no statesman who has committedpolitical petty larceny on so great a scale. "

In a happy and inimitable metaphor he likened Sir Robert Peel's actionin throwing over Protection to that of the Sultan's admiral who, duringthe campaign against Mehemet Ali, after preparing a vast armament whichleft the Dardanelles hallowed by the blessings of "all the muftis of theEmpire, " discovered when he got to sea that he had "an objection towar, " steered at once into the enemy's port, and then explained that"the only reason he had for accepting the command was that he mightterminate the contest by betraying his master. "

Other utterances of a similar nature abound, as, for instance, when hespoke of Lord Melbourne as "sauntering over the destinies of a nation, and lounging away the glories of an Empire, " or when he likened thoseTories who followed Sir Robert Peel to the Saxons converted byCharlemagne. "The old chronicler informs us they were converted inbattalions and baptized in platoons. "

Warned by the fiasco of his first speech in the House of Commons, Disraeli for some while afterwards exercised a wise parsimony in thedisplay of his wit. He discovered that "the House will not allow a manto be a wit and an orator unless they have the credit of finding itout. " But when he had once established his position and gained the earof the House, he gave a free rein to his prodigious powers of satire, which he used to the full in his attacks on Peel. In point of fact, vituperation and sarcasm were his chief weapons of offence. He spoke ofMr. Roebuck as a "meagre-minded rebel, " and called Campbell, who wasafterwards Lord Chancellor, "a shrewd, coarse, manœuvring Pict, " a"base-born Scotchman, " and a "booing, fawning, jobbing progeny of haggisand cockaleekie. " When he ceased to be witty, sarcastic, orvituperative, he became turgid. Nothing could be more witty than when, in allusion to Peel's borrowing the ideas of others, he spoke of hisfiscal project as "Popkins's Plan, " but when, having once made this hit, which naturally elicited "peals of laughter from all parts of theHouse, " he proceeded further, he at once lapsed into cheap rhetoric. 

 "Is England, " he said, "to be governed, and is England to be convulsed, by Popkins's plan? Will he go to the country with it? Will he go with it to that ancient and famous England that once was governed by statesmen--by Burleighs and by Walsinghams; by Bolingbrokes and by Walpoles; by a Chatham and a Canning--will he go to it with this fantastic scheming of some presumptuous pedant? I won't believe it. I have that confidence in the common sense, I will say the common spirit of our countrymen, that I believe they will not long endure this huckstering tyranny of the Treasury Bench--these political pedlars that bought their party in the cheapest market and sold us in the dearest. "

So also on one occasion when in a characteristically fanciful flight hesaid that Canning ruled the House of Commons "as a man rules a high-bredsteed, as Alexander ruled Bucephalus, " and when some member of the Houseindulged in a very legitimate laugh, he turned on him at once and said, "I thank that honourable gentleman for his laugh. The pulse of thenational heart does not beat as high as once it did. I know the temperof this House is not as spirited and brave as it was, nor am Isurprised, when the vulture rules where once the eagle reigned. " Fromthe days of Horace downwards it has been permitted to actors and oratorsto pass rapidly from the comic to the tumid strain. [72] But in this casethe language was so bombastic and so utterly out of proportion to theoccasion which called it forth that a critic of style will hardly acquitthe orator of the charge of turgidity. Mr. Monypenny recognises that"in spite of Disraeli's strong grasp of fact, his keen sense of theridiculous, and his intolerance of cant, he never could quitedistinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit either in languageor sentiment. "

Much has at times been said and written of the solecisms for whichDisraeli was famous. They came naturally to him. In his early youth hetold his sister that the Danube was an "uncouth stream, " because "itsbed is far too considerable for its volume. " At the same time there canbe little doubt that his practice of indulging in carefully preparedsolecisms, which became more daring as he advanced in power, was part ofa deliberate and perfectly legitimate plan, conceived with the object ofarresting the attention and stimulating the interest of his audience. 

 * * * * *

I have so far only dealt with Disraeli's main object in life, and withthe methods by which he endeavoured to attain that object. The importantquestion remains to be considered of whether, as many supposed and stillsuppose, Disraeli was a mere political charlatan, or whether, as othershold, he was a far-seeing statesman and profound thinker, who read thesigns of the times more clearly than his contemporaries, and who wasthe early apostle of a political creed which his countrymen will do wellto adopt and develop. 

It is necessary here to say a word or two about Disraeli's biographer. The charm of Mr. Monypenny's style, the lucidity of his narrative, thethorough grasp which he manifestly secured of the forces in movementduring the period which his history embraces, and the deep regret thatall must feel that his promising career was prematurely cut short by thehand of death, should not blind us to the fact that, in spite of amanifest attempt to write judicially, he must be regarded as anapologist for Disraeli. In respect, indeed, to one point--which, however, is, in my opinion, one of great importance--he threw up thecase for his client. The facts of this case are very clear. 

When Peel formed his Ministry in 1841, no place was offered to Disraeli. It can be no matter for surprise that he was deeply mortified. Hisexclusion does not appear to have been due to any personal feeling ofanimosity entertained by Peel. On the contrary, Peel's relations withDisraeli had up to that time been of a very friendly character. Possiblysomething may be attributed to that lack of imagination which, at a muchlater period, Disraeli thought was the main defect of Sir Robert Peel'scharacter, and which may have rendered him incapable of conceiving thata young man, differing so totally not only from himself but from allother contemporaneous politicians in deportment and demeanour, couldever aspire to be a political factor of supreme importance. Theexplanation given by Peel himself that, as is usual with Prime Ministerssimilarly situated, he was wholly unable to meet all the just claimsmade upon him, was unquestionably true, but it is more than probablethat the episode related by Mr. Monypenny had something to do withDisraeli's exclusion. Peel, it appears, was inclined to considerDisraeli eligible for office, but Stanley (subsequently Lord Derby), whowas a typical representative of that "patrician" class whom Disraelicourted and eventually dominated, stated "in his usual vehement way"that "if that scoundrel were taken in, he would not remain himself. "However that may be, two facts are abundantly clear. One is that, in theagony of disappointment, Disraeli threw himself at Peel's feet andimplored, in terms which were almost abject, that some official placeshould be found for him. "I appeal, " he said, in a letter datedSeptember 5, 1841, "to that justice and that magnanimity which I feelare your characteristics, to save me from an intolerable humiliation. "The other fact is that, speaking to his constituents in 1844, he said:"I never asked Sir Robert Peel for a place, " and further that, speakingin the House of Commons in 1846, he repeated this statement even morecategorically. He assured the House that "nothing of the kind everoccurred, " and he added that "it was totally foreign to his nature tomake an application for any place. " He was evidently not believed. "Theimpression in the House, " Mr. Monypenny says, "was that Disraeli hadbetter have remained silent. "

Mr. Monypenny admits the facts, and does not attempt to defendDisraeli's conduct, but he passes over this very singular episode, whichis highly illustrative of the character of the man, somewhat lightly, merely remarking that though Disraeli "must pay the full penalty, " atthe same time "it is for the politician who is without sin in the matterof veracity to cast the first stone. "

I hardly think that this consolatory Biblical reflection disposes of thematter. Politicians, as also diplomatists, are often obliged to giveevasive answers to inconvenient questions, but it is not possible forany man, when dealing with a point of primary importance, deliberatelyto make and to repeat a statement so absolutely untrue as that made byDisraeli on the occasion in question without undermining any confidencewhich might otherwise be entertained in his general sincerity andrectitude of purpose. A man convicted of deliberate falsehood cannotexpect to be believed when he pleads that his public conduct is whollydictated by public motives. Now all the circumstantial evidence goes toshow that from 1841 onwards Disraeli's conduct, culminating in hisviolent attacks on Peel in 1845-46, was the result of personalresentment due to his exclusion from office in 1841, and that theseattacks would never have been made had he been able to climb the ladderof advancement by other means. His proved want of veracity confirms theimpression derived from this evidence. 

Peel's own opinion on the subject may be gathered from a letter which hewrote to Sir James Graham on December 22, 1843. [73] Disraeli had theassurance to solicit a place for his brother from Sir James Graham. Therequest met with a flat refusal. Peel's comment on the incident was: "He(Disraeli) asked me for office himself, and I was not surprised that, being refused, he became independent and a patriot. "

So far, therefore, as the individual is concerned, the episode on whichI have dwelt above appears to me to be a very important factor inestimating not merely Disraeli's moral worth, but also the degree ofvalue to be attached to his opinions. The question of whether Disraeliwas or was not a political charlatan remains, however, to beconsidered. 

That Disraeli was a political adventurer is abundantly clear. So wasNapoleon, between whose mentality and that of Disraeli a somewhat closeanalogy exists. Both subordinated their public conduct to thefurtherance of their personal aims. It is quite permissible to arguethat, as a political adventurer, Disraeli did an incalculable amount ofharm in so far as he tainted the sincerity of public life both in hisown person and, posthumously, by becoming the progenitor of a school ofadventurers who adopted his methods. But it is quite possible to be aself-seeking adventurer without being a charlatan. A carefulconsideration of Disraeli's opinions and actions leads me to theconclusion that only on a very superficial view of his career can thelatter epithet be applied to him. It must, I think, be admitted that hisideas, even although we may disagree with them, were not those of acharlatan, but of a statesman. They cannot be brushed aside as trivial. They deserve serious consideration. Moreover, he had a very remarkablepower of penetrating to the core of any question which he treated, coupled with an aptitude for wide generalisation which is rare amongstEnglishmen, and which he probably derived from his foreign ancestors. Aninstance in point is his epigrammatic statement that "In England, wheresociety was strong, they tolerated a weak Government, but in Ireland, where society was weak, the policy should be to have the Governmentstrong. " Mr. Monypenny is quite justified in saying: "The significanceof the Irish question cannot be exhausted in a formula, but in thatsingle sentence there is more of wisdom and enlightenment than in manythousands of the dreary pages of Irish debate that are buried in thevolumes of Hansard. "

More than this. In one very important respect he was half a century inadvance of his contemporaries. With true political instinct he fell uponwhat was unquestionably the weakest point in the armour of the so-calledManchester School of politicians. He saw that whilst materialcivilisation in England was advancing with rapid strides, there was "noproportionate advance in our moral civilisation. " "In the hurry-skurryof money-making, men-making, and machine-making, " the moral side ofnational life was being unduly neglected. He was able with justifiablepride to say: "Long before what is called the 'condition of the peoplequestion' was discussed in the House of Commons, I had employed my penon the subject. I had long been aware that there was something rotten inthe core of our social system. I had seen that while immense fortuneswere accumulating, while wealth was increasing to a superabundance, andwhile Great Britain was cited throughout Europe as the most prosperousnation in the world, the working classes, the creators of wealth, weresteeped in the most abject poverty and gradually sinking into thedeepest degradation. " The generation of 1912 cannot dub as a charlatanthe man who could speak thus in 1844. For in truth, more especiallyduring the last five years, we have been suffering from a failure torecognise betimes the truth of this foreseeing statesman's admonition. Having for years neglected social reform, we have recently tried to makeup for lost time by the hurried adoption of a number of measures, oftenfaulty in principle and ill-considered in detail, which seek to obtainby frenzied haste those advantages which can only be secured by thestrenuous and persistent application of sound principles embodied indeliberate and well-conceived legislative enactments. 

Disraeli, therefore, saw the rock ahead, but how did he endeavour tosteer the ship clear of the rock? It is in dealing with this aspect ofthe case that the view of the statesman dwindles away and is supplantedby that of the self-seeking party manager. His fundamental idea was that"we had altogether outgrown, not the spirit, but the organisation of ourinstitutions. " The manner in which he proposed to reorganise ourinstitutions was practically to render the middle classes politicallypowerless. His scheme, constituting the germ which, at a later period, blossomed into the Tory democracy, was developed as early as 1840 in aletter addressed to Mr. Charles Attwood, who was at that time a popularleader. "I entirely agree with you, " he said, "that an union between theConservative Party and the Radical masses offers the only means by whichwe can preserve the Empire. Their interests are identical; united theyform the nation; and their division has only permitted a miserableminority, under the specious name of the People, to assail all right ofproperty and person. "

Mr. Monypenny, if I understand rightly, is generally in sympathy withDisraeli's project, and appears to think that it might have beenpracticable to carry it into effect. He condemns Peel's counter-idea ofsubstituting a middle-class Toryism for that which then existed as"almost a contradiction in terms. " I am unable to concur in this view. Isee no contradiction, either real or apparent, in Peel'scounter-project, and I hold that events have proved that the premises onwhich Disraeli based his conclusion were entirely false, for hispolitical descendants, while still pursuing his main aim, viz. To ensurea closer association of the Conservative Party and the masses, have beenforced by circumstances into an endeavour to effect that union by meansnot merely different from but antagonistic to those which Disraelihimself contemplated. 

It all depends on what Disraeli meant when he spoke of "Conservatism, "and on what Mr. Monypenny meant when he spoke of "Toryism. " It mayreadily be conceded that a "middle-class Toryism, " in the sense in whichDisraeli would have understood the expression, was "a contradiction interms, " for the bed-rock on which his Toryism was based was that itshould find its main strength in the possessors of land. The creation ofsuch a Toryism is a conceivable political programme. In France it wascreated by the division of property consequent on the Revolution. Thierssaid truly enough that in the cottage of every French peasant owning anacre of land would be found a musket ready to be used in the defence ofproperty. In fact, the five million peasant proprietors now existing inFrance represent an eminently conservative class. But, so far as I know, there is not a trace to be found in any of Disraeli's utterances that hewished to widen the basis of agricultural conservatism by creating apeasant proprietary class. He wished, above all things, to maintain theterritorial magnates in the full possession of their properties. When hespoke of a "union between the Conservative Party and the Radical masses"he meant a union between the "patricians" and the working men, and theanswer to this somewhat fantastic project is that given by Juvenal 1800years ago:

 Quis enim iam non intelligat artes Patricias?[74]

"Who in our days is not up to the dodges of the patricians?"

The programme was foredoomed to failure, and the failure has beencomplete. Modern Conservatives can appeal to the middle classes, who--inspite of what Mr. Monypenny says--are their natural allies. They canalso appeal to the working classes by educating them and by showing themthat Socialism is diametrically contrary to their own interests. But, although they may gain some barren and ephemeral electoral advantages, they cannot hope to advance the cause of rational conservative progresseither by alienating the one class or by sailing under false coloursbefore the other. They cannot advantageously masquerade in Radicalclothes. There was a profound truth in Lord Goschen's view upon theconduct of Disraeli when, in strict accordance with the principles heenunciated in the 'forties, he forced his reluctant followers to pass aReform Bill far more Radical than that proposed by the Whigs. "Thatmeasure, " Lord Goschen said, [75] "might have increased the number ofConservatives, but it had, nevertheless, in his belief, weakened realConservatism. " Many of Disraeli's political descendants seem to carelittle for Conservatism, but they are prepared to advocate Socialist orquasi-Socialist doctrines in order to increase the number of nominalConservatives. This, therefore, has been the ultimate result of thegospel of which Disraeli was the chief apostle. It does no credit to hispolitical foresight. He altogether failed to see the consequences whichwould result from the adoption of his political principles. He hopedthat the Radical masses, whom he sought to conciliate, would look to the"patricians" as their guides. They have done nothing of the sort, but avery distinct tendency has been created amongst the "patricians" toallow themselves to be guided by the Radical masses. 

I cannot terminate these remarks without saying a word or two aboutDisraeli's great antagonist, Peel. It appears to me that Mr. Monypennyscarcely does justice to that very eminent man. His main accusationagainst Peel is that he committed his country "apparently past recall"to an industrial line of growth, and that he sacrificed rural England"to a one-sided and exaggerated industrial development which has doneso much to change the English character and the English outlook. "

I think that this charge admits of being answered, but I will not nowattempt to answer it fully. This much, however, I may say. Mr. Monypenny, if I understand rightly, admits that the transition fromagriculture to manufactures was, if not desirable, at all eventsinevitable, but he holds that this transition should have been gradual. This is practically the same view as that held by the earlier German andAmerican economists, who--whilst condemning Protection intheory--advocated it as a temporary measure which would eventually leadup to Free Trade. The answer is that, in those countries which adoptedthis policy, the Protection has, in the face of vested interests, beenpermanent, whilst, although the movement in favour of Free Trade hasnever entirely died out, and may, indeed, be said recently to have shownsigns of increasing vigour, the obstacles to the realisation of theideas entertained by economists of the type of List have not yet beenremoved, and are still very formidable. That the plunge made by SirRobert Peel has been accompanied by some disadvantages may be admitted, but Free Traders may be pardoned for thinking that, if he had not hadthe courage to make that plunge, the enormous counter-advantages whichhave resulted from his policy would never have accrued. 

As regards Peel's character, it was twice sketched by Disraeli himself. The first occasion was in 1839. The picture he drew at that time washighly complimentary, but as Disraeli was then a loyal supporter of Peelit may perhaps be discarded on the plea advanced by Voltaire that "wecan confidently believe only the evil which a party writer tells of hisown side and the good which he recognises in his opponents. " The secondoccasion was after Peel's death. It is given by Mr. Monypenny in ii. 306-308, and is too long to quote. Disraeli on this occasion made somefew--probably sound--minor criticisms on Peel's style, manner, anddisposition. But he manifestly wrote with a strong desire to do justiceto his old antagonist's fine qualities. He concluded with a remarkwhich, in the mouth of a Parliamentarian, may probably be considered thehighest praise, namely, that Peel was "the greatest Member of Parliamentthat ever lived. " I cannot but think that even those who reject Peel'seconomic principles may accord to him higher praise than this. They mayadmit that Peel attained a very high degree of moral elevation when, atthe dictate of duty, he separated himself from all--or the greaterpart--of his former friends, and had the courage, when honestlyconvinced by Cobden's arguments, to act upon his convictions. Peel'sfinal utterance on this subject was not only one of the most pathetic, but also one of the finest--because one of the most deeplysincere--speeches ever made in Parliament. 

I may conclude these remarks by some recollections of a personalcharacter. My father, who died in 1848, was a Peelite and an intimatefriend of Sir Robert Peel, who was frequently his guest at Cromer. Iused, therefore, in my childhood to hear a good deal of the subjectstreated in Mr. Monypenny's brilliant volumes. I well remember--I thinkit must have been in 1847--being present on one occasion when a relativeof my own, who was a broad-acred Nottinghamshire squire, thumped thetable and declared his opinion that "Sir Robert Peel ought to be hangedon the highest tree in England. " Since that time I have heard a goodmany statesmen accused of ruining their country, but, so far as myrecollection serves me, the denunciations launched against John Bright, Gladstone, and even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, may beconsidered as sweetly reasonable by comparison with the languageemployed about Sir Robert Peel by those who were opposed to his policy. 

I was only once brought into personal communication with Disraeli. Happening to call on my old friend, Lord Rowton, in the summer of 1879, when I was about to return to Egypt as Controller-General, he expresseda wish that I should see Lord Beaconsfield, as he then was. Theinterview was very short; neither has anything Lord Beaconsfield saidabout Egyptian affairs remained in my memory. But I remember that heappeared much interested to learn whether "there were many pelicans onthe banks of the Nile. "

The late Sir Mountstuart Grant-Duff was a repository of numerous veryamusing _Beaconsfieldiana_. 

[Footnote 69: This passage occurs in _Coningsby_, and Mr. Monypennywarns us that "his version of the quarrel between Charles I. And theParliament is too fanciful to be quite serious; we may believe that hewas here consciously paying tribute to the historical caprices ofManners and Smythe. "]

[Footnote 70: Mr. Monypenny says in a note that a hostile newspaper gavethe following translation of Disraeli's motto: "The impudence of somemen sticks at nothing. "]

[Footnote 71: What Buffon really wrote was: "Le style est l'hommemême. "]

[Footnote 72:

 Iratusque Chremes tumido delitigat ore; Et tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri Telephus et Peleus. 

_Ars Poetica_, 94-96. ]

[Footnote 73: _Sir Robert Peel_. Charles Stuart Parker. Vol. Iii. 425. ]

[Footnote 74: _Sat. _ iv, 101. ]

[Footnote 75: _Life of Lord Goschen_, Arthur D. Elliot, p. 163. ]

IX

RUSSIAN ROMANCE

_"The Spectator, " March 15, 1913_

De Vogüé's well-known book, _Le Roman Russe_, was published so long agoas 1886. It is still well worth reading. In the first place, theliterary style is altogether admirable. It is the perfection of Frenchprose, and to read the best French prose is always an intellectualtreat. In the second place, the author displays in a marked degree thatpower of wide generalisation which distinguishes the best Frenchwriters. Then, again, M. De Vogüé writes with a very thorough knowledgeof his subject. He resided for long in Russia. He spoke Russian, and hadan intimate acquaintance with Russian literature. He endeavoured toidentify himself with Russian aspirations, and, being himself a man ofpoetic and imaginative temperament, he was able to sympathise with thehighly emotional side of the Slav character, whilst, at the same time, he never lost sight of the fact that he was the representative of acivilisation which is superior to that of Russia. He admires theeruptions of that volcanic genius Dostoïevsky, but, with true Europeaninstinct, charges him with a want of "mesure"--the GreekSophrosyne--which he defines as "l'art d'assujettir ses pensées. "Moreover, he at times brings a dose of vivacious French wit to temperthe gloom of Russian realism. Thus, when he speaks of the Russianwriters of romance, who, from 1830 to 1840, "eurent le privilège defaire pleurer les jeunes filles russes, " he observes in thoroughman-of-the-world fashion, "il faut toujours que quelqu'un fasse pleurerles jeunes filles, mais le génie n'y est pas nécessaire. "

When Taine had finished his great history of the Revolution, he sent itforth to the world with the remark that the only general conclusion atwhich a profound study of the facts had enabled him to arrive was thatthe true comprehension, and therefore, _a fortiori_, the government ofhuman beings, and especially of Frenchmen, was an extremely difficultmatter. Those who have lived longest in the East are the first totestify to the fact that, to the Western mind, the Oriental habit ofthought is well-nigh incomprehensible. The European may do his best tounderstand, but he cannot cast off his love of symmetry any more than hecan change his skin, and unless he can become asymmetrical he can neverhope to attune his reason in perfect accordance to the Oriental key. Similarly, it is impossible to rise from a perusal of De Vogüé's bookwithout a strong feeling of the incomprehensibility of the Russians. 

What, in fact, are these puzzling Russians? They are certainly notEuropeans. They possess none of the mental equipoise of the Teutons, neither do they appear to possess that logical faculty which, in spiteof many wayward outbursts of passion, generally enables the Latin racesin the end to cast off idealism when it tends to lapse altogether fromsanity; or perhaps it would be more correct to say that, having byassociation acquired some portion of that Western faculty, the Russiansmisapply it. They seem to be impelled by a variety of causes--such asclimatic and economic influences, a long course of misgovernment, Byzantinism in religion, and an inherited leaning to Orientalmysticism--to distort their reasoning powers, and far from using them, as was the case with the pre-eminently sane Greek genius, to temper theexcesses of the imagination, to employ them rather as an oestrus to lashthe imaginative faculties to a state verging on madness. 

If the Russians are not Europeans, neither are they thorough Asiatics. It may well be, as De Vogüé says, that they have preserved the idiomand even the features of their original Aryan ancestors to a greaterextent than has been the case with other Aryan nations who finallysettled farther West, and that this is a fact of which many Russiansboast. But, for all that, they have been inoculated with far too stronga dose of Western culture, religion, and habits of thought to displaythe apathy or submit to the fatalism which characterises the conduct ofthe true Eastern. 

If, therefore, the Russians are neither Europeans nor Asiatics, what arethey? Manifestly their geographical position and other attendantcircumstances have, from an ethnological point of view, rendered them ahybrid race, whose national development will display the most startlinganomalies and contradictions, in which the theory and practice derivedfrom the original Oriental stock will be constantly struggling formastery with an Occidental aftergrowth. From the earliest days therehave been two types of Russian reformers, viz. On the one hand, thosewho wished that the country should be developed on Eastern lines, and, on the other, those who looked to Western civilisation for guidance. DeVogüé says that from the accession of Peter the Great to the death ofthe Emperor Nicolas--that is to say, for a period of a hundred andfifty years--the government of Russia may be likened to a ship, ofwhich the captain and the principal officers were persistentlyendeavouring to steer towards the West, while at the same time the wholeof the crew were trimming the sails in order to catch any breeze whichwould bear the vessel Eastward. It can be no matter for surprise thatthis strange medley should have produced results which are bewilderingeven to Russians themselves and well-nigh incomprehensible toforeigners. One of their poets has said:

 On ne comprend pas la Russie avec la raison, On ne peut que croire à la Russie. 

One of the most singular incidents of Russian development on which DeVogüé has fastened, and which induced him to write this book, has beenthe predominant influence exercised on Russian thought and action bynovels. Writers of romance have indeed at times exercised noinconsiderable amount of influence elsewhere than in Russia. Mrs. Beecher Stowe's epoch-making novel, _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, certainlycontributed towards the abolition of slavery in the United States. Dickens gave a powerful impetus to the reform of our law-courts and ourPoor Law. Moreover, even in free England, political writers have attimes resorted to allegory in order to promulgate their ideas. Swift'sBrobdingnagians and Lilliputians furnish a case in point. In France, Voltaire called fictitious Chinamen, Bulgarians, and Avars intoexistence in order to satirise the proceedings of his own countrymen. But the effect produced by these writings may be classed as trivialcompared to that exercised by the great writers of Russian romance. Inthe works of men like Tourguenef and Dostoïevsky the Russian peopleappear to have recognised, for the first time, that their real conditionwas truthfully depicted, and that their inchoate aspirations had foundsympathetic expression. "Dans le roman, et là seulement, " De Vogüé says, "on trouvera l'histoire de Russie depuis un demi-siècle. "

Such being the case, it becomes of interest to form a correct judgmenton the character and careers of the men whom the Russians have verygenerally regarded as the true interpreters of their domestic facts, andwhom large numbers of them have accepted as their political pilots. 

The first point to be noted about them is that they are all, for themost part, ultra-realists; but apparently we may search their writingsin vain for the cheerfulness which at times illumines the pages of theirEnglish, or the light-hearted vivacity which sparkles in the pages oftheir French counterparts. In Dostoïevsky's powerfully written _Crimeand Punishment_ all is gloom and horror; the hero of the tale is amadman and a murderer. To a foreigner these authors seem to present thepicture of a society oppressed with an all-pervading sense of the miseryof existence, and with the impossibility of finding any means by whichthat misery can be alleviated. In many instances, their lives--and stillmore their deaths--were as sad and depressing as their thoughts. Severalof their most noted authors died violent deaths. At thirty-seven yearsof age the poet Pouchkine was killed in a duel, Lermontof met the samefate at the age of twenty-six. Griboïédof was assassinated at the age ofthirty-four. But the most tragic history is that of Dostoïevsky, albeithe lived to a green old age, and eventually died a natural death. In1849, he was connected with some political society, but he does notappear, even at that time, to have been a violent politician. Nevertheless, he and his companions, after being kept for several monthsin close confinement, were condemned to death. They were brought to theplace of execution, but at the last moment, when the soldiers were aboutto fire, their sentences were commuted to exile. Dostoïevsky remainedfor some years in Siberia, but was eventually allowed to return toRussia. The inhuman cruelty to which he had been subject naturallydominated his mind and inspired his pen for the remainder of his days. 

De Vogüé deals almost exclusively with the writings of Pouchkine, Gogol, Dostoïevsky, Tourguenef, who was the inventor of the word Nihilism, andthe mystic Tolstoy, who was the principal apostle of the doctrine. Allthese, with the possible exception of Tourguenef, had one characteristicin common. Their intellects were in a state of unstable equilibrium. Aspoets, they could excite the enthusiasm of the masses, but as politicalguides they were mere Jack-o'-Lanterns, leading to the deadly swamp ofdespair. Dostoïevsky was in some respects the most interesting and alsothe most typical of the group. De Vogüé met him in his old age, and theaccount he gives of his appearance is most graphic. His history could beread in his face. 

 On y lisait mieux que dans le livre, les souvenirs de la maison des morts, les longues habitudes d'effroi, de méfiance et de martyre. Les paupières, les lèvres, toutes les fibres de cette face tremblaient de tics nerveux. Quand il s'animait de colère sur une idée, on eût juré qu'on avait déjà vu cette tête sur les banes d'une cour criminelle, ou parmi les vagabonds qui mendient aux portes des prisons. A d'autres moments, elle avait la mansuétude triste des vieux saints sur les images slavonnes. 

And here is what De Vogüé says of the writings of this semi-lunatic manof genius:

 Psychologue incomparable, dès qu'il étudie des âmes noires ou blessées, dramaturge habile, mais borné aux scènes d'effroi et de pitié. .. . Selon qu'on est plus touché par tel ou tel excès de son talent, on peut l'appeler avec justice un philosophe, un apôtre, un aliéné, le consolateur des affligés ou le bourreau des esprits tranquilles, le Jérémie de bagne ou le Shakespeare de la maison des fous; toutes ces appellations seront méritées; prise isolément, aucune ne sera suffisante. 

There is manifestly much which is deeply interesting, and also muchwhich is really lovable in the Russian national character. It must, however, be singularly mournful and unpleasant to pass through lifeburdened with the reflection that it would have been better not to havebeen born, albeit such sentiments are not altogether inconsistent withthe power of deriving a certain amount of enjoyment from living. It wasthat pleasure-loving old cynic, Madame du Deffand, who said: "Il n'y aqu'un seul malheur, celui d'être né. " Nevertheless, the avowedjoyousness bred by the laughing tides and purple skies of Greece iscertainly more conducive to human happiness, though at times evenGreeks, such as Theognis and Palladas, lapsed into a morbid pessimismcomparable to that of Tolstoy. Metrodorus, however, more fullyrepresented the true Greek spirit when he sang, "All things are good inlife" (πάντα γὰρ ἐσθλὰ βίῳ). The Roman pagan, Juvenal, gave a fairlysatisfactory answer to the question, "Nil ergo optabunt homines?"whilst the Christian holds out hopes of that compensation in the nextworld for the afflictions of the present, which the sombre anddespondent Russian philosopher, determined that we shall not findenjoyment in either world, denies to his morose and grief-strickenfollowers. 

X

THE WRITING OF HISTORY[76]

_"The Spectator, " April 26, 1913_

What are the purposes of history, and in what spirit should it bewritten? Such, in effect, are the questions which Mr. Gooch propounds inthis very interesting volume. He wisely abstains from giving anydogmatic answers to these questions, but in a work which shows manifestsigns of great erudition and far-reaching research he ranges over thewhole field of European and American literature, and gives us a verycomplete summary both of how, as a matter of fact, history has beenwritten, and of the spirit in which the leading historians of thenineteenth century have approached their task. 

Mr. Bryce, himself one of the most eminent of modern historians, recently laid down the main principle which, in his opinion, shouldguide his fellow-craftsmen. "Truth, " he said, "and truth only is ouraim. " The maxim is one which would probably be unreservedly accepted intheory by the most ardent propagandist who has ever used history as avehicle for the dissemination of his own views on political, economic, or social questions. For so fallible is human nature that theproclivities of the individual can rarely be entirely submerged by thejudicial impartiality of the historian. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Gooch's work without being struck by the fact that, amongst the greatestwriters of history, bias--often unconscious bias--has been the rule, andthe total absence of preconceived opinions the exception. Generallyspeaking, the subjective spirit has prevailed amongst historians in allages. The danger of following the scent of analogies--not infrequentlysomewhat strained analogies--between the present and the past iscomparatively less imminent in cases where some huge upheaval, such asthe French Revolution, has inaugurated an entirely new epoch, accompanied by the introduction of fresh ideals and habits of thought. It is, as Macaulay has somewhere observed, a more seriousstumbling-block in the path of a writer who deals with the history of acountry like England, which has through long centuries preserved itshistorical continuity. Hallam and Macaulay viewed history through Whig, and Alison through Tory spectacles. Neither has the remoteness of theevents described proved any adequate safeguard against the introductionof bias born of contemporary circumstances. Mitford, who composed hishistory of Greece during the stormy times of the French Revolution, thought it compatible with his duty as an historian to strike a blow atWhigs and Jacobins. Grote's sympathy with the democracy of Athens wasunquestionably to some extent the outcome of the views which heentertained of events passing under his own eyes at Westminster. Mommsen, by inaugurating the publication of the Corpus of LatinInscriptions, has earned the eternal gratitude of scholarly posterity, but Mr. Gooch very truly remarks that his historical work is taintedwith the "strident partisanship" of a keen politician and journalist. Truth, as the old Greek adage says, is indeed the fellow-citizen of thegods; but if the standard of historical truth be rated too high, and ifthe authority of all who have not strictly complied with that standardis to be discarded on the ground that they stand convicted ofpartiality, we should be left with little to instruct subsequent agesbeyond the dry records of men such as the laborious, the useful, thoughsomewhat over-credulous Clinton, or the learned but arid Marquardt, whose "massive scholarship" Mr. Gooch dismisses somewhat summarily in asingle line. Such writers are not historians, but rather compilers ofrecords, upon the foundations of which others can build history. 

Under the process we have assumed, Droysen, Sybel, and Treitschke wouldhave to be cast down from their pedestals. They were the politicalschoolmasters of Germany during a period of profound nationaldiscouragement. They used history in order to stir their countrymen toaction, but "if the supreme aim of history is to discover truth and tointerpret the movement of humanity, they have no claim to a place in thefirst class. " Patriotism, as the Portuguese historian, Herculano daCarvalho, said, is "a bad counsellor for historians"; albeit, few havehad the courage to discard patriotic considerations altogether, as wasthe case with the Swiss Kopp, who wrote a history of his country "fromwhich Gessler and Tell disappeared, " and in which "the familiaranecdotes of Austrian tyranny and cruelty were dismissed as legends. "

Philosophic historians, who have endeavoured to bend facts intoconformity with some special theory of their own, would fare littlebetter than those who have been ardent politicians. Sainte-Beuve, afterreading Guizot's sweeping and lofty generalisations, declared that theywere far too logical to be true, and forthwith "took down from hisshelves a volume of De Retz to remind him how history was really made. "Second-or third-rate historians, such as Lamartine, who, according toDumas, "raised history to the level of the novel, " or the vitriolicLanfrey, who was a mere pamphleteer, would, of course, be consigned--andvery rightly consigned--to utter oblivion. The notorious inaccuracy ofThiers and the avowed hero-worship of Masson alike preclude theiradmissibility into the select circle of trustworthy and veracioushistorians. It is even questionable whether one of the most objectivelyminded of French writers, the illustrious Taine, would gain admission. His work, he himself declared, "was nothing but pure or appliedpsychology, " and psychology is apt to clash with the facts of history. Scherer described Taine, somewhat unjustly, as "a pessimist in apassion, " whilst the critical and conscientious Aulard declared that hiswork was "virtually useless for the purposes of history. " Mr. Goochclasses Sorel's work as "incomparably higher" than that of Taine. Montalembert is an extreme case of a French historian who adoptedthoroughly unsound historical methods. Clearly, as Mr. Gooch says, "theauthor of the famous battle-cry, 'We are the sons of the Crusades, andwe will never yield to the sons of Voltaire, ' was not the man forobjective study. "

The fate of some of the most distinguished American and Britishhistorians would be even more calamitous than that of their Continentalbrethren. If the touchstone of impartiality were applied, Prescott mightperhaps pass unscathed through the trial. But few will deny that Motleywrote his very attractive histories at a white heat of Republican andanti-Catholic fervour. He, as also Bancroft, are classed by Mr. Goochamongst those who "made their histories the vehicles of political andreligious propaganda. " Washington Irving's claim to rank in the firstclass of historians may be dismissed on other grounds. "He had no tastefor research, " and merely presented to the world "a poet's appreciation"of historical events. 

But perhaps the two greatest sinners against the code of frigidimpartiality were Froude and Carlyle. Both were intensely convinced ofthe truth of the gospel which they preached, and both were careless ofdetail if they could strain the facts of history to support theirdoctrines. The apotheosis of the strong man formed no part of Carlyle'soriginal philosophy. In 1830, he wrote: "Which was the greatestbenefactor, he who gained the battles of Cannae and Trasimene or thenameless poor who first hammered out for himself an iron spade?" Hecondemned Scott's historical writings: "Strange, " he said, "that a manshould think he was writing the history of a nation while he isdescribing the amours of a wanton young woman and a sulky booby blown upwith gunpowder. " After having slighted biography in thischaracteristically Carlylese utterance, he straightway set to work, withsplendid inconsistency, to base his philosophy of history mainly on thebiographies of men of the type of Cromwell and Frederic. 

The invective levelled against Froude by Freeman is now generallyrecognised as exaggerated and unjust, but it would certainly appear, asMr. Gooch says, that Froude "never realised that the main duty of thehistorian is neither eulogy nor criticism, but interpretation of thecomplex processes and conflicting ideals which have built up thechequered life of humanity. "

Yet when all is said that can be said on the necessity of insisting onhistorical veracity, it has to be borne in mind that inaccuracy is notthe only pitfall which lies in the path of the expounder of truth. History is not written merely for students and scholars. It ought toinstruct and enlighten the statesman. It should quicken the intelligenceof the masses. Whilst any tendency to distort facts, or to sway publicopinion by sensational writing of questionable veracity, cannot be toostrongly condemned, it is none the less true that it requires not merelya touch of literary genius, but also a lively and receptive imaginationto tell a perfectly truthful tale in such a manner as to arrest theattention, to excite the wayward imagination and to guide the thoughtsof the vast majority of those who will scan the finished work of thehistorian. It is here that some of the best writers of history havefailed, Gardiner has written what is probably the best, and is certainlythe most dispassionate and impartial history of the Stuart period. "Withone exception, " Mr. Gooch says, "Gardiner possessed all the tools of hiscraft--an accurate mind, perfect impartiality, insight into character, sympathy with ideas different from his own and from one another. Theexception was style. Had he possessed this talisman his noble work wouldhave been a popular classic. His pages are wholly lacking in grace anddistinction. " The result is that Gardiner's really fine work has provedan ineffectual instrument for historical education. The majority ofreaders will continue to turn to the brilliant if relatively partialpages of Macaulay. 

The case of Freeman, though different from that of Gardiner, for hisstyle, though lacking in grace and flexibility was vigorous, may serveas another illustration of the same thesis. Freeman was a keenpolitician, but he would never have for a moment entertained the thoughtof departing by one iota from strict historical truth in order tofurther any political cause in which he was interested. Mr. Gooch says, "He regarded history as not only primarily, but almost exclusively, arecord of political events. Past politics, he used to say, were presenthistory. " Why is it, therefore, that his works are little read, and thatthey have exercised but slight influence on the opinions of the mass ofhis countrymen? The answer is supplied by Mr. Gooch. Freeman ignoredorganic evolution. "The world of ideas had no existence for him. .. . Noless philosophic historian has ever lived. " For one man who, witheffort, has toiled through Freeman's ponderous but severely accurateNorman and Sicilian histories, there are probably a hundred whoseimagination has been fired by Carlyle's rhapsody on the FrenchRevolution, or who have pored with interested delight over Froude'saccount of the death of Cranmer. 

Much the same may be said of Creighton's intrinsically valuable butsomewhat colourless work. "He had no theories, " Mr. Gooch says, "nophilosophy of history, no wish to prove or disprove anything. " He tookhistorical facts as they came, and recorded them. "When events aretedious, " he wrote, "we must be tedious. "

The most meritorious, as also the most popular historians are probablythose of the didactic school. Of these, Seeley and Acton are notableinstances. Seeley always endeavoured to establish some principle whichwould capture the attention of the student and might be of interest tothe statesman. He held that "history faded into mere literature when itlost sight of its relation to practical politics. " Acton, who broughthis encyclopaedic learning to bear on the defence of liberty in all itsforms, "believed that historical study was not merely the basis of allreal insight into the present, but a school of virtue and a guide tolife. "

Limitations of space preclude any adequate treatment of the illuminatingwork done by Ranke, whom Mr. Gooch regards as the nearest approximationthe world has yet known to the "ideal historian"; by Lecky, who wasdriven by the Home Rule conflict from the ranks of historians into thoseof politicians; by Milman, whose style, in the opinion of Macaulay, waswanting in grace and colour, but who was distinguished for his"soundness of judgment and inexorable love of truth"; by Otfried Müller, Bérard, Gilbert Murray, and numerous other classical scholars of diversnationalities; by Fustel de Coulanges, the greatest ofnineteenth-century mediaevalists; by Mahan, whose writings haveexercised a marked influence on current politics, and who is thus aninstance of "an historian who has helped to make history as well as torecord it, " and by a host of others. 

At the close of his book Mr. Gooch very truly points out that "the scopeof history has gradually widened till it has come to include everyaspect of the life of humanity. " Many of the social and economicsubjects of which the historian has now to treat are of an extremelycontroversial character. However high may be the ideal of truth, whichwill be entertained, it would appear that the various forms in which thefacts of history may be stated, as also the conclusions to be drawn fromthese facts, will tend to divergence rather than to uniformity oftreatment. It is not, therefore, probable that the partisanhistorian--or, at all events, the historian who will be accused ofpartisanship--will altogether disappear from literature. Neither, on thewhole, is his disappearance to be desired, for it would almost certainlyconnote the composition of somewhat vapid and colourless histories. 

The verdicts which Mr. Gooch passes on the historians whose writings hebriefly summarises are eminently judicious, though it cannot be expectedthat in all cases they will command universal assent. In a work whichranges over so wide a field it is scarcely possible that some slipsshould not have occurred. We may indicate one of these, which it wouldbe as well to correct in the event of any future editions beingpublished. On p. 435 the authorship of _Fieramosca_ and _Nicolo deiLapi_, which were written by Azeglio, is erroneously attributed toCesare Balbo. 

[Footnote 76: _History and Historians of the Nineteenth Century_. ByG. P. Gooch. London: Longmans and Co. 10s. 6d. ]

XI

THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY[77]

_"The Spectator, " May 10, 1913_

Shelley, himself a translator of one of the best known of the epigramsof the Anthology, has borne emphatic testimony to the difficulties oftranslation. "It were as wise, " he said, "to cast a violet into acrucible that you might discover the formal principle of its colour andodour, as seek to transfuse from one language into another the creationsof a poet. "

The task of rendering Greek into English verse is in some respectsspecially difficult. In the first place, the translator has to deal witha language remarkable for its unity and fluency, qualities which, according to Curtius (_History of Greece_, i. 18), are the result of the"delicately conceived law, according to which all Greek words must endin vowels, or such consonants as give rise to no harshness whenfollowed by others, viz. _n_, _r_, and _s_. " Then, again, the translatormust struggle with the difficulties arising from the fact that theGreeks regarded condensation in speech as a fine art. Demetrius, orwhoever was the author of _De Elocutione_, said: "The first grace ofstyle is that which results from compression. " The use of an inflectedlanguage of course enabled the Greeks to carry this art to a far higherdegree of perfection than can be attained by any modern Europeans. Jebb, for instance, takes twelve words--"Well hath he spoken for one whogiveth heed not to fall"--to express a sentiment which Sophocles (_Œd. Tyr. _ 616) is able to compress into four--καλῶς ἔλεξεν εὐλαβουμένῳπεσεῖν. Moreover, albeit under the stress of metrical and linguisticnecessity the translator must generally indulge in paraphrase, let himbeware lest in doing so he sacrifices that quality in which the Greeksexcelled, to wit, simplicity. Nietzsche said, with great truth, "DieGriechen sind, wie das Genie, einfach; deshalb sind sie dieunsterblichen Lehrer. " Further, the translator has at times so tomanipulate his material as to incorporate into his verse epithets andfigures of speech of surpassing grace and expressiveness, which do notreadily admit of transfiguration into any modern language; such, forinstance, as the "much-wooed white-armed Maiden Muse" (πολυμνήστηλευκώλενε παρθένε Μοῦσα) of Empedocles; the "long countless Time"(μακρὸς κἀναρίθμητος Χρόνος), or "babbling Echo" (ἀθυρόστομος Ἀχώ) ofSophocles; the "son, the subject of many prayers" (πολυεύχετος υἱός) andcountless other expressions of the Homeric Hymns; the "blooming Lovewith his pinions of gold" (ὁ δ' ἀμφιθαλής Ἔρος χρυσόπτερος ἡνίας) ofAristophanes; "the eagle, messenger of wide-ruling Zeus, the lord ofThunder" (αἰετός, εὐρυάνακτος ἄγγελος Ζηνὸς ἐρισφαράγου) of Bacchylides;or mighty Pindar's "snowy Etna nursing the whole year's length herfrozen snow" (νιφόεσς' Αἴτνα πανετες χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα). 

In no branch of Greek literature are these difficulties more conspicuousthan in the Anthology, yet it is the Anthology that has from timeimmemorial notably attracted the attention of translators. It is indeedtrue that the compositions of Agathias, Palladas, Paulus Silentiarius, and the rest of the poetic tribe who "like the dun nightingale" were"insatiate of song" (οἷά τις ξουθὰ ἀκόρεστος βοᾶς . .. ἀηδών), must, comparatively speaking, rank low amongst the priceless legacies whichGreece bequeathed to a grateful posterity. A considerable number of thewriters whose works are comprised in the Anthology lived during theAlexandrian age. The artificiality of French society before the FrenchRevolution developed a taste for shallow versifying. Somewhat similarsymptoms characterised the decadent society of Alexandria, albeit therewere occasions when a nobler note was struck, as in the splendid hymn ofCleanthes, written in the early part of the second century B. C. Generally speaking, however, Professor Mahaffy's criticism of theliterature of this period (_Greek Life and Thought_, p. 264) holds good. "We feel in most of these poems that it is no real lover languishing forhis mistress, but a pedant posing before a critical public. If ever poetwas consoled by his muse, it was he; he was far prouder if Alexandriaapplauded the grace of his epigram than if it whispered the success ofhis suit. " How have these manifest defects been condoned? Why is itthat, in spite of much that is artificial and commonplace, the poetry ofthe Anthology still exercises, and will continue to exercise, an undyingcharm alike over the student, the moralist, and the man of the world?The reasons are not far to seek. In the first place, no productions ofthe Greek genius conform more wholly to the Aristotelian canon thatpoetry should be an imitation of the universal. Few of the poems in theAnthology depict any ephemeral phase or fashion of opinion, like theEuphuism of the sixteenth century. All appeal to emotions which endurefor all time, and which, it has been aptly said, are the true rawmaterial of poetry. The patriot can still feel his blood stirred by theringing verse of Simonides. The moralist can ponder over the vanity ofhuman wishes, which is portrayed in endless varieties of form, andwhich, even when the writer most exults in the worship of youth(πολυήρατος ἥβη) or extols the philosophy of Epicurus, is always tingedwith a shade of profound melancholy, inasmuch as every poet bids us bearin mind, to use the beautiful metaphor of Keats, that the hand of Joy is"ever on his lips bidding adieu, " and that the "wave of death"--theκοινὸν κῦμ' Αΐδα of Pindar--persistently dogs the steps of all mankind. The curious in literature will find in the Anthology much apparentconfirmation of the saying of Terence that nothing is ever said that hasnot been said before. He will note that not only did the gloomy Palladassay that he came naked into the world, and that naked he will depart, but that he forestalled Shakespeare in describing the world as a stage(σκηνὴ πᾶς ὁ βίος καὶ παίγνιον), whilst Philostratus, Meleager, andAgathias implored their respective mistresses to drink to them only withtheir eyes and to leave a kiss within the cup. The man of the world willgive Agathias credit for keen powers of observation when he notes thatthe Greek poet said that gambling was a test of character (κύβοςἀγγέλλει βένθος ἐχεφροσύης[78]), whilst if for a moment he would stepoutside the immediate choir of the recognised Anthologists, he may smilewhen he reads that Menander thought it all very well to "know oneself, "but that it was in practice far more useful to know other people(χρησιμώτερον γὰρ ἦν τὸ γνῶθι τοὺς ἄλλουσ). 

Then, again, the pungent brevity of such of the poetry of the Anthologyas is epigrammatic is highly attractive. Much has at times been said asto what constitutes an epigram, but the case for brevity has probablynever been better stated than by a witty Frenchwoman of the eighteenthcentury. Madame de Boufflers wrote:

 Il faut dire en deux mots Ce qu'on veut dire; Les longs propos Sont sots. 

In this respect, indeed, French can probably compete more successfullythan any other modern language with Greek. Democritus (410 B. C. ) wrote, ὁ κόσμος σκηνή, ὁ βίος πάραδος· ἦλθες, εἶδες, ἀπῆλθες. The Frenchversion of the same idea is in no way inferior to the Greek:

 On entre, on crie, Et c'est la vie! On crie, on sort, Et c'est la mort!

Lastly, although much of the sentiment expressed in the Anthology isartificial, and although the language is at times offensive to modernears, the writers almost invariably exhibit that leading quality of theGreek genius on which the late Professor Butcher was wont to insist sostrongly--its virile sanity. 

For these reasons the literary world may cordially welcome a furtheraddition to the abundant literature which already exists on the subjectof the Anthology. The principle adopted by Dr. Grundy is unquestionablysound. He recognises that great Homer sometimes nods, that even men ofreal poetic genius are not always at their best, and that mereversifiers can at times, by a happy inspiration, embody an idea inlanguage superior to the general level of their poetic compositions. English literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries aboundsin cases in point. Lovelace, Montrose, and even, it may almost be said, Wither and Herrick, live mainly in public estimation owing to thecomposition of a small number of exquisitely felicitous verses whichhave raised them for ever to thrones amongst the immortals. Dr. Grundy, therefore, has very wisely ranged over the whole wide field of Anthologytranslators, and has culled a flower here and a flower there. His methodin making his selections is as unimpeachable as his principle. He hasdiscarded all predilections based on the authority of names or on otherconsiderations, and has simply chosen those translations which hehimself likes best. 

Dr. Grundy, in his preface, expresses a hope that he will be pardonedfor "the human weakness" of having in many cases preferred his owntranslations to those of others. That pardon will be readily extended tohim, for although in a brief review of this nature it is impossible toquote his compositions at any length, it is certainly true that some atleast of his translations are probably better than any that have yetbeen attempted. Dr. Grundy says in his preface that he "has abided inmost instances as closely as possible to the literal translations of theoriginals. " That is the principle on which all, or nearly all, translators have proceeded, but the qualifying phrase--"as closely aspossible"--has admitted of wide divergence in their practice. In somecases, indeed, it is possible to combine strict adherence to theoriginal text with graceful language and harmonious metre in thetranslation, but in a large number of instances the translator has tosacrifice one language or the other. He has to choose between beingblamed by the purist who will not admit of any expansion in the ideas ofthe original writer, or being accused of turning the King's English tobase uses by the employment of doubtful rhythm or cacophonousexpressions. Is it necessary to decide between these two rival schoolsand to condemn one of them? Assuredly not. Both have their merits. Aninstance in point is the exquisite "Rosa Rosarum" of Dionysius, whichruns thus:

 Ἡ τὰ ῥόδα, ῥοδόεσσαν ἔχεις χάριν· ἀλλὰ τί πωλεῖς, σαυτήν, ἢ τὰ ῥόδα, ἠέ συναμφόθερα;

Mr. Pott, in his _Greek Love Songs and Epigrams_, adopted the trioletmetre, which is singularly suitable to the subject, in dealing with thisepigram, and gracefully translated thus:

 Which roses do you offer me, Those on your cheeks, or those beside you? Since both are passing fair to see, Which roses do you offer me? To give me both would you agree, Or must I choose, and so divide you? Which roses do you offer me, Those on your cheeks or those beside you?

Here the two lines of the original are expanded into eight lines in thetranslation, and some fresh matter is introduced. Dr. Grundy imposesmore severe limitations on his muse. His translation, which is moreliteral, but at the same time singularly felicitous, is as follows:

 Hail, thou who hast the roses, thou hast the rose's grace! But sellest thou the roses, or e'en thine own fair face?

Any one of literary taste will find it difficult to decide which ofthese versions to prefer, and will impartially welcome both. 

It cannot, however, be doubted that strict adherence to Dr. Grundy'sprinciple occasionally leads to results which are open to criticism fromthe point of view of English style. A case in point is his translationof Plato's epitaph on a shipwrecked sailor:

 Ναυηγοῦ τάφος εἰμί· ὁ δ' ἀντίον ἐστὶ γεωργοῦ· ὡς ἁλὶ καὶ γαίῃ ξυνὸς ὕπεστ' Ἀίδης. 

Dr. Grundy's translation, which is as follows, adheres closely to theoriginal text, but somewhat grates on the English ear:

 A sailor's tomb am I; o'er there a yokel's tomb there be; For Hades lies below the earth as well as 'neath the sea. 

Another instance is the translation of the epigram of Nicarchus on TheLifeboat, in which the inexorable necessities of finding a rhyme to"e'en Almighty Zeus" has compelled the translator to resort to thecolloquial and somewhat graceless phrase "in fact, the very deuce. "

But criticisms such as these may be levelled against well-nigh alltranslators. They merely constitute a reason for holding that Shelleywas not far wrong in the opinion quoted above. Few translators have, indeed, been able to work up to the standard of William Cory'swell-known version of Callimachus's epitaph on Heraclitus, which Dr. Grundy rightly remarks is "one of the most beautiful in our language, "or to Dr. Symonds's translation of the epitaph on Proté, which "isperhaps the finest extant version in English of any of the verses fromthe Anthology. " But many have contributed in a minor degree to renderthese exquisite products of the Greek genius available to Englishreaders, and amongst them Dr. Grundy may fairly claim to occupy adistinguished place. He says in his preface, with great truth, that thepoets of the Anthology are never wearisome. Neither is Dr. Grundy. 

[Footnote 77: _Ancient Gems in Modern Settings. _ By G. B. Grundy. Oxford:Blackwell, 5s]

[Footnote 78: Βένθος ἐχεφροσύνης--the depth of a man's common sense. ]

XII

LORD MILNER AND PARTY

_"The Spectator, " May 24, 1913_

The preface which Lord Milner has written to his volume of speechesconstitutes not merely a general statement of his political views, butis also in reality a chapter of autobiography extending over the pastsixteen years. If, as is to be feared, it does not help much towards theimmediate solution of the various problems which are treated, it is, none the less, a very interesting record of the mental processesundergone by an eminent politician, who combines in a high degree thequalities of a man of action and those of a political thinker. We arepresented with the picture of a man of high intellectual gifts, greatmoral courage, and unquestionable honesty of purpose, who has a gospelto preach to his fellow countrymen--the gospel of Imperialism, or, inother words, the methods which should be adopted to consolidate and tomaintain the integrity of the British Empire. In his missionary effortson behalf of his special creed Lord Milner has found that he has beenwell-nigh throttled by the ligatures of the party system--a system whichhe spurns and loathes, but from which he has found by experience that hecould by no means free himself. As a practical politician he had torecognise that, in order to gain the ear of the public on the subjectsfor which he cares, he was obliged to do some "vigorous swashbuckling inthe field of party politics" in connection with other subjects in whichhe is relatively less interested. He resigned himself, albeitreluctantly, to his fate, holding apparently not only that the endjustified the means, but also that without the adoption of those meansthere could not be the smallest prospect of the end being attained. Thedifficulty in which Lord Milner has found himself is probably felt morekeenly by those who, like himself, have been behind the scenes ofgovernment, and have thus been able fully to realise the difficulties ofdealing with public questions on their own merits to the exclusion ofall considerations based on party advantages or disadvantages, than byothers who have had no such experience. Nevertheless, the dilemma mustin one form or another have presented itself to every thinking man whois not wholly carried away by prejudice. Most thinking men, however, unless they are prepared to pass their political lives in a state ofdreamy idealism, come rapidly to the conclusion that to seek for anythoroughly satisfactory practical solution of this dilemma is asfruitless as to search for the philosopher's stone. They see that theparty system is the natural outcome of the system of representativegovernment, that it of necessity connotes a certain amount of partydiscipline, and that if that discipline be altogether shattered, political chaos would ensue. They, therefore, join that party withwhich, on the whole, they are most in agreement, and they do so knowingfull well that they will almost certainly at times be associated withmeasures which do not fully command their sympathies. What is it thatmakes such men, for instance, as Lord Morley and Mr. Arthur Balfour notmerely strong political partisans, but also stern party disciplinarians?It would be absurd to suppose that they consider a monopoly of politicalwisdom to be possessed by the party to which each belongs, or that theyfail to see that every public question presents at least two sides. Theinference is that, recognising the necessity of association with others, they are prepared to waive all minor objections in order to advance themain lines of the policy to which each respectively adheres. 

The plan which has always commended itself to those who see clearly theevils of the party system, but fail to realise the even greater evils towhich its non-existence would open the door, has been to combine in oneadministration a number of men possessed of sufficient patriotism anddisinterestedness to work together for the common good, in spite of thefact that they differ widely, if not on the objects to be attained, atall events on the methods of attaining them. Experience has shown thatthis plan is wholly impracticable. It does not take sufficient accountof the fact that, as the immortal Mr. Squeers or some other of Dickens'scharacters said, there is a great deal of human nature in man, [79] andthat one of man's most cherished characteristics--notably if he is anEnglishman--is combativeness. In the early days of the party system evenso hardened and positive a parliamentarian as Walpole thought thateffect might be given to some such project, but when it came to theactual formation of a hybrid Ministry, Mr. Grant Robertson, thehistorian of the Hanoverian period, says that it "vanished into thinair, " and that, as Pulteney remarked about the celebrated Sinking Fundplan, the "proposal to make England patriotic, pure and independent ofCrown and Ministerial corruption, ended in some little thing for curingthe itch. " Neither have somewhat similar attempts which have been madesince Walpole's time succeeded in abating the rancour of party strife. Moreover, it cannot be said that the attempt to treat female suffrage asa non-party question has so far yielded any very satisfactory orencouraging results. 

Lord Milner, however, does not live in Utopia. He does not look forwardto the possibility of abolishing the party system. "It is not, " he says, "a new party that is wanted. " But he thinks--and he is unquestionablyright in thinking--"that the number of men profoundly interested inpublic affairs, and anxious to discharge their full duty of citizens whoare in revolt against the rigidity and insincerity of our present partysystem, is very considerable and steadily increasing. " He wishes peoplein this category to be organised with a view to encouraging a nationalas opposed to a party spirit, and he holds that "with a littleorganisation they could play the umpire between the two parties and makethe unscrupulous pursuit of mere party advantage an unprofitable game. "

The idea is not novel, but it is certainly statesmanlike. The generalprinciple which Lord Milner advocates will probably commend itself tothousands of his countrymen, and most of all to those whose educationand experience are a warrant for the value of their political opinions. But how far is the scheme practicable? The answer to this question isthat there is one essential preliminary condition necessary to bring itwithin the domain of practical politics; that condition is that asufficient number of leading politicians should be thoroughly imbuedwith the virtue of compromise. They must erase the word "thorough" fromtheir political vocabulary. Each must recognise that whilst, to use LordMilner's expression, he himself holds firmly to a "creed" on somespecial question, he will have to co-operate with others who hold withequally sincere conviction to a more or less antagonistic creed, andthat this co-operation cannot be secured by mere assertion and stillless by vituperation, but only by calm discussion and mutualconcessions. Marie Antoinette, who was very courageous and very unwise, said during the most acute crisis of the Revolution, "Better to die thanallow ourselves to be saved by Lafayette and the Constitutionalists. "That is an example of the party spirit _in extremis_, and when it isadopted it is that spirit which causes the shipwreck of many a schemewhich might, with more moderation and conciliation, be brought safelyinto port. In order to carry out Lord Milner's plan any such spirit mustbe wholly cast aside. Politicians--and none more than many of those withwhom Lord Milner is associated--must act on the principle whichShakespeare puts into the mouth of Henry V. :

 There is some soul of goodness in things evil Would men observingly distil it out. 

They must be prepared to recognise that, whatever be their personalconvictions, there may be some "soul of goodness" in views diametricallyopposed to their own, and, moreover, they must not be scared by whatEmerson called that "hobgoblin of little minds"--the charge ofinconsistency. 

It cannot be said that just at present the omens are very favourable inthe direction of indicating any widespread prevalence amongst activepoliticians of the spirit of compromise. The reception given to LordCurzon's very reasonable proposal that army affairs should be treated asa non-party question is apparently scouted by Radical politicians. Neither does there appear to be the least disposition to accept thestatesmanlike suggestion that in order to avoid the risk of civil war inUlster, with its almost inevitable consequence, viz. That the loyaltyof the army will be strained to the utmost, the Home Rule Bill shouldnot be submitted to the King for his assent until after another generalelection. On the other hand, the "Die-hard" spirit, which led to thedisastrous rejection of the Budget of 1909, and was with difficultyprevented from rejecting the Parliament Bill, is still prevalent amongstmany Unionists, whilst although a somewhat greater latitudinarian spiritprevails than heretofore, the influence of extreme Unionist politiciansis still sufficiently powerful to prevent full acceptance of the factthat the only sound and wise Conservative principle is to neglect minordifferences of opinion and to rally together all who are generallyfavourable to the Conservative cause. 

Moreover, it must be admitted that Lord Milner is asking a great deal ofparty politicians. He points out, in connection with his special"creed, " that the object of Mr. Chamberlain's original proposal was"undoubtedly laudable. It was prompted by motives of Imperialpatriotism. " There are probably few people who would be inclined tochallenge the accuracy of this statement. He alludes to theunquestionable fact that it is well for every community from time totime to review the traditional foundations of its policy, and he holdsthat, if the controversy which Mr. Chamberlain evoked "had beenconducted on anything like rational lines, the result, whetherfavourable or unfavourable to the proposals themselves, might have beenof great public advantage. " All these fair hopes, Lord Milner thinks, were wrecked by the spirit of party. "The new issue raised by Mr. Chamberlain was sucked into the vortex of our local party struggle. "Lord Milner, therefore, wishes to lift Imperialism out of the party bogand to treat the subject on broad national lines. 

Here, again, the proposal is undoubtedly statesmanlike, but is itpracticable? There can, it is to be feared, be but one answer to thatquestion. For the time being, at all events, Lord Milner's proposal isquite impracticable. Whatever be the merits or demerits of the proposalsinitiated by Mr. Chamberlain, one thing appears tolerably certain, andthat is that so long as Tariff Reform and Imperial policy are intimatelyconnected together there is not, so far as can at present be judged, themost remote chance of Imperialism emerging from the arena of partystrife. It is true, and is, moreover, a subject for nationalcongratulation, that there has been of late years a steady growth ofImperialist ideas. The day is probably past for ever when Ministers, whether Liberal or Conservative, could speak of the colonies as aburden, and look forward with equanimity, if not with actual pleasure, to their complete severance from the Mother country. Few, if any, pronounced anti-Imperialists exist, but a wide difference of opinionprevails as to the method for giving effect to an Imperial policy. Thesedifferences do not depend solely, as is often erroneously supposed, on arigid adherence by Free Traders to what are now called Cobdeniteprinciples. There are many Free Traders who would be disposed to make aconsiderable sacrifice of their opinions on economic principles, if theythought that the policy proposed by Mr. Chamberlain would really achievethe object he unquestionably had in view, viz. That of tightening thebonds between the Mother country and the colonies. But that is what theydeny. They rely mainly on a common ancestry, common traditions, a commonlanguage, and a common religion to cement those bonds; and, moreover, they hold, to quote the words of an able article published two years agoin the _Round Table_: "The chief reason for the sentiment of Imperialunity is the conscious or unconscious belief of the people of the Empirein their own political system. .. . There is in the British Empire a unitywhich it is often difficult to discern amid the conflict of racialnationalities, provincial politics, and geographical differences. It isa unity which is based upon the conviction amongst the Britishself-governing communities that the political system of the Empire isindispensable to their own progress, and that to allow it to collapsewould be fatal alike to their happiness and their self-respect. " Theytherefore demur to granting special economic concessions which--unless, indeed, a policy of perfect Free Trade throughout the Empire could beadopted--they think, whatever might be the immediate result, wouldeventually cause endless friction and tend to weaken rather thanstrengthen the Imperial connection. 

Further, it is to be observed that whatever exacerbation has been causedby party exaggeration and misrepresentation, it is more than doubtfulwhether Lord Milner's special accusation against the party system can bemade good, for it must be remembered that Mr. Chamberlain's originalprogramme was strongly opposed by many who, on mere party grounds, wereearnestly desirous to accord it a hearty welcome. Rather would it betrue to say that, looking back on past events, it is amazing that anyone of political experience could have imagined for one moment that aproposal which touched the opinions and interests of almost everyindividual in the United Kingdom, and which was wholly at variance withthe views heretofore held by Mr. Chamberlain himself, could have beenkept outside the whirlpool of party politics. "A great statesman, " ithas been truly said, "must have two qualities; the first is prudence, the second imprudence. " Cavour has often been held up as the example ofan eminent man who combined, in his own person, these apparentlyparadoxical qualities. Accepting the aphorism as true, it has to beapplied with the corollary that the main point is to know when to allowimprudence to predominate over prudence. It is difficult to resist theconclusion that when Mr. Chamberlain launched his programme, which LordMilner admits "burst like a bombshell in the camp of his friends, " heoverweighted the balance on the imprudent side. The heat with which thecontroversy has been conducted, and which Lord Milner very rightlydeplores, must be attributed mainly to this cause rather than to anyinherent and, to a great extent, unavoidable defects in the partysystem. 

But in spite of all these difficulties and objections, Lord Milner andthose who hold with him may take heart of grace in so far as theircampaign against the extravagances of the party system is concerned. Itmay well be that no special organisation will enable the non-partypartisans to occupy the position of umpires, but the steady pressure ofpublic opinion and the stern exposure of the abuses of the party systemwill probably in time mitigate existing evils, and will possibly insome degree purge other issues, besides those connected with foreignaffairs, from the rancour of the party spirit. As a contribution to thisend Lord Milner's utterances are to be heartily welcomed. 

[Footnote 79: This statement is incorrect. The saying quoted aboveoccurs in Mr. J. R. Lowell's address at the memorial meeting to DeanStanley, Dec. 13, 1881. He introduces it as "a proverbial phrase whichwe have in America and which, I believe, we carried from England. "]

XIII

THE FRENCH IN ALGERIA[80]

_"The Spectator, " May 31, 1913_

In the very interesting account which Mrs. Devereux Roy has given of thepresent condition of Algeria, she says that France "is now about toembark upon a radical change of policy in regard to her Africancolonies. " If it be thought presumptuous for a foreigner who has nolocal knowledge of Algerian affairs to make certain suggestions as tothe direction which those changes might profitably assume, an apologymust be found in Mrs. Roy's very true remark that England "can no moreafford to be indifferent to the relations of France with her Moslemsubjects than she can disregard the trend of our policy in Egypt andIndia. " It is, indeed, manifest that somewhat drastic reforms of aliberal character will have to be undertaken in Algeria. The FrenchGovernment have adopted the only policy which is worthy of a civilisednation. They have educated the Algerians, albeit Mrs. Roy tells us thatgrants for educational purposes have been doled out "with a very sparinghand. " They must bear the consequences of the generous policy which theyhave pursued. They must recognise, as Macaulay said years ago, that itis impossible to impart knowledge without stimulating ambition. Reformsare, therefore, imposed by the necessities of the situation. 

These reforms may be classified under three heads, namely, fiscal, judicial, and political. The order in which changes under each headshould be undertaken would appear to be a matter of vital importance. Ifresponsible French statesmen make a mistake in this matter--if, to usethe language of proverbial philosophy, they put the cart before thehorse--they may not improbably lay the seeds of very great trouble fortheir countrymen in the future. Prince Bismarck once said: "Mistakescommitted in statesmanship are not always punished at once, but theyalways do harm in the end. The logic of history is a more exact and amore exacting accountant than is the strictest national auditingdepartment. "

It should never be forgotten that, however much local circumstances maydiffer, there are certain broad features which always exist whereverthe European--be he French, English, German, or of any othernationality--is brought in contact with the Oriental--be he Algerian, Indian, or Egyptian. When the former once steps outside the influenceacquired by the power of the sword, and seeks for any common ground ofunderstanding with the subject race, he finds that he is, by theelementary facts of the case, debarred from using all those moralinfluences which, in more homogeneous countries, bind society together. These are a common religion, a common language, common traditions, and--save in very rare instances--intermarriage and really intimatesocial relations. What therefore remains? Practically nothing but thebond of material interest, tempered by as much sympathy as it ispossible in the difficult circumstances of the case to bring into play. But on this poor material--for it must be admitted that it is poormaterial--experience has shown that a wise statesmanship can build apolitical edifice, not indeed on such assured foundations as prevail inmore homogeneous societies, but nevertheless of a character which willgive some solid guarantees of stability, and which will, in any case, minimise the risk that the sword, which the European would fain leave inthe scabbard, shall be constantly flaunted before the eyes both of thesubject and the governing races, the latter of whom, on grounds alikeof policy and humanity, deprecate its use save in cases of extremenecessity. 

In the long course of our history many mistakes have been made indealing with subject races, and the line of conduct pursued at varioustimes has often been very erratic. Nevertheless, it would be true to saythat, broadly speaking, British policy has been persistently directedtowards an endeavour to strengthen political bonds through the medium ofattention to material interests. The recent history of Egypt is a casein point. 

No one who was well acquainted with the facts could at any time havethought that it would be possible to create in the minds of theEgyptians a feeling of devotion towards England which might in somedegree take the place of patriotism. Neither, in spite of the relativelyhigher degree of social elasticity possessed by the French, is it at allprobable that any such feeling towards France will be created inAlgeria. But it was thought that by careful attention to the materialinterests of the people it might eventually be possible to bring intoexistence a conservative class who, albeit animated by no great love fortheir foreign rulers, would be sufficiently contented to prevent theirbecoming easily the prey either of the Nationalist demagogue, who wassure sooner or later to spring into existence, or that of some barbarousreligious fanatic, such as the Mahdi, or, finally, that of some wilypolitician, such as the Sultan Abdul Hamid who would, for his ownpurposes, fan the flame of religious and racial hatred. For many yearsafter the British occupation of Egypt began, the efforts of the Britishadministrators in that country were unceasingly directed towards theattainment of that object. The methods adopted, which it should beobserved were in the main carried out before any large sums were spenton education, were the relief of taxation, the abolition of fiscalinequality and of the _corvée_, the improvement of irrigation, and last, but not least, a variety of measures having for their object themaintenance of a peasant proprietary class. The results which have beenattained fully justify the adoption of this policy, which has probablynever been fully understood on the Continent of Europe, even if--whichis very doubtful--it has been understood in England. What, in fact, hashappened in Egypt? Nationalists have enjoyed an excess of licence in afree press. The Sultan has preached pan-Islamism. The usual Orientalintrigue has been rife. British politicians and a section of the Britishpress, being very imperfectly informed as to the situation, haveoccasionally dealt with Egyptian affairs in a manner which, to say theleast, was indiscreet. But all has been of no avail. In spite of someoutward appearances to the contrary, the whole Nationalist movement inEgypt has been a mere splutter on the surface. It never extended deepdown in the social ranks. More than this. When a very well-intentionedbut rather rash attempt was made to advance too rapidly in a liberaldirection, the inevitable reaction, which was to have been foreseen, took place. Not merely Europeans but also Egyptians cried out loudly fora halt, and, with the appointment of Lord Kitchener, they got what theywanted. The case would have been very different if the Nationalist, thereligious fanatic, or the scheming politician, in dealing with somecontroversial point or incident of ephemeral interest, had been able toappeal to a mass of deep-seated discontent due to general causes and tothe existence of substantial grievances. In that case the Nationalistmovement would have been less artificial. It would have extended notmerely to the surface but to the core of society. It would havepossessed a real rather than, as has been shown to be the case, aspurious vitality. The recent history of Egypt, therefore, is merely anillustration of the general lesson taught by universal history. Thatlesson is that the best, and indeed the only, way to combatsuccessfully the proceedings of the demagogue or the agitator is tolimit his field of action by the removal of any real grievances which, if still existent, he would be able to use as a lever to awaken theblind wrath of Demos. 

How far can principles somewhat analogous to these be applied inAlgeria?

In the first place, it is abundantly clear that, from many points ofview, the French Government have successfully carried out the policy ofministering to the material wants of the native population. Public worksof great utility have been constructed. Means of locomotion have beenimproved. Modern agricultural methods have been introduced. Famine hasbeen rendered impossible. Mutual benefit societies have beenestablished. The creation of economic habits has been encouraged. In allthese matters the French have certainly nothing to learn from us. Possibly, indeed, we may have something to learn from them. Nevertheless, when it is asked whether the French Government is likelyto reap the political fruits which it might have been hoped would be theresult of their efforts, whether they are in a fair way towards creatinga conservative spirit which would be adverse to any radical change, andwhether, in reliance on that spirit, they are in a position to moveboldly forward in the direction of that liberal reform, the demand forwhich has naturally sprung into existence from their educational policy, it is at once clear that they are heavily weighted by the policyoriginated some seventy years ago by Marshal Bugeaud, under which theinterests of the native population were made subservient to those of thecolonists, numbering about three-quarters of a million, of whom, Mrs. Roy tells us, less than one-half are of French origin. It may have beenwise and necessary to initiate that policy. It may be wise and necessaryto continue it with certain modifications. But it is obvious that theadoption of Marshal Bugeaud's plan has necessarily led to the creationof substantial grievances, which are important alike from the point ofview of sentiment and from that of material interests. It appears nowthat there is some probability that this policy will be modified in atleast one very important respect, namely, by the removal of the fiscalinequality which at present exists between the natives and thecolonists. The former are at present heavily taxed; the latter payrelatively very little. It may be suggested that it would be worth thewhile of the French Government to consider whether this change shouldnot occupy the first place in the programme of reform. The presentsystem is obviously indefensible on general grounds, whilst itscontinuance, until its abolition results from the strong nativepressure which will certainly ensue after the adoption of any drasticmeasure of political reform, would appear to be undesirable. It wouldprobably be wise and statesmanlike not to await this pressure, but tolet the concession be the spontaneous act of the French Government andnation rather than give the appearance of its having been wrungreluctantly from France by the insistence of the native population andits representatives. 

Next, there is the question of judicial reform. Mrs. Roy tells us that, under what is called the _Code de l'Indigénat_, "a native can bearrested and imprisoned practically without trial at the will of the_administrateur_ for his district. " It would require full localknowledge to treat this question adequately, but it would obviously bedesirable that the French Government should go as far as possible in thedirection of providing that all judicial matters should be settled byjudicial officers who would be independent of the executive and, for themost part, irremovable. Some local friction between the executive andthe judicial authorities is probably to be expected. That cannot behelped. It might perhaps be mitigated by a very careful choice of theofficials in each case. 

In the third place, there is the question of political reform. M. Philippe Millet, who has published an interesting article on thissubject in the April number of _The Nineteenth Century_, is of coursequite right in saying that political reform is the "key to every otherchange. " Once give the natives of Algeria effective political strength, and the reforms will be forced upon the Government. But, as has beenalready stated, it would perhaps be wiser and more statesmanlike thatthese changes should be conceded spontaneously by the French Government, and that then, after a reasonable interval, the bulk of the politicalreforms should follow. 

A distinction, however, has to be made between the variousrepresentative institutions which already exist. The _Conseil Supérieur_and the _Délégations Financières_ have very extensive powers, includingthat of rejecting or modifying the Budget. At present these bodies maybe said, for all practical purposes, to be merely representative of thecolonists. It would certainly appear wise eventually to allow thenatives both a larger numerical strength on the _Conseil_ and on the_Délégations_, and also, by rearranging the franchise, to endeavour tosecure a more real representation of native interests. It must, however, be borne in mind that the difficulties of securing any realrepresentation of the best interests in the country will almostcertainly be very great, if not altogether insuperable. In allprobability the loquacious, semi-educated native, who has in him themakings of an agitator, will, under any system, naturally float to thetop, whilst the really representative man will sink to the bottom. Itwould perhaps, therefore, be as well not to move in too great a hurry inthis matter, and, when any move is made, that the advance should be of avery cautious and tentative nature. 

The _Conseils Généraux_, which are provincial and municipal bodies, stand on a very different footing. Here it may be safe to move forwardin the path of reform with greater boldness and with less delay. Butwhatever is done it will probably be found that real progress in thedirection of self-government will depend more on the attitude of theFrench officials who are associated with the Councils than on any systemwhich can be devised on paper. It may be assumed that the Frenchofficials in Algeria present the usual characteristics of their class, that is to say, that they are courageous, intelligent, zealous, andthoroughly honest. Also it may probably be assumed that they aresomewhat inelastic, somewhat unduly wedded to bureaucratic ideas, andmore especially that they are possessed with the very natural idea thatthe main end and object of their lives is to secure the efficiency ofthe administration. Now if self-government is to be a success, they willhave to modify to some extent their ideas as to the supreme necessity ofefficiency. That is to say, they will have to recognise that it ispolitically wiser to put up with an imperfect reform carried with nativeconsent, rather than to insist on some more perfect measure executed inthe teeth of strong--albeit often unreasonable--native opposition. English experience has shown that this is a very hard lesson forofficials to learn. Nevertheless, the task of inculcating generalprinciples of this nature is not altogether impossible. It dependsmainly on the impulse which is given from above. To entrust theexecution of a policy of reform in Algeria to a man ofultra-bureaucratic tendencies, who is hostile to reform of any kind, would, of course, be to court failure. On the other hand, to select anextreme radical visionary, who will probably not recognise thedifference between East and West, would be scarcely less disastrous. What, in fact, is required is a man of somewhat exceptional qualities. He must be strong--that is to say, he must impress the natives with theconviction that, albeit an advocate of liberal ideas, he is firmlyresolved to consent to nothing which is likely to be detrimental to thetrue interests of France. He must also be sufficiently strong to keephis own officials in hand and to make them conform to his policy, whilstat the same time he must be sufficiently tactful to win their confidenceand to prevent their being banded together against him. The latter is apoint of very special importance, for in a country like Algeria nogovernment, however powerful, will be able to carry out a reallybeneficial programme of reform if the organised strength of thebureaucracy--backed up, as would probably be the case, by the whole ofthe European unofficial community--is thrown into bitter andirreconcilable opposition. The task, it may be repeated, is a difficultone. Nevertheless, amongst the many men of very high ability in theFrench service there must assuredly be some who would be able toundertake it with a fair chance of success. 

One further remark on this very interesting subject may be made. M. Millet, in the article to which allusion has already been made, says, "The Algerian natives will look more and more to France as their naturalprotector against the colonists. " It will, it is to be hoped, not bethought over-presumptuous to sound a note of warning against trustingtoo much to this argument. That for the present the natives should lookto France rather than to the colonists is natural enough. It ismanifestly their interest to do so. But it may be doubted whether theywill be "more and more" inspired by such sentiments as time goes on. There is an Arabic proverb to the effect that "all Christians are of onetribe. " That is the spirit which in reality inspires the whole Moslemworld. It is illustrated by the author of that very remarkable work, _Turkey in Europe_, in an amusing apologue. Let once somesemi-religious, semi-patriotic leader arise, who will play skilfully onthe passions of the masses, and it will be somewhat surprising if thedistinction which now exists will long survive. All Frenchmen, those inFrance equally with those in Algeria, will then, it may confidently beexpected, be speedily confounded in one general anathema. 

[Footnote 80: _Aspects of Algeria_. By Mrs. Devereux Roy. London: Dentand Son. 10s. 6d. ]

XIV

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE[81]

_"The Spectator, " June 14, 1913_

Although proverbial philosophy warns us never to prophesy unless weknow, experience has shown that political prophets have often madesingularly correct forecasts of the future. Lord Chesterfield, and at amuch earlier period Marshal Vauban, foretold the French Revolution, whilst the impending ruin of the Ottoman Empire has formed the theme ofnumerous prophecies made by close observers of contemporaneous eventsfrom the days of Horace Walpole downwards. "It is of no use, " Napoleonwrote to the Directory, "to try to maintain the Turkish Empire; we shallwitness its fall in our time. " During the War of Greek Independence theDuke of Wellington believed that the end of Turkey was at hand. Wherethe prophets have for the most part failed is not so much in making amistaken estimate of the effects likely to be produced by the causeswhich they saw were acting on the body politic, as in not allowingsufficient time for the operation of those causes. Political evolutionin its early stages is generally very slow. It is only after longinternal travail that it moves with vertiginous rapidity. De Tocquevillecast a remarkably accurate horoscope of the course which would be run bythe Second Empire, but it took some seventeen years to bring aboutresults which he thought would be accomplished in a much shorter period. It has been reserved for the present generation to witness thefulfilment of prophecy in the case of European Turkey. The blindnessdisplayed by Turkish statesmen to the lessons taught by history, theircomplete sterility in the domain of political thought, and theirinability to adapt themselves and the institutions of their country tothe growing requirements of the age, might almost lead an historicalstudent to suppose that they were bent on committing political suicide. The combined diplomatists of Europe, Lord Salisbury sorrowfully remarkedin 1877, "all tried to save Turkey, " but she scorned salvation andpersisted in a course of action which could lead to but one result. Thatresult has now been attained. The dismemberment of European Turkey, begun so long ago as the Peace of Karlovitz in 1699, is now almostcomplete. "Modern history, " Lord Acton said, "begins under the stress ofthe Ottoman conquest. " Whatever troubles the future may have in store, Europe has at last thrown off the Ottoman incubus. A new chapter inmodern history has thus been opened. Henceforth, if Ottoman power is tosurvive at all, it must be in Asia, albeit the conflicting jealousies ofthe European Powers allow for the time being the maintenance of anAsiatic outpost on European soil. 

It is as yet too early to expect any complete or philosophic account ofthis stupendous occurrence, which the future historian will rank withthe unification first of Italy and later of Germany, as one of the mostepoch-making events of the later nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. Notably, there are two subjects which require much furtherelucidation before the final verdict of contemporaries or posterity canbe passed upon them. In the first place, the causes which have led tothe military humiliation of a race which, whatever may be its defects, has been noted in history for its martial virility, require to bedifferentiated. Was the collapse of the Turkish army due merely toincapacity and mismanagement on the part of the commanders, aided bythe corruption which has eaten like a canker into the whole Ottomansystem of government and administration? Or must the causes be soughtdeeper, and, if so, was it the palsy of an unbridled and malevolentdespotism which in itself produced the result, or did the suddendownfall of the despot, by the removal of a time-honoured, if unworthy, symbol of government, abstract the corner-stone from the totteringpolitical edifice, and thus, by disarranging the whole administrativegear of the Empire at a critical moment, render the catastropheinevitable? Further information is required before a matured opinion onthis point, which possesses more than a mere academic importance, can beformed. 

There is yet another subject which, if only from a biographical point ofview, is of great interest. Two untoward circumstances have causedTurkish domination in Europe to survive, and to resist the pressure ofthe civilisation by which it was surrounded, but which seemed at onetime doomed to thunder ineffectually at its gates. One was excessivejealousy--in Solomon's words, "as cruel as the grave"--amongst EuropeanStates, which would not permit of any political advantage being gainedby a rival nation. The other, and, as subsequent events proved, morepotent consideration, was the fratricidal jealousy which thepopulations of the Balkan Peninsula mutually entertained towards eachother. The maintenance and encouragement of mutual suspicions was, ineither case, sedulously fostered by Turkish Sultans, the last of whom, more especially, acted throughout his inglorious career in the firmbelief that mere mediaeval diplomatic trickery could be made to take theplace of statesmanship. He must have chuckled when he joyously put hishand to the firman creating a Bulgarian Exarch, who was forthwithexcommunicated by the Greek Patriarch, with the result, as Mr. Millertells us, that "peasants killed each other in the name of contendingecclesiastical establishments. "

In the early days of the last century the poet Rhigas, who was to Greecewhat Arndt was to Germany and Rouget de Lisle to Revolutionary France, appealed to all Balkan Christians to rise on behalf of the liberties ofGreece. But the hour had not yet come for any such unity to be cemented. At that time, and for many years afterwards, Europe was scarcelyconscious of the fact that there existed "a long-forgotten, silentnationality" which, after a lapse of nearly five centuries, would againspring into existence and bear a leading part in the liberation of theBalkan populations. But the rise of Bulgaria, far from bringing unity inits wake, appeared at first only to exacerbate not merely the mercurialGreek, proud of the intellectual and political primacy which he hadheretofore enjoyed, but also the brother Slav, with whom differencesarose which necessitated an appeal to the arbitrament of arms. 

Although the thunder of the guns of Kirk Kilisse and Lüle Burgasproclaimed to Europe, in the words of the English Prime Minister, that"the map of Eastern Europe had to be recast, " it is none the less truethat the cause of the Turk was doomed from the moment when Balkandiscord ceased, and when the Greek, the Bulgarian, the Serb, and theMontenegrin agreed to sink their differences and to act together againstthe common enemy. Who was it who accomplished this miracle? Mr. Millersays, "the authorship of this marvellous work, hitherto the despair ofstatesmen, is uncertain, but it has been ascribed chiefly to M. Venezélos. " All, therefore, that can now be said is that it was thebrain, or possibly brains, of some master-workers which gave liberty tothe Balkan populations as surely as it was the brain of Cavour whichunited Italy. [82]

Although these and possibly other points will, without doubt, eventuallyreceive more ample treatment at the hands of some future historian, Mr. Miller has performed a most useful service in affording a guide by theaid of which the historical student can find his way through thelabyrinthine maze of Balkan politics. He begins his story about the timewhen Napoleon had appeared like a comet in the political firmament, andby his erratic movements had caused all the statesmen of Europe todiverge temporarily from their normal and conventional orbits, oneresult being that the British Admiral Duckworth wandered in a somewhataimless fashion through the Dardanelles to Constantinople, and had verylittle idea of what to do when he got there. Mr. Miller reminds us ofevents of great importance in their day, but now almost whollyforgotten: of how the ancient Republic of Ragusa, which had existed foreleven centuries and which had earned the title of the "South SlavonicAthens, " was crushed out of existence under the iron heel of Marmont, who forthwith proceeded to make some good roads and to vaccinate theDalmatians; of how Napoleon tried to partition the Balkans, but found, with all his political and administrative genius, that he was face toface with an "insoluble problem"; of how that rough man of genius, Mahmoud II. , hanged the Greek Patriarch from the gate of his palace, butbetween the interludes of massacres and executions, brought his "energyand indomitable force of will" to bear on the introduction of reforms;of how the Venetian Count Capo d'Istria, who was eventuallyassassinated, produced a local revolt by a well-intentioned attempt toamend the primitive ethics of the Mainote Greeks--a tale which is notwithout its warning if ever the time comes for dealing with a cognatequestion amongst the wild tribes of Albania; and of how, amidst theever-shifting vicissitudes of Eastern politics, the Tsar of Russia, whohad heretofore posed as the "protector" of Roumans and Serbs againsttheir sovereign, sent his fleet to the Bosphorus in 1833 in order to"protect" the sovereign against his rebellious vassal, Mehemet Ali, andexacted a reward for his services in the shape of the leoninearrangement signed at Hunkiar-Iskelesi. And so Mr. Miller carries us onfrom massacre to massacre, from murder to murder, and from onebewildering treaty to another, all of which, however, present thisfeature of uniformity, that the Turk, signing of his own free will, butwith an unwilling mind--ἑκὼν ἀέκοντί γε θυμῷ--made on each occasioneither some new concession to the ever-rising tide of Christian demand, or ratified the loss of a province which had been forcibly torn from hisflank. Finally, we get to the period when the tragedy connected with thename of Queen Draga acted like an electric shock on Europe, and whenthe accession of King Peter, "who had translated Mill _On Liberty_, " tothe blood-stained Servian throne, revealed to an astonished world thatthe processes of Byzantinism survived to the present day. Five yearslater followed the assumption by Prince Ferdinand of the title of "Tsarof the Bulgarians, " and it then only required the occurrence of someopportunity and the appearance on the scene of some Balkan Cavour tobring the struggle of centuries to the final issue of a death-grapplebetween the followers of aggressive Christianity and those of stagnantIslamism. 

The whole tale is at once dramatic and dreary, dramatic because it isoccasionally illumined by acts of real heroism, such as the gallantdefence of Plevna by Ghazi Osman, a graphic account of which was writtenby an adventurous young Englishman (Mr. W. V. Herbert) who served in theTurkish army, or again as the conduct of the Cretan Abbot Máneses who, in 1866, rather than surrender to the Turks, "put a match to thepowder-magazine, thus uniting defenders and assailants in one commonhecatomb. " It is dreary because the mind turns with horror and disgustfrom the endless record of government by massacre, in which, it is to beobserved, the crime of bloodguiltiness can by no means be laidexclusively at the door of the dominant race, whilst Mr. Miller'ssombre but perfectly true remark that "assassination or abdication, execution or exile, has been the normal fate of Balkan rulers, " throws alurid light on the whole state of Balkan society. 

But how does the work of diplomacy, and especially of British diplomacy, stand revealed by the light of the history of the past century? Thepoint is one of importance, all the more so because there is a tendencyon the part of some British politicians to mistrust diplomatists, tothink that, either from incapacity or design, they serve as agents tostimulate war rather than as peace-makers, and to hold that a moreminute interference by the House of Commons in the details of diplomaticnegotiations would be useful and beneficial. It would be impossiblewithin the limits of an ordinary newspaper article to deal adequatelywith this question. This much, however, may be said--that, even takingthe most unfavourable view of the results achieved by diplomacy, thereis nothing whatever in Mr. Miller's history to engender the belief thatbetter results would have been obtained by shifting the responsibilityto a greater degree from the shoulders of the executive to those ofParliament. The evidence indeed rather points to an opposite conclusion. For instance, Mr. Miller informs us that inopportune action taken inEngland was one of the causes which contributed to the outbreak ofhostilities between Greece and Turkey in 1897. "An address from ahundred British members of Parliament encouraged the masses, ignorant ofthe true condition of British politics, to count upon the help of GreatBritain. "

It is, however, quite true that a moralist, if he were so minded, mightin Mr. Miller's pages find abundant material for a series of homilies onthe vanity of human wishes, and especially of diplomatic human wishes. But would he on that account be right in pronouncing a wholesalecondemnation of diplomacy? Assuredly not. Rather, the conclusion to bedrawn from a review of past history is that a small number of verywell-informed and experienced diplomatists showed remarkable foresightin perceiving the future drift of events. So early as 1837 LordPalmerston supported Milosh Obrenovitch II. , the ruler of Servia, against Turkey, as he had "come to the conclusion that to strengthen thesmall Christian States of the Near East was the true policy of bothTurkey and Great Britain. " Similar views were held at a later period bySir William White, and were eventually adopted by the Government of LordBeaconsfield. An equal amount of foresight was displayed by some Russiandiplomatists. In Lord Morley's _Life of Gladstone_ (vol. I. P. 479) avery remarkable letter is given, which was addressed to the EmperorNicholas by Baron Brunnow, just before the outbreak of the Crimean War, in which he advocated peace on the ground that "war would not turn toRussian advantage. .. . The Ottoman Empire may be transformed intoindependent States, which for us will only become either burdensomeclients or hostile neighbours. " It may be that, as is now very generallythought, the Crimean War was a mistake, and that, in the classic wordsof Lord Salisbury, we "put our money on the wrong horse. " But it is nonethe less true that had it not been for the Crimean War and the policysubsequently adopted by Lord Beaconsfield's government, the independenceof the Balkan States would never have been achieved, and the Russianswould now be in possession of Constantinople. It is quite permissible toargue that, had they been left unopposed, British interests would nothave suffered; but even supposing this very debatable proposition to betrue, it must be regarded, from an historical point of view, as at bestan _ex post facto_ argument. British diplomacy has to represent Britishpublic opinion, and during almost the whole period of which Mr. Miller'shistory treats, a cardinal article of British political faith was that, in the interests of Great Britain, Constantinople should not be allowedto fall into Russian hands. The occupation of Egypt in 1882 withoutdoubt introduced a new and very important element into the discussion. The most serious as also the least excusable mistake in BritishNear-Eastern policy of recent years has been the occupation of Cyprus, which burthened us with a perfectly useless possession, and inflicted aserious blow on our prestige. Sir Edward Grey's recent diplomaticsuccess is in a large measure due to the fact that all the Powersconcerned were convinced of British disinterestedness. 

[Footnote 81: _The Ottoman Empire_, 1801-1913. By W. Miller. Cambridge:At the University Press. 7s. 6d. ]

[Footnote 82: This article was, of course, written before the war whichsubsequently broke out between the Bulgarians and their former allies, the Greeks and the Servians. ]

XV

WELLINGTONIANA[83]

_"The Spectator, " June 21, 1913_

In dealing with Lady Shelley's sprightly and discursive comments uponthe current events of her day, we have to transport ourselves back intoa society which, though not very remote in point of time, has now socompletely passed away that it is difficult fully to realise itsfeelings, opinions, and aspirations. It was a time when a learneddivine, writing in the _Church and State Gazette_, had proved entirelyto his own satisfaction, and apparently also to that of Lady Shelley, that a "remarkable fulfilment of that hitherto incomprehensible prophecyin the Revelations" had taken place, inasmuch as Napoleon Bonaparte wasmost assuredly "the seventh head of the Beast. " It was a time whenLondoners rode in the Green Park instead of Rotten Row, and when, inspite of the admiration expressed for the talents of that rising youngpolitician, Mr. Robert Peel, it was impossible to deny that "his birthran strongly against him"--a consideration which elicited from LadyShelley the profound remark that it is "strange to search into therecesses of the human mind. "

Lady Shelley herself seems to have been rather a _femme incomprise_. Shehad lived much on the Continent, and appreciated the greater deferencepaid to a charming and accomplished woman in Viennese and Parisiansociety, compared with the boorishness of Englishmen who would not"waste their time" in paying pretty compliments to ladies which "couldbe repaid by a smile. " She records her impressions in French, a languagein which she was thoroughly proficient. "Je sais, " she says, "qu'enAngleterre il ne faut pas s'attendre à cultiver son esprit; qu'il faut, pour être contente à Londres, se résoudre à se plaire avec lamédiocrité; à entendre tous les jours répéter les mêmes banalités et às'abaisser autant qu'on le peut au niveau des femmelettes aveclesquelles l'on vit, et qui, pour plaire, affectent plus de frivolitéqu'elles n'ont réellement. Le plaisir de causer nous est défendu. "Nevertheless, however much she may have mentally appreciated thesolitude of a crowd, she determined to adapt herself to her socialsurroundings. "C'est un sacrifice, " she says, "que je fais à mon Dieu età mon devoir comme Anglaise. " Impelled, therefore, alike by piety andpatriotism, she cast aside all ideas of leading an eremitic life, plunged into the vortex of the social world, and mixed with all thegreat men and women of the day. Of these the most notable was the Dukeof Wellington. 

Lady Shelley certainly possessed one quality which eminently fitted herto play the part of Boswell to the Duke. The worship of her hero waswithout the least mixture of alloy. She had a pheasant, which the Dukehad killed, stuffed, and "added to other souvenirs which ornamented herdressing-room"; and she records, with manifest pride, that "amongst herother treasures" was a chair on which he sat upon the first occasion ofhis dining with her husband and herself in 1814. It was well to havethat pheasant stuffed, for apparently the Duke, like his greatantagonist, did not shoot many pheasants. He was not only "a very wildshot, " but also a very bad shot. Napoleon, Mr. Oman tells us, [84] on oneoccasion "lodged some pellets in Masséna's left eye while letting fly ata pheasant, " and then without the least hesitation accused "the faithfulBerthier" of having fired the shot, an accusation which was at onceconfirmed by the mendacious but courtierlike victim of the accident. Wellington also, Lady Shelley records, "after wounding a retriever earlyin the day and later on peppering the keeper's gaiters, inadvertentlysprinkled the bare arms of an old woman who chanced to be washingclothes at her cottage window. " Lady Shelley, who "was attracted by herscreams, " promptly told the widow that "it ought to be the proudestmoment of her life. She had had the distinction of being shot by thegreat Duke of Wellington, " but the eminently practical instinct of thegreat Duke at once whispered to him that something more than the moralsatisfaction to be derived from this reflection was required, so he verywisely "slipped a golden coin into her trembling hand. "

For many years Lady Shelley lived on very friendly and intimate termswith the Duke, who appears to have confided to her many things aboutwhich he would perhaps have acted more wisely if he had held his tongue. When he went on an important diplomatic mission to Paris in 1822, sherequested him to buy her a blouse--a commission which he faithfullyexecuted. All went well until 1848. Then a terrific explosion occurred. It is no longer "My dearest Lady! Mind you bring the blouse! Ever yoursmost affectionately, Wellington, " but "My dear Lady Shelley, " who isaddressed by "Her Ladyship's most obedient humble servant, Wellington, "and soundly rated for her conduct. The reason for this abrupt andvolcanic change was that owing to an indiscretion on the part of LadyShelley a very important letter about the defenceless state of thecountry, which the Duke had addressed to Sir John Burgoyne, then thehead of the Engineer Department at the Horse Guards, got into thenewspapers. The Duke's wrath boiled over, and was expressed in termswhich, albeit the reproaches were just, showed but little chivalrousconsideration towards a peccant but very contrite woman. He told herthat he "had much to do besides defending himself from the consequencesof the meddling gossip of the ladies of modern times, " and he askedindignantly, "What do Sir John Burgoyne and his family and your Ladyshipand others--talking of old friendship--say to the share which each ofyou have had in this transaction, which, in my opinion, is disgracefulto the times in which we live?" What Sir John Burgoyne and his familymight very reasonably have said in answer to this formidableinterrogatory is that, although no one can defend the conduct ofDelilah, it was certainly most unwise of Samson to trust her with hissecret. It is consolatory to know that, under the influence of Sir JohnShelley's tact and good-humour, a treaty of peace was eventuallyconcluded. Sir John happened to meet the Duke at a party. "'Good-evening, Duke, ' said Sir John, in his most winning manner. 'Doyou know, it has been said, by some one who must have been present, thatthe cackling of geese once saved Rome. I have been thinking that perhapsthe cackling of my old Goose may yet save England!' This whollyunexpected sally proved too much for the Duke, who burst out into ahearty laugh. 'By G----d, Shelley!' said he, 'you are right: give meyour honest hand. '" The Duke then returned to Apsley House and "penned aplayful letter to Lady Shelley. "

It is not to be expected that much of real historical interest can beextracted from a Diary of this sort. It may, however, be noted that whenthe _Bellerophon_ reached the English coast "it was only by coercionthat the Ministers prevented George IV. From receiving Bonaparte. TheKing wanted to hold him as a captive. " Moreover, Brougham, who was in aposition to know, said, "There can be little doubt that if Bonaparte hadgot to London, the Whig Opposition were ready to use him as their trumpcard to overturn the Government. "

The main interest in the book, however, lies in the light which itthrows on the Duke's inner life and in the characteristic _obiter dicta_which he occasionally let fall. Of these, none is more characteristicthan the remark he made on meeting his former love, Miss CatherinePakenham, after an absence of eight years in India. He wrote to her, making a proposal of marriage, but Miss Pakenham told him "that beforeany engagement was made he must see her again; as she had grown old, hadlost all her good looks, and was a very different person to the girl hehad loved in former years. " The story, which has been frequentlyrepeated, that Miss Pakenham was marked with the smallpox, isuntrue, [85] but, without doubt, during the Duke's absence, she had agood deal changed. The Duke himself certainly thought so, for, on firstmeeting her again, he whispered to his brother, "She has grown d----dugly, by Jove!" Nevertheless he married her, being moved to do so, notapparently from any very deep feelings of affection, but because hisleading passion was a profound regard for truth and loyalty which ledhim to admire and appreciate the straightforwardness of Miss Pakenham'sconduct. Lady Shelley exultingly exclaims, "Well might she be proud andhappy, and glory in such a husband. " That the Duchess was proud of herhusband is certain. Whether she was altogether happy is more doubtful. 

One of the stock anecdotes about the Duke of Wellington is that when onone occasion some one asked him whether he was surprised at Waterloo, hereplied, "No. I was not surprised then, but I am now. " We are indebtedto Lady Shelley for letting us know what the Duke really thought on thismuch-debated question. In a letter written to her on March 22, 1820, hestated, with his usual downright common sense, all that there is to besaid on this subject. "Supposing I _was_ surprised; I won the battle;and what could you have had more, even if I had not been surprised?"

It is known on the authority of his niece, Lady Burghersh, that the Duke"never read poetry, " but his "real love of music, " to which Lady Shelleyalludes, will perhaps come as a surprise to many. Mr. Fortescue, however, [86] has told us that in his youth the Duke learnt to play theviolin, and that he only abandoned it, when he was about thirty yearsold, "because he judged it unseemly or perhaps ill-sounding for aGeneral to be a fiddler. " The Duke is not the only great soldier who hasbeen a musical performer. Marshal St. Cyr used to play the violin "inthe quiet moments of a campaign, " and Sir Hope Grant was a very fairperformer on the violoncello. 

It was characteristic of the Duke to keep the fact of his being about tofight a duel with Lord Winchelsea carefully concealed from all hisfriends. When it was over, he walked into Lady Shelley's room while shewas at breakfast and said, "Well, what do you think of a gentleman whohas been fighting a duel?"

It appears that during the last years of his life the Duke's greatcompanion-in-arms, Blücher, was subject to some strange hallucinations. The following affords a fitting counterpart to those "fears of thebrave" which Pope attributed to the dying Marlborough. On March 17, 1819, Lady Shelley made the following entry in her diary:

 We laughed at poor Blücher's strange hallucination, which, though ludicrous, is very sad. He fancies himself with child by a Frenchman; and deplores that such an event should have happened to him in his old age! He does not so much mind being with child, but cannot reconcile himself to the thought that he--of all people in the world--should be destined to give birth to a _Frenchman_! On every other subject Blücher is said to be quite rational. This peculiar form of madness shows the bent of his mind; so that while we laugh our hearts reproach us. The Duke of Wellington assures me that he knows this to be a fact. 

Finally, attention may be drawn to a singular and interesting letterfrom Sir Walter Scott to Shelley, giving some advice which it may bepresumed the young poet did not take to heart. He was "cautioned againstenthusiasm, which, while it argued an excellent disposition and afeeling heart, requires to be watched and restrained, though notrepressed. "

[Footnote 83: _The Diary of Frances, Lady Shelley_ (1818-1873). London:John Murray. 10s. 6d. ]

[Footnote 84: _History of the Peninsular War_, vol. Iii. P. 209. ]

[Footnote 85: Maxwell's _Life of Wellington_, vol. I. P. 78]

[Footnote 86: _British Statesmen of the Great War_, p. 241. ]

XVI

BURMA[87]

_"The Spectator, " June 28, 1913_

The early history of the British connection with Burma presents all thefeatures uniformly to be found in the growth of British Imperialism. These are, first, reluctance to move, coupled with fear of the resultsof expansion, ending finally with a cession to the irresistible tendencyto expand; secondly, vagueness of purpose as to what should be done witha new and somewhat unwelcome acquisition; thirdly, a tardy recognitionof its value, with the result that what was first an inclination to makethe best of a bad job only gradually transforms itself into a feeling ofsatisfaction and congratulation that, after all, the unconsciousfounders of the British Empire, here as elsewhere, blundered more orless unawares into the adoption of a sound and far-seeing Imperialpolicy. 

In 1825, Lord Amherst, in one of those "fits of absence" which thedictum of Sir John Seeley has rendered famous, took possession of someof the maritime provinces of Burma, and in doing so lost three thousandone hundred and fifteen men, of whom only a hundred and fifty werekilled in action. Then the customary fit of doubt and despondencysupervened. It was not until four years after the conclusion of peacethat a British Resident was sent to the Court of Ava in the vain hopethat he would be able to negotiate the retrocession of the province ofTenasserim, as "the Directors of the East India Company looked upon thisterritory as of no value to them. " For a quarter of a century peace waspreserved, for there ruled at Ava a prince "who was too clear-sighted toattempt again to measure arms with the British troops. " Anon he wassucceeded by a new king--the Pagàn Prince--"who cared for nothing butmains of cocks, games, and other infantile amusements, " and who, afterthe manner of Oriental despots, inaugurated his reign by putting todeath his two brothers and all their households. "There were severalhundreds of them. " It is not surprising that under a ruler addicted tosuch practices the British sailors who frequented the Burmese portsshould have been subjected to maltreatment. Their complaints reached theears of the iron-fisted and acquisitive Lord Dalhousie, who himselfwent to Rangoon in 1852, and forthwith "decided on the immediate attackof Prome and Pegu. " M. Dautremer speaks in flattering terms of "thetenacity and persistence of purpose which make the strength and glory ofBritish policy. " He might truthfully have added another characteristicfeature which that policy at times displays, to wit, sluggishness. Itwas not until sixteen years after Lord Dalhousie's annexation of LowerBurma that the English bethought themselves of improving their newlyacquired province by the construction of a railway, and it was not till1877 that the first line from Rangoon to Prome--a distance of only onehundred and sixty-one miles--was opened. During all this time KingMindon ruled in native Burma. He "gave abundant alms to monks, " and, moreover, which was perhaps more to the purpose, he was wise enough tomaintain relations with Great Britain which were "quite cordial. "Eventually the Nemesis which appears to attend on all semi-civilised andmoribund States when they are brought in contact with a vigorous andaggressive civilisation appeared in the person of the "Sapaya-lat, " the"middle princess, " who induced her feeble husband, King Thibaw, to carryout massacres on a scale which, even in Burma, had been heretoforeunprecedented. Then the British on the other side of the frontier beganto murmur and "to consider whether it was possible to endure a neighbourwho was so cruel and so unpopular. " All doubts as to whether the limitsof endurance had or had not been reached were removed when theimpecunious and spendthrift king not only imposed a very unjust fine ofsome £150, 000 on the Bombay-Burma Trading Corporation, but also had theextreme folly to "throw himself into the arms of France"--a scheme whichwas at once communicated by M. Jules Ferry to Lord Lyons, the BritishAmbassador in Paris. Then war with Burma was declared, and after sometedious operations, which involved the sacrifice of many valuable lives, and which extended over three years, the country was "completelypacified" by 1889, and Lord Dufferin added the title of "Ava" to theMarquisate which was conferred on him. 

In 1852, when Lord Dalhousie annexed Lower Burma, Rangoon was "merely afishing village. " It is now a flourishing commercial town of some300, 000 inhabitants. In 1910-11 the imports into Burmese ports, including coast trade, amounted to £13, 600, 000. The exports, in spite ofa duty on rice which is of a nature rather to shock orthodox economists, were nearly £23, 000, 000 in value. The revenue in 1910 was about£7, 391, 000, of which about £2, 590, 000 was on Imperial and the balance onlocal account. Burma is in the happy position of being in a normal stateof surplus, and is thus able to contribute annually a sum of about£2, 500, 000 to the Indian exchequer, a sum which those who are speciallyinterested in Burmese prosperity regard as excessive, whilst it isapparently regarded as inadequate by some of those who look only to theinterests of the Indian taxpayers. 

The account which M. Dautremer, who was for long French Consul atRangoon, has given of the present condition of Burma is preceded by anintroduction from the pen of Sir George Scott, who can speak withunquestionable authority on Burmese affairs. It is clear that neitherauthor has allowed himself in any way to be biassed by nationalproclivities, for whilst the Frenchman compares British and Frenchadministrative methods in a manner which is very much to the detrimentof the latter, the Englishman, on the other hand, launches the mostfiery denunciations against those of his countrymen who are responsiblefor Indian policy. Their want of enterprise is characterised by theappalling polysyllabic adjective "hebetudinous, " which it is perhaps aswell to explain means obtuse or dull, and they are told that they "areinfected with the Babu spirit, and cannot see beyond their immediatehorizon. "

M. Dautremer thinks that it is somewhat narrow-minded of the Englishmanto inflict on himself the torture of wearing cloth or flannel clothes inorder that he may not be taken for a _chi-chi_ or half-caste, who verywisely dresses in white. He expostulates against the social tyrannywhich obliges him to pay visits between twelve and two "in such aclimate and with such a temperature, " and he gently satirises theisolation of the different layers of English society--civilian, military, and subordinate services--in words which call to mind thestriking account given by the immortal Mr. Jingle of the dockyardsociety of Chatham and Rochester. It is, however, consolatory to learnthat all classes combined in giving a hearty welcome to the genial andsympathetic Frenchman who was living in their midst. Save on these minorpoints, M. Dautremer has, for the most part, nothing but praise toaccord. He thinks that "all the British administrative officers in Burmaare well-educated and capable men, who know the country of which theyare put in charge, and are fluent in the language. " He writhes under thehighly centralised and bureaucratic system adopted by his owncountrymen. He commends the English practice under which "the HomeGovernment never interferes in the management of internal affairs, " andit is earnestly to be hoped that the commendation is deserved, albeit oflate years there have occasionally been some ominous signs of a tendencyto govern India rather too much in detail from London. Speaking of therapid development of Burmese trade, M. Dautremer says, in words whichare manifestly intended to convey a criticism of his own Government, "This is an example of the use of colonies to a nation which knows howto put a proper value on them and to profit by them. "

The warm appreciation which M. Dautremer displays of the best parts ofthe English administrative system enhances his claims for respectfulattention whenever he indulges in criticism. He finds two rather weakpoints in the administration. In the first place, he attributes thelarge falling-off in the export of teak, _inter alia_, to "the increasein Government duties and the much more rigid rules for extraction, " andhe adds that the Government, which is itself a large dealer in timber, has "by its action created a monopoly which has raised prices to thehighest possible limit. " The subject is one which would appear torequire attention. The primary business of any Government is not totrade but to administer, and, as invariably happens, the violation of asound economic principle of this sort is certain sooner or later tocarry its own punishment with it. In the second place, the ForestDepartment, which is of very special importance in Burma, is a good dealcrippled by the "want of energy and want of industry which areunfortunately common in the subordinate grades. The reason for thisstate of things is to be found in the fact that the pay and prospectsare not good enough to attract really capable men. " In many quarters, notably in Central Africa, British Treasury officials have yet to learnthat, from every point of view, it is quite as great a mistake to employunderpaid administrative agents as it would be for an employer of labourto proceed on the principle that low wages necessarily connote cheapproduction. 

Sir George Scott in his introduction strikes a very different note fromthat sounded by M. Dautremer. He alleges that the wealthy province ofBurma, which M. Dautremer tells us is not unseldom called "the milch-cowof India, " is starved, that its financial policy has been directed by"cautious, nothing-venture, mole-horizon people, " who have hid theirtalent in a napkin; that "everything seems expressly designed to driveout the capital" of which the country stands so much in need; that notnearly enough has been done in the way of expenditure on public works, notably on roads and railways, and that when these latter have beenconstructed, they have sometimes been in the wrong directions. He cavilsat M. Dautremer's description of Burma as "a model possession, " andholds that "as a matter of bitter fact, the administrative view is thatof the parish beadle, and the enterprise that of the country-carrierwith a light cart instead of a motor-van. "

It would require greater local knowledge than any possessed by thewriter of the present article either to endorse or to reject theseformidable accusations, although it may be said that the violence of SirGeorge Scott's invective is not very convincing, but rather raises astrong suspicion that he has overstated his case. Nothing is moredifficult, either for a private individual or for a State financier, than to decide the question of when to be bold and when cautious in thematter of capital outlay. It is quite possible to push to an extreme thecommonplace, albeit attractive, argument that large expenditure will beamply remunerative, or even if not directly remunerative, highlybeneficial "in the long run. " Although this plea is often--indeed, perhaps generally--valid, it is none the less true that the run which isforeshadowed is at times so long as to make the taxpayer, who has tobear the present cost, gasp for breath before the promised goal isreached. Pericles, by laying out huge sums on the public buildings ofAthens, earned the undying gratitude of artistic posterity. Whether hisaction was in the true interests of his Athenian contemporaries isperhaps rather more doubtful. The recent history of Argentina is aninstance of a country in which, as subsequent events have proved, theplea for lavish capital expenditure was perfectly justifiable, but inwhich, nevertheless, the over-haste shown in incurring heavy liabilitiesled to much temporary inconvenience and even disaster. But on the wholeit may be said that where all the general conditions are favourable, andpoint conclusively to the possibility and probability of fairly rapideconomic development, a bold financial policy may and should be adopted, even although it may not be easy to prove beforehand by very exactcalculations that any special project under consideration will bedirectly remunerative. Egyptian finance is a case in point. At a timewhen the country was in the throes of bankruptcy, a fresh loan of£1, 000, 000 was, to the dismay of the conventional financiers, contracted, the proceeds of which were spent on irrigation works. Soalso the construction of the Assouan dam, which cost nearly double thesum originally estimated, was taken in hand at a moment when aliability of a wholly unknown amount on account of the war in the Soudanwas hanging over the head of the Egyptian Treasury. In both of thesecases subsequent events amply justified the financial audacity which hadbeen shown. In the case of Burma there appears to be no doubt as to thewealth of the province or its capacity for further development. In viewof all the circumstances of the case the amount of twelve millions, which is apparently all that has been spent on railway constructionsince 1869, would certainly appear to be rather a niggardly sum. Inspite, therefore, of the very unnecessary warmth with which Sir GeorgeScott has urged his views, it is to be hoped that his plea for theadoption of a somewhat bolder financial policy in the direction ofexpenditure on railways, and still more on feeder roads, will receivefrom the India Office, with whom the matter really rests, the attentionwhich it would certainly appear to deserve. The case of publicbuildings, of which Burma apparently stands much in need, is different. They cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be remunerative, and shouldalmost, if not quite, invariably be paid for out of revenue. 

[Footnote 87: _Burma under British Rule_. By Joseph Dautremer. London:T. Fisher Unwin. 15s. ]

XVII

A PSEUDO-HERO OF THE REVOLUTION[88]

_"The Spectator, " July 5, 1913_

If it be a fact, as Carlyle said, that "History is the essence ofinnumerable biographies, " it is very necessary that the biographies fromwhich that essence is extracted should be true. It was probably aprofound want of confidence in the accuracy of biographical writing thatled Horace Walpole to beg for "anything but history, for history must befalse. " Modern industry and research, ferreting in the less frequentedbypaths of history, have exposed many fictions, and have often led tosome strikingly paradoxical conclusions. They have substituted forCambronne's apocryphal saying at Waterloo the blunt sarcasm of the Dukeof Wellington that there were a number of ladies at Brussels who weretermed "la vieille garde, " and of whom it was said "elles ne meurentpas et se rendent toujours. " They have led one eminent historian toapologise for the polygamous tendencies of Henry VIII. ; another toadvance the startling proposition that the "amazing" but, as the worldhas heretofore held, infamous Emperor Heliogabalus was a great religiousreformer, who was in advance of his times; a third to present LucreziaBorgia to the world as a much-maligned and very virtuous woman; and afourth to tell us that the "ever pusillanimous" Barère, as he is calledby M. Louis Madelin, was "persistently vilified and deliberatelymisunderstood. " Biographical research has, moreover, destroyed manypicturesque legends, with some of which posterity cannot part without apang of regret. We are reluctant to believe that William Tell was amythological marksman and Gessler a wholly impossible bailiff. Nevertheless the inexorable laws of evidence demand that this sacrificeshould be made on the altar of historical truth. M. Gastine has nowruthlessly quashed out another picturesque legend. Tallien--the"bristly, fox-haired" Tallien of Carlyle's historical rhapsody--and LaCabarrus--the fair Spanish Proserpine whom, "Pluto-like, he gathered atBordeaux"--have so far floated down the tide of history as individualswho, like Byron's Corsair, were

 Linked with one virtue and a thousand crimes. 

Of the crimes there could, indeed, never have been any doubt, butposterity took but little heed of them, for they were amply condoned bythe single virtue. That virtue was, indeed, of a transcendent character, for it was nothing less than the delivery of the French nation from theDahomey-like rule of that Robespierre who deluged France in blood, andwho, albeit in Fouché's words he was "terribly sincere, " at the sametime "never in his life cared for any one but himself and never forgavean offence. " Moreover, the act of delivery was associated with anepisode eminently calculated to appeal to human sentiment and sympathy. It was thought that the love of a fair woman whose life was endangeredhad nerved the lover and the patriot to perform an heroic act at theimminent risk of his own life. Hence the hero became "Le Lion Amoureux, "and the heroine was canonised as "Notre Dame de Thermidor. "

M. Gastine has now torn this legend to shreds. Under his pitilessanalysis of the facts, nothing is left but the story of a contemptibleadventurer, who was "a robber, a murderer, and a poltroon, " mated to agrasping, heartless courtesan. Both were alike infamous. The ignoblecareers of both from the cradle to the grave do not, in reality, presenta single redeeming feature. 

Madame Tallien was the daughter of François Cabarrus, a wealthySpaniard who was the banker of the Spanish Court. The great influencewhich she unquestionably exerted over her contemporaries was wholly dueto her astounding physical beauty. Her intellectual equipment was meagrein the extreme. At one period of her life she courted the society ofMadame de Staël and other intellectuals, but Princess Hélène Ligne saidof her that she "had more jargon than wit. " As regards her physicalattractions, however, no dissentient voice has ever been raised. "Herbeauty, " the Duchess d'Abrantès says in her memoirs, "of which thesculptors of antiquity give us but an incomplete idea, had a charm notmet with in the types of Greece and Rome. " Every man who approached herappears to have become her victim. Lacretelle, who himself worshipped ather shrine, says, "She appeared to most of us as the Spirit of Clemencyincarnate in the loveliest of human forms. " At a very early age shemarried a young French nobleman, the Marquis de Fontenay, from whom shewas speedily divorced. It is not known for what offence she was arrestedand imprisoned. Probably the mere fact that she was a marquise wassufficient to entangle her in the meshes of the revolutionary net. It iscertain, however, that whilst lying under sentence of death in theprison at Bordeaux she attracted the attention of Tallien, the son ofthe Marquis of Bercy's butler and _ci-devant_ lawyer's clerk, who hadblossomed into "a Terrorist of the first water. " He obtained her releaseand she became his mistress. She took advantage of the equivocal butinfluential position which she had attained to engage in a vile traffic. She and her paramour amassed a huge fortune by accepting money from theunfortunate prisoners who were threatened with the fate which she had sonarrowly escaped, and to which she was again to be exposed. The venallenity shown by Tallien to aristocrats rendered him an object ofsuspicion, whilst the marked tendency displayed by Robespierre tomistrust and, finally, to immolate his coadjutors was an ominousindication of the probable course of future events. Robespierre hadalready destroyed Vergniaud by means of Hébert, Hébert by means ofDanton, and Danton by means of Billaud. As a preliminary step to thedestruction of Tallien, he caused his mistress to be arrested, probablywith a view to seeing what evidence against her paramour could beextracted before she was herself guillotined. 

From this point in the narrative history is merged into legend. Thelegend would have us believe that on the 7th Thermidor the "CitoyenneFontenay" sent a dagger to the "Citoyen Tallien, " accompanied by aletter in which she said that she had dreamt that Robespierre was nomore, and that the gates of her prison had been flung open. "Alas!" sheadded, "thanks to your signal cowardice there will soon be no one leftin France capable of bringing such a dream to pass. " Tallien besoughtRobespierre to show mercy, but "the Incorruptible was inflexible. " Thenthe "Lion Amoureux" roared, being, as the legend relates, stricken tothe heart at the appalling danger to which his beloved mistress wasexposed or, as his detractors put the case, being in deadly fear thatthe untoward revelations of the Citoyenne might cost him his own head. The next act in this Aeschylean drama is described by the believers inthe legend in the following words: "Tallien drew Theresia's dagger fromhis breast and flashed it in the sunlight as though to nerve himself forthe desperate business that confronted him. 'This, ' he criedpassionately, 'will be my final argument, ' and looking about him to makesure he was alone he raised the blade to his lips and kissed it. "

The result, it is alleged, was that Tallien provoked the episode of the9th Thermidor (July 22, 1794). The few faltering sentences whichRobespierre wished to utter were never spoken. He was "choked by theblood of Danton, " and hurried off to the guillotine which awaited him onthe morrow. 

History, which in this instance is not legendary, relates that on thedeath of the tyrant a wild shout of exultation was raised by the joyouspeople who had for so long wandered in the Valley of the Shadow ofDeath. To whom, they asked, did they owe their liberty? What was morenatural than to assume that it was to the brave Tallien and to theloving woman who armed him to strike a blow for the freedom of France?Tallien and his mistress became, therefore, the idols of the Frenchpeople. The Chancellor Pasquier relates their appearance at a theatre:

 The enthusiasm and the applause were indescribable. The occupants of the boxes, the people in the pit, men and women alike, stood up on their chairs to look at him. It seemed as though they would never weary of gazing at him. He was young, rather good-looking, and his manner was calm and serene. Madame Tallien was at his side and shared his triumph. In her case also everything had been forgiven and forgotten. Similar scenes were enacted all through the autumn of that year. Never was any service, however great, rewarded by gratitude so lively and so touching. 

It would be impossible within the limits of the present article tosummarise the arguments by which M. Gastine seeks to destroy this myth. Allusion may, however, be made to two points of special importance. Thefirst is that neither Tallien nor the lovely Spaniard languishing inthe dungeon of La Force had much to do with the episode of the 9thThermidor. "Tallien was a mere super, a mere puppet that had to begalvanised into action up to the very last. " The man who reallyorganised the movement and persuaded his coadjutors that they wereengaged in a life and death struggle with Robespierre was he who, asevery reader of revolutionary history knows, was busily engaged inpulling the strings behind the scenes during the whole of this chaoticperiod. It was the man whose iron nerve and subtle brain enabled him, inspite of a secular course of betrayals, to keep his head on hisshoulders, and finally to escape the clutches of Napoleon, who, as LordRosebery tells us, [89] always deeply regretted that he had not had him"hanged or shot. " It was Fouché. 

In the second place, there is conclusive evidence to show that, to usethe ordinary slang expression of the present day, the celebrated daggerletter was "faked. " When Robespierre fell, Tallien never gave a thoughtto his mistress. He still trembled for his own life. "His sole aim wasto make away with Robespierre's papers. " It was only on the 12thThermidor--that is to say, two days after Robespierre's mangled head hadbeen sheared off by the guillotine--that, noting the trend of publicopinion, and appreciating the capital which might be made out of thecurrent myth, he hurried off to La Force and there concocted with hismistress the famous letter which he, of course, antedated. 

The subsequent careers of Tallien and his wife--for he married LaCabarrus in December 1794--are merely characterised by a number ofunedifying details. The hero of this sordid tale passed through manyvicissitudes. He went with Napoleon to Egypt. He was, on his returnvoyage, taken prisoner by an English cruiser. On his arrival in Londonhe was well received by Fox and the Whigs--a fact which cannot be saidto redound much to the credit either of the Whig party or its leader. Hegambled on the Stock Exchange, and at one time "blossomed out as adealer in soap, candles, and cotton bonnets. " After passing through anunhonoured old age, he died in great poverty in 1820. The heroine becameintimate with Josephine during Napoleon's absence in Egypt, wassubsequently divorced from Tallien, and later, after passing through aphase when she was the mistress of the banker Ouvrard, married thePrince of Caraman-Chimay. Her conduct during the latter years of herlife appears to have been irreproachable. She died in 1835. 

[Footnote 88: _The Life of Madame Tallien. _ By L. Gastine. Translatedfrom the French by J. Lewis May. London: John Lane. 12s. 6d. Net. ]

[Footnote 89: _The Last Phase_, p. 203. ]

XVIII

THE FUTURE OF THE CLASSICS

_"The Spectator, " July 5, 1913_

There was a time, not so very long ago, when the humanists enjoyed apractical monopoly in the domain of English education, and, by doing so, exercised a considerable, perhaps even a predominant, influence not onlyover the social life but also over the policy, both external andinternal, adopted by their countrymen. Like most monopolists, theyshowed a marked tendency to abuse the advantages of their position. Science was relegated to a position of humiliating inferiority, and hadto content itself with picking up whatever crumbs were, with a lordlyand at times almost contemptuous tolerance, allowed to fall from thehumanistic table. Bossuet once defined a heretic as "celui qui a uneopinion" (αἵρεσις). A somewhat similar attitude was at one time adoptedto those who were inclined to doubt whether a knowledge of Latin andGreek could be considered the Alpha and Omega of a sound education. Thecalm judgment of that great humanist, Professor Jebb, led him to theconclusion that the claims of the humanities have been at times defendedby pleas which were exaggerated and paradoxical--using this latter termin the sense of arguments which contain an element of truth, but oftruth which has been distorted--and that in an age remarkable beyond allprevious ages for scientific research and discoveries, that nation mustnecessarily lag behind which, in the well-known words uttered by Gibbonat a time when science was still in swaddling-clothes, fears that the"finer feelings" are destroyed if the mind becomes "hardened by thehabit of rigid demonstration. " All this has now been changed. ProfessorHuxley did not live in vain. His mantle fell on the shoulders of manyother doughty champions who shared his views. Science no longer slinksmodestly in educational bypaths, but occupies the high road, and, to saythe least, marches abreast of her humanistic sister. Yet the scientistsare not yet content. Their souls are athirst for further victories. Ahigh authority on education, himself a classical scholar, [90] hasrecently told us that, although the English boy "as he emerges from thecrucible of the public school laboratory" may be a fairly good agentfor dealing with the "lower or more submissive races in the wilds ofAfrica or in the plains of India, " elsewhere--notably in Canada--he is"a conspicuous failure"; that one of the principal reasons why he is afailure is that "the influence of the humanists still reigns over us";and that "the future destiny of the Empire is wrapt up in the immediatereform of England's educational system. " In the course of that reform, which it is proposed should be of a very drastic character, somehalf-hearted efforts may conceivably be made to effect the salvage ofwhatever will remain of the humanistic wreck, but the real motto of thereformers will almost certainly be Utilitarianism, writ large. Thehumanists, therefore, are placed on their defence. It may be that thewalls of their entrenchment, which have already been a good dealbattered, will fall down altogether, and that the garrison will be askedto submit to a capitulation which will be almost unconditional. 

In the midst of the din of battle which may already be heard, and whichwill probably ere long become louder, it seems very desirable that thevoices of those who are neither profound scholars nor accomplishedscientists nor educational experts should be heard. These--and there aremany such--ask, What is the end which we should seek to attain? Canscience alone be trusted to prevent education becoming, in the words ofthat sturdy old pagan, Thomas Love Peacock, a "means for giving a fixeddirection to stupidity"? The answer they, or many of them, give to thesequestions is that the main end of education is to teach people to think, and that they are not prepared to play false to their own intellects tosuch an extent as to believe that the national power of thinking willnot be impaired if it is deprived of the teaching of the most thoughtfulnation which the world has ever known. That nation is Greece. Theseclasses, therefore, lift up their hands in supplication to scientists, educational experts, and parliamentarians--yea, even to soullesswire-pullers who would perhaps willingly cast Homer and Sophocles to thedogs in order to win a contested election--and with one voice cry: Werecognise the need of reform; we wish to march with the times; we are noenemies to science; but in the midst of your utilitarian ideas, weimplore you, in the name both of learning and common sense, to devisesome scheme which will still enable the humanities to act as some checkon the growing materialism of the age; otherwise the last stage of theeducated youth of this country will be worse than the first; rememberwhat Lucretius--on the bold assumption that wire-pullers ever readLucretius--said, "Hic Acherusia stultorum denique vita"; above allthings, let there be no panic legislation--and panic is a danger towhich democracies and even, Pindar has told us, "the sons of thegods, "[91] are greatly exposed; in taking any new departure let us, therefore, very carefully and deliberately consider how we can bestpreserve all that is good in our existing system. 

Whatever temporary effect appeals of this sort may produce, it iscertain that the ultimate result must depend very greatly on the extentto which a real interest in classical literature can be kept alive inthe minds of the rising and of future generations. How can this objectbest be achieved? The question is one of vital importance. 

The writer of the present article would be the last to attempt to raisea cheap laugh at the expense of that laborious and, as it may appear tosome, almost useless erudition which, for instance, led ProfessorHermann to write four books on the particle ἄν and to indite a learneddissertation on αὐτός. The combination of industry and enthusiasmdisplayed in efforts such as these has not been wasted. The spirit whichinspired them has materially contributed to the real stock of valuableknowledge which the world possesses. None the less it must be admittedthat something more than mere erudition is required to conjure away theperils which the humanities now have to face. It is necessary to quickenthe interest of the rising generation, to show them that it is not onlyhistorically true to say, with Lessing, that "with Greece the morningbroke, " but that it is equally true to maintain that in what may, relatively speaking, be called the midday splendour of learning, wecannot dispense with the guiding light of the early morn; that Greekliterature, in Professor Gilbert Murray's words, [92] is "an embodimentof the progressive spirit, an expression of the struggle of the humansoul towards freedom and ennoblement"; and that our young men and womenwill be, both morally and intellectually, the poorer if they listen tothe insidious and deceptive voice of an exaggerated materialism whichwhispers that amidst the hum of modern machinery and the heated wranglesincident to the perplexing problems which arise as the world growsolder, the knowledge of a language and a literature which have survivedtwo thousand eight hundred storm-tossed years is "of no practical use. "

It is this interest which the works of a man like the late Dr. Verrallserve to stimulate. He was eminently fitted for the task. On theprinciple which Dr. Johnson mocked by saying that "who drives fat oxenshould himself be fat, " it may be said that an advocate of humanisticlearning should himself be human in the true and Terentian meaning ofthat somewhat ambiguous word. This is what Verrall was. All who knew himspeak of his lovable character, and others who were in this respect lessfavoured can judge of the genuineness of his human sympathies byapplying two well-nigh infallible tests. He loved children, and he wasimbued with what Professor Mackail very appropriately calls in hiscommemorative address "a delightful love of nonsense. " His kindly andgenial humour sparkles, indeed, in every line he wrote. Moreover, whether he was right or wrong in the highly unconventional views whichhe at times expressed, his scorn for literary orthodoxy was in itselfvery attractive. Whenever he found what he called a "boggle"--that is tosay an incident or a phrase in respect to which, he was dissatisfiedwith the conventional explanation--"he could not rest until he had madean effort to get to the bottom of it. " He treated old subjects with anoriginality which rejuvenated them, and decked them again with the charmof novelty. He bade us, with a copy of Martial in our hands, accompanyhim to the Coliseum and be, in imagination, one of the sixty thousandspectators who thronged to behold the strange Africans, Sarmatians, andothers who are gathered together from the four quarters of the Romanworld to take part in the Saturnalia. He asked us to watch withPropertius whilst the slumbers of his Cynthia were disturbed by dreamsthat she was flying from one of her all too numerous lovers. Under histreatment, Mr. Cornford says, the most commonplace passages in classicalliterature "began to glow with passion and to flash with wit. " His mainliterary achievement is thus recorded on the tablet erected to hismemory at Trinity College: "Euripidis famam vindicavit. " He threwhimself with ardour into the discussion on the merits and demerits ofthe Greek tragedian which has been going on ever since it was originallystarted by Aristophanes, and he may at least be said to have shown thatwhat French Boileau said of his own poetry applies with equal force tothe Greek--"Mon vers, bien ou mal, dit toujours quelque chose. " In theprocess of rehabilitating Euripides, Verrall threw out brilliantlyoriginal ideas in every direction. Take, for instance, his treatment ofthe _Ion_. Every one who has dabbled in Greek literature knows thatEuripides was a free-thinker, albeit in his old age he did lip-serviceto the current theology of the day, and told the Athenians that theyshould not "apply sophistry, " or, in other words rationalise, about thegods. [93] Every one also has rather marvelled at the somewhat lame andimpotent conclusion of the play when Athene--herself in reality one ofthe most infamous of the Olympian deities--is brought on the stage tosave the prestige of the oracle at Delphi and to explain away thealtogether disreputable behaviour of the no less infamous Apollo. But noone before Verrall had thought of coupling together the free-thinkingand the episode in the play. This is what Verrall did. Ion sees that theoracle can lie, and, therefore, "Delphi is plainly discredited as afountain of truth. " The explanation is, of course, somewhat conjectural. Homer, who was certainly not a free-thinker, made his deitiessufficiently ridiculous, and, at times, altogether odious. Mr. Lang sayswith truth: "When Homer touches on the less lovable humours of women--onthe nagging shrew, the light o' love, the rather bitter virgin--heselects his examples from the divine society of the gods. "[94] Butwhether the very plausible conjectures made by Verrall as to the realpurpose of Euripides in his treatment of the oracle in _Ion_, or, toquote another instance, his explanation of the phantom in _Helen_, beright or wrong, no one can deny that what he wrote is alive withinterest. On this point, the testimony of his pupils, albeit in somerespects contradictory, is conclusive. One of them (Mr. Marsh) says: "Iwas usually convinced by everything, " whilst another (Mr. J. R. M. Butler)says: "I don't think we believed very much what he said; he always saidhe was as likely to be wrong as right. But he made all classics sogloriously new and living. He made us criticise by standards of commonsense, and presume that the tragedians were not fools and that they didmean something. They were not to be taken as antiques privileged to useconventions that would be nonsense in any one else. "

Classical learning will not be kept alive for long by forcing young menwith perhaps a taste for science or the integral calculus to applythemselves to the study of Aristotle or Sophocles. The real hope for thehumanities in the future lies in the teaching of such men as Butcher, Verrall, Gilbert Murray, Dill, Bevan, Livingstone, Zimmern, and, it mayfortunately be said, many others, who can make the literature of theancient world and the personalities of its inhabitants live in the eyesof the present generation. 

[Footnote 90: _The Public Schools and the Empire_. By D. H. B. Gray. ]

[Footnote 91: Ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδεςθεῶν. --_Nem. _ ix. 27. ]

[Footnote 92: _Rise of the Greek Epic_, p. 3. ]

[Footnote 93: Οὐδὲν σοφιζόμεσθα τοῖσι δαίμοσι. --_Bacchae_, 200. ]

[Footnote 94: _The World of Homer_, p. 34. ]

XIX

AN INDIAN IDEALIST[95]

_"The Spectator, " July 12, 1913_

Amidst the jumble of political shibboleths, mainly drawn from thevocabulary of extreme Radical sentimentalists, which Mr. Mallik suppliesto his readers in rich abundance, two may be selected which give thekeynote to his opinions. The first, which is inscribed on thetitle-page, is St. Paul's statement to the Athenians that all nations ofmen are of one blood. The second, which occurs towards the close of hiswork, is that "sane Imperialism is political Idealism. " Both statementsare paradoxical. Both contain a germ of truth. In both cases an extremeapplication of the principle involved would lead to dire consequences. The first aphorism leads us to the unquestionably sound conclusion thatNewton, equally with a pygmy from the forests of Central Africa, was ahuman being. It does not take us much further. The second aphorism bidsus remember that the statesman who is incapable of conceiving andattempting to realise an ideal is a mere empiricist, but it omits tomention that if this same statesman, in pursuit of his ideal, neglectsall his facts and allows himself to become an inhabitant of a politicalCloud Cuckoo-land, he will certainly ruin his own reputation, and maynot improbably inflict very great injury upon the country and peoplewhich form the subject of his crude experiments. On the whole, if we areto apply that proverbial philosophy which is so dear to the mind of allEuropeanised Easterns to the solution of political problems, it willperhaps be as well to bear constantly in mind the excellent Sanskritmaxim which, amidst a collection of wise saws, Mr. Mallik quotes in hisfinal chapter, "A wise man thinks of both _pro_ and _con_. "

Starting with a basis of somewhat extreme idealism, it is not surprisingthat Mr. Mallik has developed not only into an ardent Indiannationalist, but also into an advanced Indian Radical. As to the lattercharacteristic, he manifestly does not like the upper classes of his owncountry. They are, in fact, as bad or even worse than English peers. They are "like the 'idle rich' elsewhere; they squander annually inluxuries and frivolities huge sums of money, besides hoarding upjewels, gold and silver of immense value. " Occasionally, they pose as"upholders of the Government. " "Even so they do not conceal their fangs. When small measures of conciliation have in recent times been proposed, the 'Peers' in India have not been slow to proclaim through their organsthat the Government were rousing their suspicion. "

Turning, however, to the relations between Europe and Asia, Mr. Malliksays that it is often asserted that the two continents "cannotunderstand each other--that Asia is a mystery to Europe, and must alwaysremain so. " Most people who have considered this subject have so farthought that the main reason why Europeans find it difficult tounderstand Asia is because, in some matters, Asia is difficult tounderstand. They have, therefore, been deeply grateful to men like thelate Sir Alfred Lyall, who have endeavoured with marked ability andsympathy to explain the mystery to them. But Mr. Mallik now explains tous that no such gratitude is due, for the reason why Asia is so oftenmisunderstood is not on account of any difficulties attendant oncomprehension, but because those who have paid special attention to thesubject are "persons whose nature or training or self-interest leadsthem not to wish the understanding to take place. " Whether Mr. Mallikhas done much to lighten the prevailing darkness and to explain the Eastto the West is perhaps somewhat doubtful, but it is quite certain thathe has done his utmost to explain to those of his countrymen who areconversant with the English language the attitude which, in his opinion, they should adopt towards Westerns and Western civilisation. In one ofthe sweeping generalities in which his work abounds, Mr. Mallik sayswith great truth, that "however manners may differ . .. Nothing is gainedby nursing a feeling of animosity. " It is to be regretted that Mr. Mallik has not himself acted on the wise principle which he hereenunciates. He has, however, not done so. Under the familiar garb of afriend who indulges in an excess of candour he has made a number ofobservations which, whether true or false, are eminently calculated toinflame that racial animosity which it is the duty of every well-wisherof India to endeavour by every means in his power to allay. He makes alengthy and elaborate comparison between East and West, in which everyplague-spot in European civilisation is carefully catalogued. Everyulcer in Western life is probed. Every possible sore in the connectionbetween the European and Asiatic is made to rankle. On the other hand, with the cries of the Christians massacred at Adana still ringing inour ears, Mr. Mallik, forgetful apparently of the fact that the Turk isan Asian, tells us that "Asia, typical of the East, looks upon all racesand creeds with absolute impartiality, " and, further, that "gentlenessand consideration are the peculiar characteristics of the East, asoverbearing and rudeness, miscalled independence, and not unfrequentlydeserving to be called insolence, are products of the West. "

But it is the word Imperialism which more especially excites Mr. Mallik's wrath. In the first place, he altogether denies the existenceof an "imperial race, " being convinced of its non-existence by thestrangely inconclusive argument that "if a race is made by natureimperial, every member of that race must be imperial too and equallyable to rule. " In the second place, he points out that the results whichflow from the Imperial idea are in all respects deplorable. The East had"always believed that mankind could be made saints and philosophers, "but the West, represented by Imperialism, stepped in and "shattered itsbelief. " The West, as shown by the deference now paid to Japan, "valuesthe bloodthirsty propensities much more than humane activities. " "Theexpressed desire of the Imperialist is to let darkness flourish in orderthat he may personally benefit by it. .. . Empire and Imperialism meanthe triumph of retrograde notions and the infliction of insult andsuffering on three hundred millions of human beings. " It is thisImperial policy which has led to the most gross injustice beinginflicted on every class of the community in India. As regards the civilservices, "the policy of fat pay, ease, perquisites, and praise are theshare of the European officers, and hard work and blame that of theIndian rank and file. " It is the same in the army. "In frontier wars theIndian troops have had to bear the brunt of the fighting, the Europeanportion being 'held in reserve' and coming up at the end to receive allthe glory of victory and the consequent rewards. " It is sometimes saidthat the masses in India trust Englishmen more than their owncountrymen. That this statement is erroneous is clearly proved by "theabsence of interest of the rulers themselves in the moral and materialadvancement of the poorer classes. " Not content with uttering thisprodigious falsehood, Mr. Mallik adds a further and fouler calumny. Healludes to the rudeness at times displayed by Englishmen towards thenatives of India--a feature in Indian social life which everyright-thinking Englishman will be prepared to condemn as strongly as Mr. Mallik. But, not content with indicating the evil, Mr. Mallik allegesthat any special act of insolence perpetrated by an Indian officialmeets with the warm approval of the Government. Promotion, he says, is"usual in such cases. " Again, Mr. Mallik's dislike and distrust ofMoslems crops up whenever he alludes to them. Nevertheless, he does nothesitate to denounce that Government whose presence alone prevents anoutbreak of sectarian strife for "sedulously fomenting" religiousanimosities with a view to arresting the Nationalist movement. Similarly, the constitution of the Universities has been changed with aview to rendering the youth of India "stupid and servile" instead of"clever and patriotic. "

Moreover, whilst India, under the sway of Imperialism, is "drifting toits doom, " Mr. Mallik seems to fear that a somewhat similar fate awaitsEngland. He observes many symptoms of decay to which, for the most part, Englishmen are blind. He greatly fears that "the liberties of the peopleare not safe when the Tory Party continues in power for a long period. "Neither is the prospect of Liberal ascendancy much less gloomy. Liberalsare becoming "Easternised. " They are getting "more and more leavened byreaction imported from India. " It really looks as if "English Liberalismmight soon sink to a pious tradition. " In the meanwhile, Mr. Mallik, with true Eastern proclivities, warmly admires that portion of theEnglish system which Englishmen generally tolerate as a necessary evil, but of which they are by no means proud. Most thinking men in thiscountry resent the idea of Indian interests being made a shuttlecock inthe strife of party. Not so Mr. Mallik. He shudders at the idea ofIndian affairs being considered exclusively on their own merits. "If itis no party's duty to champion the cause of any part of the Empire, thatpart must be made over to Satan, or retained, like a convict settlement, for the breeding of 'Imperial' ideas. " He is himself quite prepared toadopt an ultra-partisan attitude. In spite of his evident dislike to thenomination of any Englishman to take part in the administration ofIndia, he warmly applauds the appointment of "a young and able official"to the Viceroy's Council, because he was "associated with a greatLiberal Minister of the Crown. "

It is not quite clear what, beyond a manifestation of that sympathywhich his own writings are so well calculated to alienate, Mr. Mallikreally wants. He thinks that there is "perhaps some truth" in theassertion that the "Aryans of India are not yet fit forself-government, " and he says that "wise Indians do not claim at oncethe political institutions that Europeans have gained by a long courseof struggle and training, the value of which in advancing happiness isnot yet always perceptible in Europe. " On the other hand, he appears tobe of opinion that the somewhat sweeping reforms recently inaugurated byLord Morley and Lord Minto do not go far enough. The only practicalproposals he makes are, first, that the old _punchayet_ system in everyvillage should be revived, and that a consultative assembly should becreated, whose functions "should be wholly social and religious, political topics being out of its jurisdiction. " He adds--and there needbe no hesitation in cordially accepting his view on this point--that the"plan would have to be carefully thought out" before it is adopted. 

The problem of how to govern India is very difficult, and isunquestionably becoming more and more so every year. Although many ofthe slanders uttered by Mr. Mallik are very contemptible, it is uselessto ignore the fact that they are believed not only by a large number ofthe educated youth of India, of which he may perhaps to some extent beconsidered a type, but also by many of their English sympathisers. Moreover, in spite of much culpable misstatement and exaggeration, Mr. Mallik may have occasionally blundered unawares into making someobservations which are deserving of some slight consideration on theirown merits. The only wise course for English statesmen to adopt is topossess their souls in patience, to continue to govern India in the bestinterests of its inhabitants, and to avoid on the one hand the extremeof repressive measures, and on the other hand the equally dangerousextreme of premature and drastic reform in the fundamental institutionsof the country. In the meanwhile, it may be noted that literature suchas Mr. Mallik's book can do no good, and may do much harm. 

[Footnote 95: _Orient and Occident_. By Manmath C. Mallik. London: T. Fisher Unwin. 10s. 6d. ]

XX

THE FISCAL QUESTION IN INDIA

_"The Spectator, " July 19, 1913_

Sir Roper Lethbridge says that his object in writing the book which hehas recently published (_The Indian Offer of Imperial Preference_) is toprovoke discussion, but "not to lay down any dogma. " It is related thata certain clergyman, after he had preached a sermon, said to LordMelbourne, who had been one of his congregation, "I tried not to betedious, " to which Lord Melbourne replied, "You were. " Sir RoperLethbridge may have tried not to dogmatise, but his efforts in thisdirection have certainly not been crowned with success. On the contrary, although dealing with a subject which bristles with points of a highlycontroversial nature, he states his conclusions with an assurance whichis little short of oracular. Heedless of the woful fate which hasattended many of the fiscal seers who have preceded him, he does nothesitate to pronounce the most confident prophecies upon a subject as towhich experience has proved that prophecy is eminently hazardous, viz. The economic effect likely to be produced by drastic changes in thefiscal system. Moreover, his pages are disfigured by a good deal ofcommonplace invective about "the shibboleths of an obsolete Cobdenism, "the "worship of the fetish of Cobdenism, " and "the bigotry of the CobdenClub, " as to whom the stale fallacy is repeated that they "consider thewell-being of the 'poor foreigner'" rather than "our own commercialinterests. " Language of this sort can only serve to irritate. It cannotconvince. Sir Roper Lethbridge appears to forget that, apart from thosewho, on general party grounds, are little inclined to listen to thegospel which he has to preach, there are a large number of Unionists whoare to a greater extent open to conviction, and who, if their conversioncan be effected, are, in the interests of the cause which he advocates, well worth convincing. These blemishes--for blemishes theyunquestionably are--should not, however, blind us to the fact that SirRoper Lethbridge deals with a subject of very great importance and alsoof very great difficulty. It is most desirable that it should bediscussed. Sir Fleetwood Wilson, in the very statesmanlike speechdelivered in the Indian Legislative Council last March, indicated thespirit in which the discussion should take place. "The subject, " hesaid, "is one which in the public interest calls for consideration, notrecrimination. " It would be Utopian to suppose that it can be keptaltogether outside the arena of party strife, but those who are notuncompromising partisans, and who also strongly deprecate Indianquestions being made the shuttlecock of party interests, can at allevents endeavour to approach the question with an open mind and to treatit dispassionately and exclusively on its own merits. 

The main issue involved may be broadly stated in the following terms. Upto the present time the fiscal policy of the Indian Government has beenbased on Free Trade principles. Customs duties are collected for revenuepurposes. A general 5 per cent _ad valorem_ duty is imposed on imports. Cotton goods pay a duty of 3½ per cent. An excise duty of a similaramount is imposed on cotton woven at Indian mills. A duty of three annasa maund is paid on exported rice. Sir Roper Lethbridge and those whoconcur with him now propose that this system should undergo a radicalchange. The main features of their proposal, if the writer of thepresent article understands them correctly, seem to be that the duty oncotton goods imported from the United Kingdom, as also thecorresponding excise duty levied in India, should be altogetherabolished; that the duties raised on goods--apparently of alldescriptions--imported into India from non-British ports should beraised; that a preference should be accorded in British ports to Indiantea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, etc. ; and that an export duty should belevied at Indian ports on certain products, notably on jute and lac. This new duty would not, however, be levied on goods sent to the UnitedKingdom. 

There does not appear to be any absolute necessity for dealing with thisquestion at once, but Sir Roper Lethbridge is quite justified in callingattention to it, for it is not only conceivable, but even probable, thatat no very remote period the Government of India will have to deal witha problem which, it may readily be admitted, will tax theirstatesmanship to the very utmost. It is no exaggeration to say thatsince the Crown took over the direct management of Indian affairs noissue of greater magnitude has been raised. Moreover, although LordCrewe had an easy task in showing that in some respects the difficultiesattendant on any solution would be enhanced rather than diminished ifthe fiscal policy of the British Government in the United Kingdomunderwent a radical change, it is none the less true that thosedifficulties will remain of a very formidable character even if no suchchange is effected. 

It is essential to bear in mind that the difficulties which beset thisquestion are not solely fiscal, but also political. This feature isalmost invariably characteristic of Oriental finance, and nowhere is itmore prominent than in India. The writer of the present article canspeak with some special knowledge of the circumstances attendant on thegreat Free Trade measures introduced in India under the auspices of LordRipon. He can state very confidently that, although Lord Ripon and allthe leading members of his Government were convinced Free Traders, itwas the political to a far greater extent than the fiscal argumentswhich led them to the conclusion that the Indian Customs barriers shouldbe abolished. They foresaw that the rival commercial interests of Indiaand Lancashire would cause a rankling and persistent sore which might doinfinite political harm. They wished, therefore, to apply a timelyremedy, and it cannot be doubted that, so long as it lasted, the remedywas effective. In most respects the fiscal policy adopted then and thatnow advocated by Sir Roper Lethbridge and his coadjutors are the polesasunder. Nevertheless, in one respect they coincide. Sir RoperLethbridge places in the forefront of his proposals the abolition bothof the import duty on cotton goods and the corresponding excise dutylevied in India. He is unquestionably right. That is an ideal which bothFree Traders and Protectionists may very reasonably seek to attain. Itis, in fact, the only really satisfactory solution of the main point atissue. The difficulty is to realise this ideal without doing more thanan equivalent amount of injury to Indian interests in other directions. 

The chief arguments by which Sir Roper Lethbridge defends the specialproposals which he advances are three in number. They are (1) that thenascent industries of India require protection; (2) that it is necessaryto raise more revenue, and that the suggestions now made afford anunobjectionable method for achieving this object; and (3) that theeconomic facts connected with India afford special facilities for theadoption of a policy of retaliation. 

From a purely economic point of view the first of these three pleas issingularly inconclusive. 

It was refuted by Sir Fleetwood Wilson, whom both Mr. AustenChamberlain, in the introduction which he has written to Sir RoperLethbridge's book, and Sir Roper Lethbridge himself seem to regard, ongrounds which are apparently somewhat insufficient, as a partial convertto their views. It may be said without exaggeration that if any countryin the world is likely to benefit by the adoption of Free Tradeprinciples that country is India. Industries cannot, as Sir FleetwoodWilson very truly said, be "encouraged" by means of a protective tariffwithout raising home prices. Without going over all the well-troddenground on this subject, which must be familiar to all who have takenpart in the fiscal controversy, and without, moreover, denying thatnascent industries have in some countries been successfully encouragedby the adoption of a protective system, it will be sufficient to saythat, looking at all the economic facts existent in India, the period ofpartial transition from agriculture to industries, during which theprocess of encouragement will have to be maintained, will almostcertainly last much longer than even in America or Germany, and thatduring the whole of that lengthy period the mass of the population, whoare very poor and who are engaged in agricultural pursuits, will notbenefit from the protection, although they will at the same time suffergrievously from the rise in prices. 

The main importance of this argument, however, is not to be derived fromits economic value, but rather from the important political fact that itis one which finds favour with a large and influential body of Indianopinion. Sir Roper Lethbridge claims that the leaders of Indian thoughtare almost to a man Protectionists, and in his work he gives, as anexample of their views, the very able speech delivered by Sir GangadharChitnavis in the Calcutta Legislative Council last March. [96] He isprobably right; neither is anything to be gained by ignoring the gravityof the situation which is thus created. Whether the IndianProtectionists be right or wrong as to the fiscal policy which is bestadapted to Indian interests, there is no denying the fact that withProtection flourishing in the self-governing colonies, with the recentenlargement of the scope and functions of representative institutions inIndia, and with the grievance created by the sacrifice of the opiumrevenue on the altar of British vicarious philanthropy, it is a seriousmatter for the British Government to assert their own views if thoseviews run diametrically counter to the wishes expressed by the onlyrepresentatives of Indian opinion who are in a position to make theirvoices heard. Nevertheless, there are two limitations on the extent towhich concessions can or ought to be made to Indian opinion. The firstis based on the necessities of English internal politics. It cannot bedoubted that although Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis and those who agree withhim may perhaps be willing, as a _pis aller_, to accept Sir RoperLethbridge's preferential plan, what they really want is not Preferencebut Protection against England, and this they cannot have, because, inSir Roper Lethbridge's words, "no British Government that offered IndiaProtection against Lancashire would live for a week. " The secondlimitation is based on less egotistical and, therefore, nobler grounds. In spite of recent concessions, India is still, politically speaking, _in statu pupillari_, neither do the concessions recently made in thedirection of granting self-governing institutions dispense the BritishGovernment from the duty of looking to the interests of the masses, whoare at present very inadequately represented. It must be remembered thatin India, perhaps even more than elsewhere, the voice of the consumer ishushed, whilst that of the producer is loud and strident. 

The second of Sir Roper Lethbridge's arguments is based on the allegednecessity of raising more revenue. He, as also Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis, take it for granted that this necessity has already arisen. It would beessential, before taking any practical steps to give effect to theproposals now under discussion, to ascertain beyond any manner of doubtwhether this statement is correct, and also, if correct, whatalternatives exist to the plan proposed by Sir Roper Lethbridge. SirFleetwood Wilson carefully abstained from pledging himself to theaccuracy of Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis's view on this point. "There is, " hesaid, "much room for the development of India's other resources, and ithas yet to be shown that there is no room for further economies in ouradministration. " In the meanwhile, it would tend to the elucidation ofthe subject if Sir Roper Lethbridge and those who agree with him wouldlay before the world a carefully prepared and detailed estimate of thefinancial results which they consider would accrue from the adoption oftheir proposals. We are told, for instance, that raw jute to the valueof £13, 000, 000 is exported annually from Bengal, of which only£3, 000, 000 worth is worked up in Great Britain, and that "a moderateduty" on this article would produce two millions a year. The prospect ofobtaining a revenue of £2, 000, 000 in the manner proposed by Sir RoperLethbridge appears at first sight somewhat illusory. In the first place, the tax would, on the basis of Sir Roper Lethbridge's figures, amount to20 per cent, which can scarcely be called "moderate. " In the secondplace, unless an equivalent export duty were imposed at British portsit would appear probable that the process of re-export for the benefitof "the lucky artisans of foreign protected nations" would not merelycontinue unchecked, but would even be encouraged, for those artisanswould certainly not be supplied direct from India with the duty-ladenraw material, but would draw their supplies from the jute sent to theports of the United Kingdom, which would have paid no duty. Is it, moreover, quite certain that a duty such as that proposed by Sir RoperLethbridge would be insufficient, as he alleges, "to bring in anycompeting fibres in the world"? These and other cognate pointsmanifestly require further elucidation. 

The third argument adduced by Sir Roper Lethbridge is based on theallegation that India is in a specially favourable position to adopt apolicy of retaliation. It is unnecessary to go into the generalarguments for and against retaliatory duties. They have been exhaustedin the very remarkable and frigidly impartial book written on thissubject by Professor Dietzel. It will be sufficient to say that here SirRoper Lethbridge is on stronger ground. The main argument againstretaliation in the United Kingdom is that foreign nations, by stoppingour supplies of raw material, could check our manufactures. We are, therefore, in a singularly unfavourable position for engaging in atariff war. The case of India is wholly different. Foreign nationscannot, it is alleged, dispense with the raw material which Indiasupplies. There is, therefore, a good _prima facie_ case for supposingthat India has relatively little to fear from retaliation on their part. 

It would be impossible within the limits of the present article to dealfully with all the aspects of this vitally important question. Attentionmay, however, be drawn to the very weighty remarks of Sir FleetwoodWilson when he speaks of "the great alteration which a tariff war inIndia would effect in the balance of our trade, in the arrangements thatnow exist for the payment of our external debt, and in the whole of ourexchange policy. This aspect of the question is one of extraordinarycomplexity, as well as of no small speculation. " On the whole, althoughthe proposals made by Sir Roper Lethbridge and his associates deservefull and fair consideration, it is most earnestly to be hoped that partyleaders in this country will insist on their elaboration in full detail, and will then study every aspect of the question with the utmost carebefore giving even a qualified pledge to afford them support. Thesituation is already sufficiently difficult and complicated. It is notimprobable that the difficulties and complications, far from beingmitigated, would be increased by the pursuit into the economicwilderness of the _ignis fatuus_ involved in the idea that it ispossible for a nation to impose a tax on itself and then make theinhabitants of other countries pay the whole or the greater part of it. 

[Footnote 96: It may be noted that Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis's idea ofPreference differs widely from that entertained by Sir Roper Lethbridge. The former apparently wishes to abolish the excise duty on Indian cottongoods, but to maintain that levied on similar goods imported from theUnited Kingdom, whilst levying a still higher duty on goods from othercountries. ]

XXI

ROME AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT[97]

_"The Spectator, " July 19, 1913_

In spite of the obvious danger of establishing doubtful analogies and ofmaking insufficient allowance for differences, the history of ImperialRome can never cease to be of more than academic interest to thestatesmen and politicians of Imperial England. Rome bequeathed to usmuch that is of inestimable value, both in the way of precept andexample. She also bequeathed to us a word of ill omen--the word"Imperialism. " The attempt to embody the broad outlines of a policy in asingle word or phrase has at times exercised great influence in decidingthe fate of nations. M. Vandal[98] says with truth, "Nul ne comprendrala Révolution s'il ne tient compte de l'extraordinaire empire exercé àcette époque par les mots et les formules. " Imperialism, thoughinfinitely preferable to its quasi-synonym Caesarism, is, in fact, aterm which, although not absolutely incorrect, is at the same time, byreason of its historical associations, misleading when applied to themild and beneficent hegemony exercised by the rulers and people ofEngland over their scattered transmarine dominions. It affords aconvenient peg on which hostile critics, such as Mr. Mallik, whose workwas reviewed last week in these columns, [99] as also thoseultra-cosmopolitan Englishmen who are the friends of every country buttheir own, may hang partisan homilies dwelling on the brutality ofconquest and on all the harsh features of alien rule, whilst they leavesedulously in the background that aspect of the case which Polybius, parodying a famous saying of Themistocles, embodied in a phrase which heattributes to the Greeks after they had been absorbed into the RomanEmpire, "If we had not been quickly ruined, we should not have beensaved. " This pessimistic aspect of Imperialism has certainly to someextent an historical basis. It is founded on the procedure generallybelieved to have been adopted in the process by which Rome acquired thedominion of the world. The careful attention given of late years to thestudy of inscriptions, and generally the results obtained by theco-operation established between historians and those who have moreespecially studied other branches of science, such as archaeology, epigraphy, and numismatics, have, however, now enabled us to approachthe question of Roman expansion with far greater advantages than thosepossessed by writers even so late as the days of Mommsen. We are able toreply with a greater degree of confidence than at any previous period tothe question of how far Roman policy was really associated with thoseprinciples and practices which many are accustomed to designate asImperial. The valuable and erudite work which Mr. Reid has now given tothe world comes opportunely to remind us of a very obvious andcommonplace consideration. It is that although Roman expansion not onlybegan, but was far advanced during the days of the Republic, RomanImperialism did not exist before the creation of Roman Emperors, and didnot in any considerable degree develop the vices generally, andsometimes rightly, attributed to the system until some while afterRepublican had given way to Imperial sway. "The residuary impression ofthe ancient world, " Mr. Reid says in his preface, "left by a classicaleducation comprises commonly the idea that the Romans ran, so to speak, a sort of political steam-roller over the ancient world. This has asemblance of truth for the period of decline, but none for the earlierdays. "

The fundamental idea which ran through the whole of Roman policy duringthe earliest, which was also the wisest and most statesmanlike stage ofexpansion, was not any desire to ensure the detailed and directgovernment of a number of outlying districts from one all-powerfulcentre, but rather to adopt every possible means calculated to maintainlocal autonomy, and to minimise the interference of the centralauthority. Herself originally a city-state, Rome aspired to become thepredominant partner in a federation of municipalities, to which autonomywas granted even to the extent of waiving that prerogative which hasgenerally been considered the distinctive mark of sovereignty, viz. Theright of coinage. Broadly speaking, the only conditions imposed werevery similar to those now forming the basis of the relations between theBritish Government and the Native States of India. These were (1) thatthe various commonwealths should keep the peace between each other; and(2) that their foreign policy should be dictated by Rome. It is oftentacitly assumed, Mr. Reid says, that "in dealing with conquered peoples, the Romans were animated from the first by a passion for immediatedomination and for grinding uniformity. " This idea is not merely false;it is the very reverse of the truth. The most distinctive feature ofRoman rule during the early period of expansion was its marvellouselasticity and pliability. Everywhere local customs were scrupulouslyrespected. Everywhere the maintenance of whatever autonomousinstitutions existed at the time of conquest was secured. Everywhere theallies were treated with what the Greeks termed ἐπιμέλεια, which may berendered into English by the word "consideration. " Nowhere was the fatalmistake made of endeavouring to stamp out by force a local language ordialect, whilst until the Romans were brought into contact with thestubborn monotheism of the Jews, the easy-going pantheistic ideascurrent in the ancient world readily obviated the occurrence of anyserious difficulties based on religious belief or ritual. 

That this system produced results which were, from a political point ofview, eminently satisfactory cannot for a moment be doubted. Mr. Reidsays--and it were well that those who are interested in the cause ofBritish Imperial Federation should note the remark--"In history thelightest bonds have often proved to be the strongest. " The looselycompacted alliance of the Italic states withstood all the efforts ofHannibal to rend it asunder. The Roman system, in fact, created a doublepatriotism, that which attached itself to the locality, and that whichbroadened out into devotion to the metropolis. Neither was the oneallegiance destructive of the other. When Ennius made his famous boasthe did not mean that he spurned Rudiae and that he would for the futurelook exclusively to Rome as his mother-country, but rather that both thesmaller and the larger patriotism would continue to exist side by side. "English local life, " it has been truly said, "was the source andsafeguard of English liberty. "[100] It may be said with equal truth thatthe notion of constituting self-governing town communities as the basisof Empire, which, Mr. Reid tells us, "was deeply ingrained in the Romanconsciousness, " stood Rome in good stead during some of the most stormyperiods of her history. The process of voluntary Romanisation was sospeedy that the natives of any province which, to use the Romanexpression, had been but recently "pacated, " became in a very short timeloyal and zealous Roman subjects, and rarely if ever took advantage ofdistress elsewhere to vindicate their independence by seeking to castoff the light shackles which had been imposed on them. 

"So long as municipal liberty maintained its vigour, the empireflourished. " This is the fundamental fact to be borne in mind indealing with the history of Roman expansion. Mr. Reid then takes us, step by step and province by province, through the pitiful history ofsubsequent deterioration and decay. After the Hannibalic war, Romanhegemony in Italy began to pass into domination. A policy of unwiseexclusion applied to the federated states and cities, coupled with theassertion of irritating privileges on behalf of Roman citizens, led tothe cataclysm of the Great Social War, at the close of which burgessrights were reluctantly conceded to all Italic communities who had notjoined the rebels. Then followed the era of the great Julius, whoprobably--though of this we cannot be quite certain--wished to create a"world-state" with Rome as its head; Augustus, to whose genius andadministrative ability tardy justice is now being done, and who, albeithe continued the policy of his uncle, possibly leant rather more to theidea, realised eighteen centuries later by Cavour, of a united Italy;Adrian, who aimed above all things at the consolidation of the Empire;and many others. Consolidation in whatsoever form almost necessarilyconnoted the insistence on some degree of uniformity, and "when theEmperors pressed uniformity upon the imperial system, it rapidly went topieces. " Finally, we get to the stage of Imperial penury andextravagance, accompanied by centralisation _in extremis_, when "hordesof official locusts, military and civil, " were let loose on the land, and the tax-gatherers destroyed the main sources of the public revenues, with the result that the tax-payers were utterly ruined. The municipalsystem possessed wonderful vitality, and displayed remarkable aptitudefor offering a passive resistance to the attacks directed against it. Itsurvived longer than might have been expected. But when it became clearthat the only function which the _curiales_ were expected to perform wasto emulate the Danaides by pouring gold into the bottomless cask of theImperial Treasury, [101] they naturally rejected the dubious honoursconferred on them, and fled either to be the companions of the monks inthe desert or elsewhere so as to be safe from the crushing load ofImperial distinction. Mr. Hodgkin and others have pointed out that thediversion of local funds to the Imperial Exchequer was one of theproximate causes which led to the downfall of the empire. Whilst themunicipal system lasted, it produced admirable results. Dealing withNorthern Africa, whose progress was eventually arrested by the witheringhand of Islam, Mr. Reid speaks of "the contrast between the Romancivilisation and the culture which exists in the same regions to-day;flourishing cities, villages, and farms abounded in districts which arenow sterile and deserted. "

Apart from the special causes to which Mr. Reid and other historianshave alluded, and apart, moreover, from the intentions--often the verywise intentions--of individual Emperors, the municipal system, and withit the principle that local affairs should be dealt with locally, wasalmost bound to founder directly the force of circumstances strengthenedthe hands of the central authority at Rome. The battle betweencentralisation and decentralisation still continues. Every one who hasbeen engaged in it knows that, whatever be the system adopted, thespirit in which it is carried out counts for even more than the systemitself. Once place a firm, self-confident man with the centralisingspirit strong within him at the head of affairs, and he will often, without any apparent change, go far to shatter any system, howevercarefully it may have been devised, to encourage decentralisation. Sucha man was Napoleon. Every conceivable subject bearing on the governmentof his fellow-men was, as M. Taine says, "classified and docketed" inhis ultra-methodical brain. It is useless to ask a man of this sort todecentralise. He cannot do so, not always by reason of a deliberate wishto grasp at absolute power, but because he sees so clearly what hethinks should be done that he cannot tolerate the local ineptitude, ashe considers it, that leads to the rejection of his views. Thus, whilstNapoleon said to Count Chaptal, "Ce n'est pas des Tuileries qu'on peutdiriger une armée, " at the same time, as a matter of fact, he neverceased to interfere with the action of his generals employed at adistance, with results which, especially in Spain, were generallydisastrous to French arms. Another general cause which militates againstdecentralisation is the inevitable tendency of any disputant who isdissatisfied with a decision given locally to seek redress at the handsof the central authority. St. Paul appealed to Caesar. A discontentedRajah will appeal to the Secretary of State for India. It is certainthat in these cases, unless the appellate authority acts with thegreatest circumspection, a risk will be incurred of giving a severe blowto the fundamental principles of decentralisation. It is no veryhazardous conjecture to assume that many of the Roman Emperors were, like Napoleon, constitutionally disposed to centralise, and that thegreater their ability the more likely was this disposition to dominatetheir minds. Thus Tacitus, speaking of Tiberius, says, "He never relaxedfrom the cares of government, but derived relief from hisoccupations. "[102] A man of this temperament is a born centraliser. However much his reason or his statesmanship may hold him in check, hewill probably sooner or later yield to the temptation of stretching hisown authority to such an extent as materially to weaken that of hisdistant and subordinate agents. 

Considerations of space preclude the possibility of dwelling any furtheron the many points of interest suggested by Mr. Reid's instructive work. This much, however, may be said, that whilst British Imperialism is notexposed to many of the dangers which proved fatal to Imperial Rome, there is one principle adopted by the early founders of the Roman Empirewhich is fraught with enduring political wisdom, and which may beapplied as well now as it was nineteen centuries ago. That principle isthe preference shown to diversity over uniformity of system. Sir AlfredLyall, whose receptive intellect was impregnated with modernapplications of ancient precedents, said, "We ought to acknowledge thatwe cannot impose a uniform type of civilisation. " Let us beware that wedo not violate this very sound principle by too eager a disposition totransport institutions, whose natural habitat is Westminster, toCalcutta or Cairo. 

[Footnote 97: _The Municipalities of the Roman Empire_. By J. E. Reid. Cambridge: At the University Press. 10s. 6d. ]

[Footnote 98: _L'Avènement de Bonaparte_, i. 217. ]

[Footnote 99: _Vide ante_, pp. 317-326. ]

[Footnote 100: _England Under the Stuarts_, p. 107. G. Trevelyan. ]

[Footnote 101: Hor. _Od. _ iii. 11. 25. ]

[Footnote 102: _Ann. _ iv. 13. ]

XXII

A ROYAL PHILOSOPHER[103]

_"The Spectator, " August 2, 1913_

Those who are inclined to take a gloomy view of the future on thesubject of the survival of the humanities in this country may derivesome consolation from two considerations. One is that there is not thesmallest sign either of relaxation in the quantity or deterioration inthe quality of the humanistic literature turned out from our seats oflearning. Year by year, indeed, both the interest in classical studiesand the standard of scholarship appear to rise to a higher level. Theother is that the mere fact that humanistic works are supplied showsthat there must be a demand for them, and that there exists amongst thegeneral public a number of readers outside the ranks of scholars, properly so called, who are anxious and willing to acquaint themselveswith whatever new lights assiduous research can throw on the sayings anddoings of the ancient world. Archaeology, epigraphy, and numismatics areyear by year opening out new fields for inquiry, and affording freshmaterial for the reconstruction of history. More especially much lighthas of late been thrown on that chaotic period which lies between thedeath of the Macedonian conqueror and the final assertion of Romandomination. Professor Mahaffy has dealt with the Ptolemies, and Mr. Bevan with the Seleucids. A welcome complement to these instructiveworks is now furnished by Mr. Tarn's comprehensive treatment of animportant chapter in the history of the Antigonids. It is surely theirony of posthumous fame that whereas every schoolboy knows somethingabout Pyrrhus--how he fought the Romans with elephants, and eventuallymet a somewhat ignoble death from the hand of an old Argive woman whodropped a tile on his head--but few outside the ranks of historicalstudents probably know anything of his great rival and relative, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius the Besieger. Yet there can inreality be no manner of doubt as to which of these two careers shouldmore excite the interest of posterity. Pyrrhus made a great stir in theworld whilst he lived. "He thought it, " Plutarch says--we quote fromDryden's translation--"a nauseous course of life not to be doingmischief to others or receiving some from them. " But he was in realityan unlettered soldier of fortune, probably very much of the same type assome of Napoleon's rougher marshals, such as Augereau or Masséna. Hismanners were those of the camp, and his statesmanship that of thebarrack-room. He blundered in everything he undertook except in theactual management of troops on the field of battle. "Not a commonsoldier in his army, " Mr. Tarn says, "could have managed things as badlyas the brilliant Pyrrhus. " Antigonus was a man of a very different type. "He was the one monarch before Marcus Aurelius whom philosophy coulddefinitely claim as her own. " But in forming an estimate of hischaracter it is necessary to bear constantly in mind the many differentconstructions which in the course of ages have been placed on the term"philosophy. " Antigonus, albeit a disciple of Zeno, the most unpracticalidealist of his age, was himself eminently practical. He indulged in nosuch hallucinations as those which cost the Egyptian Akhnaton his Syriankingdom. As a thinker he moved on a distinctly lower plane than MarcusAurelius. Perhaps of all the characters of antiquity he most resemblesJulian, whose career as a man of action wrung from the ChristianPrudentius the fine epitaph, "Perfidus ille Deo, quamvis non perfidusorbi. " These early Greek philosophers were, in fact, a strange set ofmen. They were not always engaged in the study of philosophy. Theyoccasionally, whilst pursuing knowledge and wisdom, indulged inpractices of singular unwisdom or of very dubious morality. Thus theeminent historian Hieronymus endeavoured to establish what we should nowcall a "corner" in the bitumen which floated on the surface of the DeadSea, and which was largely used for purposes of embalming in Egypt; buthis efforts were completely frustrated by the Arabs who were interestedin the local trade. The philosopher Lycon, besides displaying anexcessive love for the pleasures of the table, was a noted wrestler, boxer, and tennis-player. Antigonus himself, in spite of his love oflearning, vied with his great predecessors, Philip and Alexander, in hisaddiction to the wine-cup. When, by a somewhat unworthy stratagem, hehad tricked the widowed queen Nikaia out of the possession of theAcrocorinthian citadel, which was, politically speaking, the apple ofhis eye, he celebrated the occasion by getting exceedingly drunk, andwent "reeling through Corinth at the head of a drunken rout, a garlandon his head and a wine-cup in his hand. " Antigonus was, in fact, not somuch what we should call a philosopher as a man of action with literarytastes, standing thus in marked contrast to Pyrrhus, who "cared aslittle for knowledge or culture as did any baron of the Dark Ages. " Whenhe was engaged in a difficult negotiation with Ptolemy Philadelphus heallowed himself to be mollified by a quotation from Homer, who, as Platosaid, was "the educator of Hellas. " Although not himself an originalthinker, he encouraged thought in others. He surrounded himself with menof learning, and even received at his court the yellow-robed envoys ofAsoka, the far-distant ruler and religious reformer of India. Moreover, in spite of his wholly practical turn of mind, Antigonus learntsomething from his philosophic friends; notably, he imbibed somewhat ofthe Stoic sense of duty. "Do you not understand, " he said to his son, who had misused some of his subjects, "that _our_ kingship is a nobleservitude?" Nevertheless, throughout his career, the sentiments of theman of action strongly predominated over those of the man of thought. Hetreated all shams with a truly Carlylean hatred and contempt. Moreover, one trait in his character strongly indicates the pride of the masterfulman of action who scorns all adventitious advantages and claims to standor fall by his own merits. Napoleon, whilst the members of his familywere putting forth ignoble claims to noble birth, said that his patentof nobility dated from the battle of Montenotte. Antigonus, albeit hecame of a royal stock, laid aside all ancestral claims to the throne ofMacedonia. He aspired to be king because of his kingly qualities. Hewished his people to apply to him the words which Tiberius used of adistinguished Roman of humble birth: "Curtius Rufinus videtur mihi ex senatus" (_Ann. _ xi. 21). He succeeded in his attempt. He won the heartsof his people, and although he failed in his endeavour to govern thewhole of Greece through the agency of subservient "tyrants, " heaccomplished the main object which through good and evil fortune hepursued with dogged tenacity throughout the whole of his chequeredcareer. He lived and died King of Macedonia. 

The world-politics of this period are almost as confused as therelationships which were the outcome of the matrimonial alliancescontracted by the principal actors on the world's stage. How bewilderingthese alliances were may be judged from what Mr. Tarn says ofStratonice, the daughter of Antiochus I. , who married Demetrius, the sonof Antigonus: "Stratonice was her husband's first cousin and also hisaunt, her mother-in-law's half-sister and also her niece, herfather-in-law's niece, her own mother's granddaughter-in-law, andperhaps other things which the curious may work out. " Mr. Tarn hasunravelled the tangled political web with singular lucidity. Here itmust be sufficient to say that, after the death of Pyrrhus, a conflictbetween Macedonia and Egypt, which stood at the head of ananti-Macedonian coalition of which Athens, Epirus, and Sparta were theprincipal members, became inevitable. The rivalry between the two Statesled to the Chremonidean war--so called because in 266 the AthenianChremonides moved the declaration of war against Antigonus. The resultof the war was that on land Antigonus remained the complete master ofthe situation. With true political instinct, however, he recognised thetruth of that maxim which history teaches from the days of Aegospotamito those of Trafalgar, viz. That the execution of an imperial policy isimpossible without the command of the sea. This command had been securedby his predecessors, but had fallen to Egypt after the fine fleetcreated by Demetrius the Besieger had been shattered in 280 by PtolemyKeraunos with the help of the navy which had been created by Lysimachus. Antigonus decided to regain the power which had been lost. His effortswere at first frustrated by the wily and wealthy Egyptian monarch, whoknew the power of gold. "Egypt neither moved a man nor launched a ship, but Antigonus found himself brought up short, his friends gone, hisfleet paralysed. " Then death came unexpectedly to his aid and removedhis principal enemies. His great opponent, the masterful Arsinoë, whohad engineered the Chremonidean war, was already dead, and, in Mr. Tarn's words, "comfortably deified. " Other important deaths now followedin rapid succession. Alexander of Corinth, Antiochus, and Ptolemy allpassed away. "The imposing edifice reared by Ptolemy's diplomacysuddenly collapsed like the card-house of a little child. " Antigonus wasnot the man to neglect the opportunity thus afforded to him. Though nowadvanced in years, he reorganised his navy and made an alliance withRhodes, with the result that "the sea power of Egypt went down, never torise again. " Then he triumphantly dedicated his flagship to the DelianApollo. The possession of Delos had always been one of the main objectsof his ambition. It did more than symbolise the rule of the seas. Itdefinitely brought within the sphere of Macedonian influence one of thegreatest centres of Greek religious thought. 

The rest of the story may be read in Mr. Tarn's graphic pages. Herelates how Antigonus incurred the undying enmity of Aratus of Sicyon, one of those Greek democrats who held "that the very worst democracy wasinfinitely better than the very best 'tyranny'--a conventional viewwhich neglects the uncomfortable fact that the tyranny of a democracycan be the worst in the world. " He lost Corinth, which he neverendeavoured to regain. His system of governing the Peloponnesus throughthe agency of subservient "tyrants" utterly collapsed. "It is, " Mr. Tarnsays, "a strange case of historical justice. As regards Macedonia, Antigonus had followed throughout a sound and just idea of government, and all that he did for Macedonia prospered. But in the Peloponnese, though he found himself there from necessity rather than from choice, hehad employed an unjustifiable system; he lived long enough to see itcollapse. "

The main interest to the present generation of the career of thisremarkable man consists in the fact that it is illustrative of thebelief that a man of action can also be a man of letters. As it was inthe days of the Antigonids, so it is now. Napier says that there is noinstance on record of a successful general who was not also a well-readman. General Wolfe, the hero of Quebec, on being asked how he came toadopt a certain tactical combination which proved eminently successfulat Louisbourg, said, "I had it from Xenophon. " Havelock "loved Homer andtook pattern by Thucydides, " and, according to Mr. Forrest, adoptedtactics at the battle of Cawnpore which he had learnt from a closestudy of "Old Frederick's" dispositions at Leuthen. There is no greaterdelusion than to suppose that study weakens the arm of the practicalpolitician, administrator, or soldier. On the contrary it fortifies it. Lord Wolseley, himself a very distinguished man of action, speaking tothe students of the Royal Military Academy of Sir Frederick Maurice, whopossessed an inherited literary talent, said that he was "a fine exampleof the combination of study and practice. He is not only the ableststudent of war we have, but is also the bravest man I have ever seenunder fire"; and on another occasion he wrote: "It is often said thatdull soldiers make the best fighters, because they do not think ofdanger. Now, Maurice is one of the very few men I know who, if I toldhim to run his head against a stone wall, would do so without question. His is also the quickest and keenest intellect I have met in myservice. "

[Footnote 103: _Antigonos Gonatas_. By W. Woodthorpe Tarn. Oxford: Atthe Clarendon Press. 14s. ]

XXIII

ANCIENT ART AND RITUAL[104]

_"The Spectator, " August 9, 1913_

Any new work written by Miss Jane Harrison is sure to be eagerlywelcomed by all who take an interest in classical study or inanthropology. The conclusions at which she arrives are invariably basedon profound study and assiduous research. Her generalisations are alwaysbold, and at times strikingly original. Moreover, it is impossible forany lover of the classics, albeit he may move on a somewhat lower planeof erudition, not to sympathise with the erudite enthusiasm of an authorwho expresses "great delight" in discovering that Aristotle traced theorigin of the Greek drama to the Dithyramb--that puzzling and"ox-driving" Dithyramb, of which Müller said that "it was vain to seekan etymology, " but whose meaning has been very lucidly explained byMiss Harrison herself--and whose "heart stands still" in noting that "bya piece of luck" Plutarch gives the Dionysiac hymn which the women ofElis addressed to the "noble Bull. "

It is probable that the first feeling excited in the mind of an ordinaryreader, when he is asked to accept some of the conclusions at whichmodern students of anthropology and comparative religion have arrived, is one of scepticism. Miss Harrison is evidently alive to the existenceof this feeling, for in dealing with the ritualistic significance of thePanathenaic frieze she bids her readers not to "suspect they are beingjuggled with, " or to think that she has any wish to strain an argumentwith a view to "bolstering up her own art and ritual theory. " It can, indeed, be no matter for surprise that such suspicions should bearoused. When, for instance, an educated man hears that the Israelitesworshipped a golden calf, or that the owl and the peacock wererespectively sacred to Juno and Minerva, he can readily understand whatis meant. But when he is told that an Australian Emu man, struttingabout in the feathers of that bird, does not think that he is imitatingan Emu, but that in very fact he is an Emu, it must be admitted that hisintellect, or it may be his imagination, is subjected to a somewhatsevere strain. Similarly, he may at first sight find some difficulty inbelieving that any strict relationship can be established between theAnthesteria and Bouphonia of the cultured Athenians and the idolatrousveneration paid by the hairy and hyperborean Ainos to a sacred bear, whois at first pampered and then sacrificed, or the ritualistic tug-of-warperformed by the Esquimaux, in which one side, personifying ducks, represents Summer, whilst the other, personifying ptarmigans, representsWinter. Although this scepticism is not only very natural, but evencommendable, it is certain that the science of modern anthropology, inwhich we may reflect with legitimate pride that England has taken thelead, rests on very solid foundations. Indeed, its foundations are insome respects even better assured than those of some other sciences, such, for instance, as craniology, whose conclusions would appear atfirst sight to be capable of more precise demonstration, but which, inspite of this fair appearance, has as yet yielded results which aresomewhat disappointing. At the birth of every science it is necessary topostulate something. The postulates that the anthropologist demandsrival in simplicity those formulated by Euclid. He merely asks us toaccept as facts that the main object of every living creature is to goon living, that he cannot attain this object without being suppliedwith food, and that, in the case of man, his supply of food mustnecessarily be obtained from the earth, the forest, the sea, or theriver. On the basis of these elementary facts, the anthropologist thenasks us to accept the conclusion that the main beliefs and acts ofprimitive man are intimately, and indeed almost solely, connected withhis food supply; and having first, by a deductive process of reasoning, established a high degree of probability that this conclusion iscorrect, he proceeds to confirm its accuracy by reasoning inductivelyand showing that a similarity, too marked to be the result of mereaccident or coincidence, exists in the practices which primitive man hasadopted, throughout the world, and which can only be explained on theassumption that by methods, differing indeed in detail but substantiallythe same in principle, endeavours have been, and still are being, madeto secure an identical object, viz. To obtain food and thus to sustainlife. The various methods adopted both in the past and the present areinvariably associated in one form or another with the invocation ofmagical influences. The primitive savage, Miss Harrison says, "is a manof action. " He does not pray. He acts. If he wishes for sun or wind orrain, "he summons his tribe, and dances a sun dance or a wind dance or arain dance. " If he wants bear's flesh to eat, he does not pray to hisgod for strength to outwit or to master the bear, but he rehearses hishunt in a bear dance. If he notices that two things occur one after theother, his untrained intellect at once jumps to the conclusion that oneis the cause and the other the effect. Thus in Australia--a speciallyfertile field for anthropological research, which has recently beenexplored with great thoroughness and intelligence by Messrs. Spencer andGillen--the cry of the plover is frequently heard before rain falls. Therefore, when the natives wish for rain they sing a rain song in whichthe cry of that bird is faithfully imitated. 

Before alluding to the special point which Miss Harrison deals with in_Ancient Art and Ritual_, it will be as well to glance at the viewswhich she sets forth in her previous illuminating treatise entitled_Themis_. The former is in reality a continuation of the latter work. The view heretofore generally entertained as regards the anthropomorphicgods of Greece has been that the conception of the deity preceded theadoption of the ritual. Moreover, one school of anthropologists ablyrepresented by Professor Ridgeway, has maintained that the phenomena ofvegetation spirits, totemism, etc. , rose from primary elements, notablyfrom the belief in the existence of the soul after the death of thebody. Miss Harrison and those who agree with her hold that this viewinvolves an anthropological heresy. She deprecates the use of the word"anthropomorphic, " which she describes as clumsy and too narrow. Sheprefers the expression ἀνθρωποφυής used by Herodotus (i. 131), signifying "of human growth. " She points out that the anthropomorphismof the Greeks was preceded by theriomorphism and phytomorphism, that theritual was "prior to the God, " that so long as man was engaged in ahand-to-hand struggle for bare existence his sole care was to obtainfood, and that during this stage of his existence his religiousobservances took almost exclusively the form of magical inducements tothe earth to renew that fertility which, by the periodicity of theseasons, was at times temporarily suspended. It was only at a laterperiod, when the struggle for existence had become less arduous, thatthe belief in the efficacy of magical rites decayed, and that in mattersof religion the primitive Greeks "shifted from a nature-god to ahuman-nature god. "

In her more recent work Miss Harrison reverts to this theme, andsubsequently carries us one step further. She maintains that theoriginal conception of the Greek drama was in no way spectacular. TheAthenians went to the theatre as we go to church. They did not attend tosee players act, but to take part in certain ritualistic things done(_dromena_). The priests of Dionysos Eleuthereus, of ApolloDaphnephoros, and of other deities attended in solemn state to assist inthe performance of the rites. With that keen sense of humour whichenlivens all her pages, and which made her speak in her _Themis_ of theaugust father of gods and men as "an automatically explosivethunderstorm, " Miss Harrison says, "It is as though at His Majesty's thefront row of stalls was occupied by the whole bench of bishops, with theArchbishop of Canterbury enthroned in the central stall. " The actual_dromenon_ performed was of the same nature as that which in more moderntimes has induced villagers to make Jacks-in-the-Green and to danceround maypoles. It was always connected with the recurrence of theseasons and with the death and resurrection of vegetation. In fact, thewhole ritual clustered round the idea represented at a later period inthe well-known and very beautiful lines of Moschus in the _Lament forBion_, which may be freely translated thus:

 Ah me! The mallows, anise, and each flower That withers at the blast of winter's breath Await the vernal, renovating hour And joyously awake from feignèd death. 

The idea which impelled these ancient Greeks to perform ritualistic_dromena_ on their orchestras, which took the place of what we shouldcall the stage, is not yet dead. Miss Harrison quotes from Mr. Lawson'swork on modern Greek folklore, which is a perfect mine of knowledge onthe subject of the survival of ancient religious customs in modernGreece, the story of an old woman in Euboea who was asked on Easter Evewhy village society was in a state of gloom and despondency, and whoreplied: "Of course, I am anxious; for if Christ does not riseto-morrow, we shall have no corn this year. "

It was during the fifth century that the _dromenon_ and the DionysiacDithyramb passed to some extent away and were merged into the drama. "Homer came to Athens, and out of Homeric stories playwrights began tomake their plots. " The chief agent in effecting this important changewas the so-called "tyrant" Pisistratus, who was probably a free-thinkerand "cared little for magic and ancestral ghosts, " but who for politicalreasons wished to transport the Dionysia from the country to the town. "Now, " Miss Harrison says, "to bring Homer to Athens was like openingthe eyes of the blind. " Independently of the inevitable growth ofscepticism which was the natural result of increased knowledge and moreacute powers of observation, it is no very hazardous conjecture toassume that the quick-witted and pleasure-loving Athenians welcomed therelief afforded to the dreary monotony of the ancient _dromena_ by theintroduction of the more lively episodes drawn from the heroic sagas. "Without destroying the old, Pisistratus contrived to introduce the new, to add to the old plot of Summer and Winter the life-stories of heroes, and thereby arose the drama. "

Having established her case so far, Miss Harrison makes what she herselfterms "a great leap. " She passes from the thing _done_, whether_dromenon_ or drama, to the thing _made_. She holds that as it was thegod who arose from the rite, similarly it was the ritual connected withthe worship of the god which gave birth to his representation insculpture. Art, she says, is not, as is commonly supposed, the "handmaidof religion. " "She springs straight out of the rite, and her firstoutward leap is the image of the god. " Miss Harrison gives two examplesto substantiate her contention. In the first place, she states at somelength arguments of irrefutable validity to show that the Panathenaicfrieze, which originally surrounded the Parthenon, represents a greatritual procession, and she adds, "Practically the whole of the reliefsthat remain to us from the archaic period, and a very large proportionof those of later date, when they do not represent heroic mythology, areritual reliefs, 'votive' reliefs, as we call them; that is, prayers orpraises translated into stone. "

Miss Harrison's second example is eminently calculated to give a shockto the conventional ideas generally entertained, for, as she herselfsays, if there is a statue in the world which apparently represents "artfor art's sake" it is that of the Apollo Belvedere. Much discussion hastaken place as to what Apollo is supposed to be doing in this famousstatue. "There is only one answer. We do not know. " Miss Harrison, however, thinks that as he is poised on tiptoe he may be in the act oftaking flight from the earth. Eventually, after discussing the matter atsome little length, she appears to come to the audacious conclusionwhich, in spite of its hardy irreverence, may very probably be true, that as Apollo was, after all, only an early Jack-in-the-Green, he hasbeen artistically represented in marble by some sculptor of genius inthat capacity. 

Finally, before leaving this very interesting and instructive work, itmay be noted that Miss Harrison quotes a remarkable passage fromAthenaeus (xiv. 26), which certainly affords strong confirmation of herview that in the eyes of ancient authors there was an intimateconnection between art and dancing, and therefore, inasmuch as dancingwas ritualistic, between art and ritual. "The statues of the craftsmenof old times, " Athenaeus says, "are the relics of ancient dancing. "

It is greatly to be hoped that Miss Harrison will continue the study ofthis subject, and that she will eventually give to the world the resultsof her further inquiries. 

[Footnote 104: _Ancient Art and Ritual. _ By Miss Jane Harrison. London:Williams and Norgate. 1s. ]

XXIV

PORTUGUESE SLAVERY

_"The Spectator, " August 16, 23, 30, 1913_

It is impossible to read the White Paper recently published on thesubject of slavery in the West African dominions of Portugal withoutcoming to the conclusion that the discussion has been allowed todegenerate into a rather unseemly wrangle between the Foreign Officeofficials and the Anti-Slavery Society. There is always a considerablerisk that this will happen when enthusiasts and officials are broughtinto contact with each other. On the one hand, the enthusiasts in anygreat cause are rather prone to let their emotions dominate theirreason, to generalise on somewhat imperfect data, and occasionally tofall unwittingly into making statements of fact which, if not altogetherincorrect, are exaggerated or partial. On the other hand, there is adisposition on the part of officials to push to an excess Sir ArthurHelps's dictum that most of the evils of the world arise frominaccuracy, and to surround all enthusiasts with one general atmosphereof profound mistrust. An old official may perhaps be allowed to say, without giving offence, that, quite apart from the nobility and moralworth of the issue at stake, it is, from the point of view of mereworldly wisdom, a very great error to adopt this latter attitude. Thereare enthusiasts and enthusiasts. It is probably quite useless for ananti-suffragist or a supporter of vivisection to endeavour to meethalf-way a militant suffragist or a whole-hearted anti-vivisectionist. In these cases the line of cleavage is too marked to admit ofcompromise, and still less of co-operation. But the case is verydifferent if the matter under discussion is the suppression of slavery. Here it may readily be admitted that both the enthusiasts and theofficials, although they may differ in opinion as to the methods whichshould be adopted, are honestly striving to attain the same objects. TheAnti-Slavery Society, and those who habitually work with them, haveperformed work of which their countrymen are very justly proud. But theyare not infallible. It is quite right that the accuracy of anystatements which they make should be carefully tested by whatever meansexist for testing them. For instance, when the Society of Friends[105]say that they are in possession of "first-hand information" to show that"atrocities" are being committed in the Portuguese dominions, theForeign Office is obviously justified in asking them to state on whatevidence this formidable accusation is founded, and when it appears thatthey cannot produce "exactly the kind of evidence as to 'atrocities'which would strengthen your (_i. E. _ the British Government's) hands inany protest made by you to the Portuguese Government, " it is notunnatural that the officials should be somewhat hardened in their beliefthat humanitarian testimony has to be accepted with caution. It wouldobviously be much wiser for the humanitarians to recognise thatincorrect statements, or sweeping generalisations which are incapable ofproof, do their cause more harm than good. 

The fact that erroneous statements are frequently made in controversialmatters, and that the data on which generalisations are based are oftenimperfect, should not, however, beget the error of attaching undueimportance to matters of this sort, and thus failing to see the wood byreason of the trees. What object, for instance, is to be gained byaddressing to the Anti-Slavery Society a remonstrance because they onlyquote a portion and not the whole of a conversation between Sir EdwardGrey and the Portuguese Minister (M. De Bocage) when, on reference tothe account of that conversation, it would appear that the passagesomitted were not very material to the point under discussion? Again, considering that the manner in which the so-called "contracts" withslaves are concluded is notorious, is it not rather begging the questionand falling back on a legal quibble to say that there would "be noreason for insisting on the repatriation (of a British subject) if hewere working under a contract which could not be shown to be illegal"?Can it be expected, moreover, that Sir Eyre Crowe's contention that theslaves "are now legally free" should carry much conviction when it isabundantly clear from the testimony of all independent and also officialwitnesses that this legal freedom does not constitute freedom in thesense in which we generally employ the term, but that it has, in fact, up to the present time been little more than an euphemism for slavery?

Every allowance should, of course, be made for the embarrassing positionin which the present Government of Portugal, from no fault of its own, is placed. The fact, however, remains that at this moment the criticismsof those who are interested in the cause of anti-slavery are not solelydirected against the Portuguese Government. They also demur to theattitude taken up by the British Government. It is, indeed, impossibleto read the papers presented to Parliament without feeling that theArchbishop of Canterbury was justified in saying, during a recent debatein the House of Lords, that the Foreign Office and its subordinates haveshown some excess of zeal in apologising for the Portuguese. After all, it should not be forgotten that the voice of civilised humanity callsloudly on the Portuguese Government and nation to purge themselves, andthat speedily, of a very heinous offence against civilisation, namely, that of placing their black fellow-creatures much on the same footing asthe oxen that plough their fields and the horses which draw their carts, in order that the white man may acquire wealth. It is only fair toremember that at no very remote period of their history the Anglo-Saxonrace were also guilty of this offence; but the facts that one branch ofthat race purged itself of crime by the expenditure of huge sums ofmoney, and that the other branch shed its best blood in order to ensurethe black man's freedom, give them a moral right, based on verysubstantial title-deeds, to plead the cause of freedom. Neither shouldit be forgotten that, whatever mistakes those interested in theAnti-Slavery cause may make in dealing with points of detail, they areright on the chief issue--right, that is to say, not merely inintention, but also on the main fact, viz. That virtual slavery stillexists in the Portuguese dominions. Any one who has had practicalexperience of dealing with these matters, and can read between the linesof the official correspondence, cannot fail to see that if the ForeignOffice authorities, instead of dwelling with somewhat unnecessaryinsistence on controversial points and only half-accepting the realitiesof the situation, had candidly admitted the main facts and had confinedthemselves to a discussion of the means available for arriving at theobject which they, in common with the Anti-Slavery Society, wished toattain, much useless recrimination might have been avoided and theinterests of the cause would, to a far greater extent, have been served. 

The writer of the present article has had a good deal to do with theAnti-Slavery and other similar societies, such, for instance, as thatwhich, until recently, dealt with the affairs of the Congo. He has notalways agreed with their proposals, but, being in thorough sympathy withthe objects which they wished to attain, he was fortunately able toestablish the mutual confidence which that bond of sympathy connoted. Hecan, moreover, from his own experience, testify to the fact that, although there may occasionally be exceptions, the humanitariansgenerally, however enthusiastic, are by no means unreasonable. On thecontrary, if once they are thoroughly convinced that the officials arehonestly and energetically striving to do their best to remove theabuses of which they complain, they are quite prepared to make dueallowance for practical difficulties, and to abstain from causingunnecessary and hurtful embarrassment. They are not open to thesuspicion which often attaches itself to Parliamentarians who take upsome special cause, viz. That they may be seeking to acquire personalnotoriety or to gain some party advantage. The righteousness anddisinterestedness of their motives cannot be doubted. The question ofthe abolition of slavery in the Soudan presented many and greatdifficulties, which might easily have formed the subject of acrimoniouscorrespondence and of agitation in Parliament and in the press. Any suchagitation would very probably have led to the adoption of measures whosevalue would have been illusory rather than real, and which might wellhave endangered both public security and the economic welfare of thecountry. The main reason why no such agitation took place was that amutual feeling of confidence was established. Sir Reginald Wingate andhis very able staff of officials were left to deal with the matter aftertheir own fashion. The result has been that, without the adoption of anyvery sensational measures calculated to attract public attention, it maybe said, with truth, that for all practical purposes slavery has quietlydisappeared from the Soudan. But if once this confidence is conspicuousby its absence, a state of more or less latent warfare between thehumanitarians and the official world, such as that revealed in thepapers recently laid before Parliament, is almost certain to be created, with the results that the public interests suffer, that rather heatedarguments and counter-arguments are bandied about in the columns of thenewspapers, and that the differences of opinion on minor points betweenthose who ought to be allies tend to obscure the main issue, andpreclude that co-operation which should be secured, and which in itselfwould be no slight earnest of success. 

Stress has been laid on this point because of its practical importance, and also in the hope that, in connection with this question, it may befound possible ere long to establish better relations between theForeign Office officials and the Anti-Slavery Society than those whichapparently exist at present. There ought to be no great difficulty ineffecting an improvement in those relations, for it cannot for onemoment be doubted that both sides are honestly endeavouring to performwhat they consider to be their duty according to their respectivelights. 

Turning now to the consideration of the question on its own merits, itis obvious that, before discussing any remedies, it is essential toarrive at a correct diagnosis of the disease. Is the trade in slavesstill carried on, and does slavery still exist in the Portuguesedominions? The two points deserve separate treatment, for althoughslavery is bad, the slave trade is infinitely worse. 

It is not denied that until very recently the trade in slaves betweenthe mainland and the Portuguese islands was carried on upon an extensivescale. The Anti-Slavery Society state that within the last twenty-fiveyears sixty-three thousand slaves, constituting "a human cargo worthsomething over £2, 500, 000, " have been shipped to the islands. Moreover, it appears that, as was to be expected, this trade was, and perhaps to acertain extent still is, in the hands of individuals who constitute thedregs of society, and who, it may confidently be assumed, have notallowed their operations to be hampered by any kind of moral or humanescruples. Colonel Freire d'Andrade informed Sir Arthur Hardinge that"many of the Portuguese slave-traders at Angola had been convictssentenced to transportation, " who had been allowed to settle in thecolony. "It was from among these old convicts or ex-convict settlers andtheir half-caste progeny that the slave-trading element, denounced bythe Belgian Government, was largely recruited; they at least were itsmost direct agents. " Since the accession to power of the RepublicanGovernment in Portugal the trade in slaves has been absolutelyprohibited. No Government which professes to follow the dictates ofcivilisation, and especially of Liberalism, could indeed tolerate for aday the continuance of such a practice. The question which remains forconsideration is whether the efforts of the Portuguese Government, inthe sincerity of which there can be no doubt, have been successful orthe reverse. Has the cessation of the traffic been real and complete or, as the Anti-Slavery Society appear disposed to think, only partial and"nominal"? On this point the evidence is somewhat conflicting. On theone hand, M. Ramaix, writing on behalf of the Belgian Government on May1, 1912, says, "It is well known that the slave trade is still carriedon to a certain extent in the neighbourhood of the sources of theZambesi and Kasai, in a region which extends over the frontiers of theCongo, Angola, and North-Western Rhodesia, " and on June 8, 1912, BaronLalaing, the Belgian Minister in London, said, "At the instigation ofthe traders the population living on the two slopes of the watershed, from Lake Dilolo to the meridian of Kayoyo, are actively engaged insmuggling, arms traffic, and slave trade. " On the other hand, Mr. Wallace, writing from Livingstone, in Northern Rhodesia, on June 25, 1912, says that "active slave-trading does not now exist along ourborders. " On December 6 of the same year he confirmed this statement, but added, "occasional cases may occur, for the status of slave exists, but they cannot be many. " Looking to all the circumstances of thecase--to the great extent and, in some cases, to the remoteness of thePortuguese dominions, the ruthless character of the slave-traders, thepecuniary inducements which exist for engaging in a very lucrativetraffic, the helplessness of the slaves themselves, and the fact thattraffic in slaves is apparently a common inter-tribal practice inCentral Africa, it would be unreasonable to expect that the PortugueseGovernment should be able at once to put a complete stop to theseinfamous proceedings. It may well be that, in spite of every effort, theslave trade may still linger on for a while. All that can be reasonablyexpected is that the Portuguese authorities should do their utmost tostop it. That they are doing a good deal cannot be doubted, but it issomewhat of a shock to read (_Africa_, No. 2 of 1912, p. 59) that SenhorVasconcellos rather prided himself on the fact that certain "Europeanswho were found guilty of acts of slave traffic" had merely been"immediately expelled from the region, " and were "not allowed to returnto the colonies. " Surely, considering the nature of the offence, apunishment of this sort errs somewhat on the side of leniency. Had thesemen been residing in Egypt or the Soudan they would have been condemnedto penal servitude for a term of years. It is more satisfactory tolearn, on the authority of Colonel Freire d'Andrade, that the convictsto whom allusion has already been made are "no longer permitted to roamat large about the colony, but are, save a very few who are allowed tolive outside on giving a security, kept in the forts of Loanda. "

Further, it would appear that until recently the officials whoregistered the "serviçaes, " or native contract labourers, had a directpecuniary interest in the matter, and were "thus exposed to thetemptation of not scrutinising too closely the genuineness of thecontracts themselves, or the extent to which they were understood andaccepted by savage or semi-savage contracting parties. " In other words, the Portuguese officials employed in registration, far from having anyinducements offered to them to protect the labourers, were stronglytempted to engage in what, brushing aside official euphemism, may withgreater accuracy be termed the slave trade pure and simple. It seemsthat this practice is now to be altered. The registration fees are nolonger to go into the pockets of the registering officials, but are tobe paid into the Provincial Treasury. The change is unquestionably forthe better. But it is impossible in this connection not to be struck bythe somewhat curious standard of official discipline and morality whichappears to exist in the Portuguese service. Colonel Freire d'Andradetold Sir Arthur Hardinge that "he knew of one case where £1, 000 had beenmade over a single contract for 'serviçaes' in this way by a localofficial who had winked, in this connection, at some dishonest or, atleast, highly doubtful transactions, and who had been censured andobliged to refund the money. " As in the case of the Europeans foundguilty of engaging in the slave trade, the punishment awarded appears tobe somewhat disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. One wouldhave thought that peculation of this description would have been visitedat least with dismissal, if not with a short sojourn in the Loanda gaol. 

Colonel Freire d'Andrade further states that "the Lisbon ColonialOffice had sent out very stringent orders to the Governor-General ofAngola to put a stop once and for all to these slavery operations. Newmilitary outposts had now been created near the northern and easternfrontiers of the province. " It is to be hoped that these orders will beobeyed, and that they will prove effectual to attain the object in view. 

On the whole, in spite of some features in the case which would appearto justify friendly criticism, it would seem that the PortugueseGovernment are really endeavouring to suppress the trade in slaves. Allthat the British Government can do is to afford them whatever assistanceis possible in British territory, and to encourage them in bold andstrenuous action against the influential opposition whose enmity hasnecessarily been evoked. 

Turning now to the question of whether slavery--as distinct from theslave trade--still exists in Portuguese West Africa, it is to beobserved that it is essential to inquire thoroughly into this questionfor the reason already given, viz. That before considering what remediesshould be applied it is very necessary that the true nature of the evilshould be recognised. On this point there is a direct conflict ofopinion. The Anti-Slavery Society maintain that the present system ofcontract labourers ('serviçaes') is merely another name for slavery, and as one proof of the wide discrepancy between theory and practicethey point to the fact that whereas there can be no manner of doubt thatundisguised slavery existed until only recently, it was nominallyabolished by law so long ago as 1876. On the other hand, to quote thewords of Mr. Smallbones, the British Consul at Loanda, the PortugueseGovernment, whose views on this matter appear to have been received witha certain amount of qualified acceptance by the British Foreign Office, "consistently deny" the existence of a state of slavery. 

The whole controversy really hangs on what is meant by the word"slavery. " In this, as in so many cases, it is easier to say what thething is not than to embrace in one short sentence an accurate andsufficiently wide explanation of what it is. _Definitio est negatio. _ DeBrunetière said that, after fifty years of discussion, it was impossibleto define romanticism. Half a century or more ago, a talented Germanwriter (Hackländer) wrote a book entitled _European Slave-life_, inwhich he attempted to show that, without knowing it, we were all slavesone of another, and, in fact, that the artisan working in a cottonfactory or the sempstress employed in a milliner's shop was as truly ina state of slavery as the negro who at that time was working in thefields of Georgia or Carolina. In a sense, of course, it may be saidthat every one who works for his living, from a Cabinet Minister to acrossing-sweeper, is a slave, for he has to conform to certain rules, and unless he works he will be deprived of many advantages which hewishes to acquire, and may even be reduced to a state of starvation. Butspeculations of this sort may be left to the philosopher and thesociologist. They have little interest for the practical politician. SirEdward Grey endeavoured, for the purposes of the subject now underdiscussion, to define slavery. "Voluntary engagement, " he said, "is notslavery, but forcible engagement is slavery. " The definition is correctas far as it goes, but it is incomplete, for it fails to answer thequestion on which a great part of this Portuguese controversy hangs, viz. What do the words "voluntary" and "forcible" mean? The truth isthat it is quite unnecessary, in dealing with this subject, to wanderoff into a field strewn with dialectical subtleties. It may not bepossible to define slavery with the same mathematical precision whichEuclid gave to his definitions of a straight line or a point, but everyman of ordinary common sense knows the difference between slavery andfreedom in the usual acceptation of those terms. He knows well enoughthat however much want or the force of circumstances may oblige anEnglishman, a Frenchman, or a German to accept hard conditions infixing the price at which he is prepared to sell his labour or hisservices, none of these individuals is, in reality, a slave; and he hasonly to inquire very cursorily into the subject to satisfy himself thatthe relations between employer and employed in Portuguese West Africadiffer widely from those which exist in any European country, and are infact far more akin to what, in the general acceptance of the word, istermed slavery. 

Broadly speaking, it may be said that the contention that the presentsystem of contract labour is merely slavery in disguise rests on threepleas, viz. (1) that even if, as was often the case, the contractlabourers now actually serving were not forcibly recruited, they werevery frequently wholly unaware of the true nature of the engagementswhich they had taken, or of the conditions under which they would becalled upon to serve; (2) that not only are they unable to terminatetheir contracts if they find they have been deceived, but that even onthe termination of those contracts they are not free to leave theiremployers; and (3) that, even when nominal freedom is conceded, theycannot take advantage of it, for the reason that the employers or theirGovernment have virtually by their own acts created a state of thingswhich only leaves the slaves to choose between the alternative ofcontinuing in a state of servitude or undergoing extreme suffering, ending not improbably in death. It is submitted that, if these threepropositions can be proved, it is mere juggling with words to maintainthat no state of slavery exists. 

As regards the first point, it is to be observed that when the superiorintelligence and education of the recruiting agents are contrasted withthe complete savagery and ignorance of the individuals recruited, thereis obviously a strong presumption that in numberless cases the latterhave been cozened into making contracts, the nature of which they didnot in the least understand, and this presumption may almost be said toharden into certainty when the fact, to which allusion has already beenmade, is remembered, that the Portuguese officials engaged in theregistration of contract labourers had until very recently a directpecuniary interest in augmenting the number of labourers. Further, Mr. Smallbones, writing on September 26, 1912, alludes to a letter signed"Carlos de Silva, " which appeared in a local paper termed the_Independente_. M. De Silva says that the "serviçaes" engaged in NovoRedondo "all answered the interpreter's question whether they werewilling to go to San Thomé with a decided 'No, ' which was translated bythe interpreter as signifying their utmost willingness to be embarked. "If this statement is correct, it is in itself almost sufficient tosatisfy the most severe condemnation of the whole system heretoforeadopted. It is, indeed, impossible to read the evidence adduced in theWhite Paper without coming to the conclusion that, whatever may be thecase at present, the system of recruiting in the past has not differedmaterially from the slave trade. If this be the case, it is clear that, in spite of any legal technicalities to the contrary, the great majorityof labourers now serving under contract in the islands should, for allpurposes of repatriation and the acquisition of freedom, be placed on aprecisely similar footing to those whose contracts have expired. Therecan be no moral justification whatever for taking advantage of theengagements into which they may have entered to keep them in what ispractically a condition of servitude. 

Recently, certain improvements appeared to have been made in the systemof recruiting. Mr. Smallbones states his "impression that the presentGovernor-General will do all in his power to put the recruiting ofnative labour on a sound footing. " Moreover, that some change has takenplace, and that the labourers are alive to the fact that they havecertain rights, would appear evident from the fact that Vice-ConsulFussell, writing from Lobito on September 15, 1912, reports that "theauthorities appear unable to oblige natives to contract themselves. " Itis not, however, clear that all the changes are in the right direction. Formerly, M. Carlos de Silva says, "There was at least a slightguarantee that 'serviçaes' were not shipped against their wishes in thefact that they had to contract in the presence of a curator in this(_i. E. _ the Angola) colony. " Now this guarantee has been removed. Thecontracts may be made in San Thomé before the local guardian, and Mr. Smallbones, although he is, without doubt, quite right in thinking that"the best guarantee against abuses will lie in the choice of therecruiting officials, and the way in which their operations arecontrolled, " adds the somewhat ominous remark that the object of thechange has been to "override the refusal of a curator in Angola tocontract certain 'serviçaes' should the Governor-General consider thatrefusal unreasonable or inexpedient. " Sir Edward Grey very naturallydrew attention to this point. "It is obvious, " he wrote to Sir ArthurHardinge, "that a labourer once in San Thomé can be much more easilycoerced into accepting his lot than if the contract is publicly made inAngola before he leaves the mainland. " It cannot be said that the answerhe received from M. Texeira Gomes was altogether complete orsatisfactory. All the latter would say was that Colonel Wyllie, who hadlately returned from San Thomé, had never heard of any case of alabourer signing a contract after he had arrived in the island. 

All, therefore, that can at present be said on this branch of thequestion is that the evils of the recruiting system which has been sofar adopted are abundantly clear, that the Portuguese Government isendeavouring to improve that system, but that it would as yet bepremature to pronounce any opinion on the results which are likely to beobtained. 

The next point to be considered is the position of the contract laboureron the expiry of his contract. That position is very strikinglyillustrated by an incident which Mr. Smallbones relates in a despatchdated September 23, 1912. It appears that towards the end of last Augustthe Governor-General visited an important plantation on which sevenhundred labourers are employed. The contracts of these men had expired. They asked to be allowed to leave the plantation. They were notpermitted to do so. "Thirteen soldiers were sent from Loanda tointimidate them, and they returned to work. " They were then forced torecontract. Mr. Smallbones very rightly pointed out to theGovernor-General the illegality of this proceeding. "His Excellency, "he says, "admitted my contention, but remarked that in the present stateof the labour supply such scrupulous observance of the regulations wouldentail the entire stoppage of a large plantation, for which he could notbe responsible. " Mr. Smallbones adds the following comment: "I haveventured to relate this incident, because it shows the difficulties ofthe situation. The plantation on which it occurred is very well managed, and the labourers are very well treated there. Yet it has failed to makethe conditions of labour attractive to the natives. And as long as theGovernment are unable to force a supply of labour according to theregulations, they will have to tolerate or even practise irregularitiesin order to safeguard the property and interests of the employers. "

There need be no hesitation in recognising "the difficulties of thesituation. " They are unquestionably very real. But how does the incidentrelated by Mr. Smallbones bear on the contention of the PortugueseGovernment that no state of slavery exists? In truth, it shatters tofragments the whole of their argument. As has been already mentioned, Sir Edward Grey defined "forcible engagement" as "slavery. " Can it befor one moment contended that the engagement of these seven hundred menwas voluntary and not forcible? Obviously not. Therefore slavery stillexists, or at all events existed so late as August 1912. 

The third point to be considered is whether the liberated slave ispractically able to take advantage of the freedom which has beenconferred on him. Assuredly, he cannot do so. Consider what the positionof these men is. They, or their parents before them, have in numerousinstances been forcibly removed from their homes, which often lie at agreat distance from the spot where they are liberated. They areapparently asked to contribute out of their wages to a repatriationfund. Why should they do so? They were, in a great many, probably in amajority of cases, expatriated either against their will or withoutreally understanding what they were doing. Why should they pay forrepatriation? The responsibility of the Portuguese does not end when themen have been paid their wages and are set free. Neither can it be forone moment admitted that that responsibility is limited, as theGovernor-General would appear to maintain in a Memorandum communicatedto Mr. Smallbones on October 25, 1912, merely to seeing that repatriatedslaves disembarked on the mainland "shall be protected against theeffects of the change of climate, and principally against themselves. "No one will expect the Portuguese Government to perform the impossible, but it is clear that, unless the institution of slavery itself isconsidered justifiable, the slaves have a right to be placed by thePortuguese Government and nation in precisely the same position as theywould have occupied had they never been led into slavery. Apart from theimpossibility, it may, on several grounds, be undesirable to seek toattain this ideal, but that is no reason why the validity of the moralclaim should not be recognised. In many cases it is abundantly clearthat to speak of a slave liberated at San Thomé being really a free manin the sense in which that word is generally understood, is merely anabuse of terms. The only freedom he possesses is that created for him byhis employers. It consists of being able to wander aimlessly about theAfrican mainland at the imminent risk of starvation, or of being robbedof whatever miserable pittance may have been served out to him. Forthese reasons it is maintained that the starting-point for any furtherdiscussion on this question is that the plea that slavery no longerexists in the West African dominions of Portugal is altogetheruntenable. It still exists, though under another name. There remains thequestion of how its existence can be terminated. 

The writer of the present article would be the last to underrate theenormous practical difficulties to be encountered in dealingeffectively with this question. His own experience in cognate mattersenables him in some degree to recognise the nature of thosedifficulties. When the _corvée_ system was abolished in Egypt, thequestion which really confronted the Government of that country was howthe whole of a very backward population, the vast majority of whom hadfor centuries been in reality, though not nominally, slaves, could bemade to understand that, although they would not be flogged if they didnot clear out the mud from the canals on which the irrigation of theirfields depended, they would run an imminent risk of starvation unlessthey voluntarily accepted payment for performing that service. Thedifficulties were enhanced owing to the facts that the country was in astate of quasi-bankruptcy, and the political situation was in thehighest degree complicated and bewildering. Nevertheless, after a periodof transition, which, it must be admitted, was somewhat agonising, theproblem was solved, but it was only thoroughly solved after a strugglewhich lasted for some years. It is a vivid recollection of the arduousnature of that struggle that induces the writer of the present articleso far to plead the cause of the Portuguese Government as to urge that, if once it can be fully established that they are moving steadily butstrenuously in the right direction, no excessive amount of impatienceshould be shown if the results obtained do not immediately answer allthe expectations of those who wish to witness the complete abolition ofthe hateful system under which the cultivation of cocoa in the WestAfrican Islands has hitherto been conducted. The financial interestsinvolved are important, and deserve a certain, albeit a limited, amountof consideration. There need be no hesitation whatever in pressing forthe adoption of measures which may result in diminishing the profits ofthe cocoa proprietors and possibly increasing the price paid by theconsumers of cocoa. Indeed, there would be nothing unreasonable inarguing that the output of cocoa, worth £2, 000, 000 a year, had muchbetter be lost to the world altogether rather than that the life of thepresent vicious system should be prolonged. But even if it weredesirable--which is probably not the case--it is certainly impossible totake all the thirty thousand men now employed in the islands andsuddenly transport them elsewhere. It would be Utopian to expect thatthe Portuguese Government, in the face of the vehement opposition whichthey would certainly have to encounter, would consent to the adoption ofany such heroic measure. As practical men we must, whilst acknowledgingthe highly regrettable nature of the facts, accept them as they stand. Slight importance can, indeed, be attached to the argument put forwardby one of the British Consular authorities, that "the native lives underfar better conditions in San Thomé than in his own country. " It issomewhat too much akin to the plea advanced by ardent fox-hunters thatthe fox enjoys the sport of being hunted. Neither, although it issatisfactory to learn that the slaves are now generally well treated, does this fact in itself constitute any justification for slavery. Thesystem must disappear, and the main question is to devise some otherless objectionable system to take its place. 

There are two radical solutions of this problem. One is to abandoncocoa-growing altogether, at all events in the island of Principe, apart of which is infected with sleeping-sickness, and to start theindustry afresh elsewhere. The other is to substitute free for slavelabour in the islands themselves. Both plans are discussed inLieutenant-Colonel Wyllie's very able report addressed to the ForeignOffice on December 8, 1912. This report is, indeed, one of the mostvaluable contributions to the literature on this subject which have yetappeared. Colonel Wyllie has evidently gone thoroughly into the matter, and, moreover, appears to realise the fact, which all experienceteaches, that slavery is as indefensible from an economic as it is froma moral point of view. Free labour, when it can be obtained, is farless expensive than slave labour. 

Colonel Wyllie suggests that the Principe planters should abandon theirpresent plantations and receive "free grants of land in the fertile andpopulous colony of Portuguese Guinea, the soil of which is reported byall competent authorities to be better suited to cacao-growing than eventhat of San Thomé itself, and certainly far superior to that ofPrincipe. Guinea has from time to time supplied labour to these islands, so that the besetting trouble of the latter is nonexistent there. " Headds: "I am decidedly of opinion that some such scheme as this is theonly cure for the blight that has fallen on the island of Principe. " Itwould require greater local knowledge than any to which the writer ofthe present article can pretend to discuss the merits of this proposal, but at first sight it would certainly appear to deserve full and carefulconsideration. 

But as regards San Thomé, which is by far the larger and more importantof the two islands, it would appear that the importation of free labouris not only the best, but, indeed, the only really possible solution ofthe whole problem. It may be suggested that, without by any meansneglecting other points, such as the repatriation of men now serving, the efforts both of the Portuguese Government and of all othersinterested in the question should be mainly centred on this issue. Something has been already done in this direction, Mr. Harris, writingin the _Contemporary Review_ of May 1912, said: "Mozambique labour wastried in 1908, and this experiment is proving, for the time, sosuccessful, that many planters look to the East rather than West Africafor their future supply. All available evidence appears to prove thatCabinda, Cape Verde, and Mozambique labour is, so far as contract labourgoes, fairly recruited and honestly treated as 'free labour. '" It is anencouraging sign that a Portuguese Company has been formed whose objectis "to recruit free, paid labourers, natives of the provinces of Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, and Guinea. " Moreover, the following passagefrom Colonel Wyllie's report deserves very special attention:

 "Several San Thomé planters, " he says, "realising the advantage of having a more intelligent and industrious labourer than the Angolan, have signed contracts with an English Company trading in Liberia for the supply of labour from Cape Palmas and its hinterland, on terms to which no exception can be taken from any point of view. Two, if not by now three, batches of Liberians have arrived at San Thomé and have been placed on estates for work. The Company has posted an English agent there to act as curador to the men, banking their money, arranging their home remittances, and mediating in any disputes arising between them and their employers. The system works wonderfully well, giving satisfaction both to the masters and to the men, the latter being as pleased with their treatment as the former are with their physique and intelligence. There is every prospect of the arrangement being developed to the extent of enabling Angolan labour to be permanently dispensed with, and possibly superseding Mozambique importations as well. "

Colonel Wyllie then goes on to say: "The company and its agents complainof the many obstacles they have had to overcome in the form of hostilityand intrigue on the part of interested parties. Systematic attempts havebeen made in Liberia to intimidate the gangs from going to San Thomé bytales of cruelty practised by the Portuguese in the islands. " Moreespecially it would appear that the "missionaries" have been advisingthe Liberians not to accept the offers made to them. It is notaltogether surprising that they should do so, for the Portuguese haveacquired an evil reputation which it will take time to efface. To anoutside observer it would appear that an admirable opportunity is hereafforded for the Portuguese Government and the Anti-Slavery Society, whoare in close relation with many of the missionaries, to co-operate inthe attainment of a common object. Why should not the Portugueseauthorities invite some agents of the Anti-Slavery Society to visit theislands and place before them evidence which will enable themconscientiously to guarantee proper treatment to the Liberian labourers, and why, when they are once convinced, should not those agents, far fromdiscouraging, encourage Liberians, and perhaps others, to go to SanThomé? If this miracle could be effected--and with real good-will onboth sides it ought to be possible to effect it--a very great step inadvance would have been taken to solve this difficult problem. But inorder to realise such an ideal, mutual confidence would have to beestablished. When the affairs of the Congo were under discussion theBelgian air was thick with rumours that British humanitarianism was amere cloak to hide the greed of British merchants. Similar ideas are, itwould appear, now afloat at Lisbon. When men's pockets are touched theyare apt to become extremely suspicious of humanitarian intentions. Mr. Wingfield, writing on August 17, 1912, said that the PortugueseGovernment was not "convinced of the disinterestedness of all those whocriticise them, " and he intimated that there were schemes on foot on thepart of British subjects to acquire "roças" in the islands "at very lowprices. " It ought not to be difficult to convince the Portugueseauthorities that the agents employed by the Anti-Slavery Society are inno way connected with any such projects. On the other hand, it would benecessary that those agents should be very carefully chosen, thatbesides being humanitarians they should have some knowledge of business, and that they should enter upon their inquiry in a spirit of fairness, and not with any preconceived intention to push to an extreme anysuspicions they may entertain of Portuguese acts and intentions. It issuggested that the adoption of some such mode of proceeding as is hereindicated is worthy of consideration. The Foreign Office might veryproperly act as an intermediary to bring the two parties together. 

Finally, before leaving this branch of the subject, it is to be observedthat the difficulty of obtaining free labour has occurred elsewhere thanin the Portuguese possessions. It has generally admitted, at all events, of a partial solution if the labourers are well treated and adequatelypaid. Portuguese experience points to a similar conclusion. Mr. Smallbones, writing on September 23, 1912, quotes the report of themanager of the Lobito railway, in which the latter, after stating thathe has had no difficulty in obtaining all the labour he has required, adds, "I attribute the facility in obtaining so large a supply oflabour, relatively cheaply, to the good food we supply them with, andchiefly to the regularity with which payments in cash are effected, andalso to the justice with which they are treated. "

The question of repatriation remains to be treated. It must, of course, be remembered that repatriation is an act of justice to the men alreadyenslaved, but that, by itself, it does little or nothing towards solvingthe main difficulties of the slavery problem. Mr. Wingfield, writing toSir Edward Grey on August 24, 1912, relates a conversation he had hadwith Senhor Vasconcellos. "His Excellency first observed that they weregenerally subjected to severe criticism in England, and said to befostering slavery because they did not at once repatriate all nativeswho had served the term of their original contracts. Now they wereblamed for the misfortunes which resulted from their endeavour to act asEngland was always suggesting that they should act!" His Excellency madewhat Parliamentarians would call a good debating point, but thecomplaint is obviously more specious than real, for what people inEngland expect is not merely that the slaves should, if they wish it, berepatriated, but that the repatriation should be conducted underreasonably humane conditions. For the purposes of the present argumentit is needless to inquire whether the ghastly story adopted by theAnti-Slavery Society on the strength of a statement in a Portuguesenewspaper, but denied by the Portuguese Government, that the corpses offifty repatriated men who had died of starvation were at one time to beseen lying about in the outskirts of Benguella, be true or false. Independently of this incident, all the evidence goes to show thatColonel Wyllie is saying no more than the truth when he writes: "Torepatriate, _i. E. _ to dump on the African mainland without previousarrangement for his reception, protection, or safe conduct over hisfurther route, an Angolan or hinterland 'serviçal' who has spent yearsof his life in San Thomé, is not merely to sentence him to death, but toexecute that sentence with the shortest possible delay. " It is againstthis system that those interested in the subject in England protested. The Portuguese Government appear now to have recognised the justice oftheir protests, for they have recently adopted a plan somewhat similarto that initiated by the late Lord Salisbury for dealing with immigrantcoolies from India. By an Order in Council dated October 17, 1912, ithas been provided that repatriated "serviçaes" should receive a grant ofland and should be set up, free of charge, with agricultural implementsand seeds. This is certainly a step in the right direction. It is as yettoo early to say how far the plan will succeed, but if it is honestlycarried out it ought to go far towards solving the repatriationquestion. Mr. Smallbones would appear justified in claiming that it"should be given a fair trial before more heroic measures are applied. "The repatriation fund, which appears, to say the least, to have beenvery badly administered, ought, without difficulty, to be able to meetthe expenses which the adoption of this plan will entail. 

[Footnote 105: Mr. E. W. Brooks subsequently wrote to _The Spectator_ toexplain that "the letter in question was in no sense an official letterfrom the Society of Friends. It was the product of one small meeting ofthat body, which appears to have been misinformed by one or more of itsmembers, and was in no sense a letter from the Society of Friends, which, on the subject of Portuguese Slavery, is officially representedby its Anti-Slavery Committee, of which he is himself the HonorarySecretary. "]

XXV

ENGLAND AND ISLAM

_"The Spectator, " August 23, 1913_

Amidst the many important remarks made by Sir Edward Grey in his recentParliamentary statement on the affairs of the Balkan Peninsula, nonedeserve greater attention than those which dealt with the duties andresponsibilities of England towards Mohammedans in general. It was, indeed, high time that some clear and authoritative declaration ofprinciple on this important subject should be made by a Minister of theCrown. We are constantly being reminded that King George V. Is thegreatest Mohammedan ruler in the world, that some seventy millions ofhis subjects in India are Moslems, and that the inhabitants of Egypt arealso, for the most part, followers of the Prophet of Arabia. It is notinfrequently maintained that it is a duty incumbent on Great Britain todefend the interests and to secure the welfare of Moslems all over theworld because a very large number of their co-religionists are Britishsubjects and reside in British territory. It is not at all surprisingthat this claim should be advanced, but it is manifestly one whichcannot be admitted without very great and important qualifications. Moreover, it is one which, from a European point of view, represents asomewhat belated order of ideas. It is true that community of religionconstitutes the main bond of union between Russia and the population ofthe Balkan Peninsula, but apart from the fact that no such community ofreligious thought exists between Christian England and Moslem or HinduIndia, it is to be noted that, generally speaking, the tie of a commoncreed, which played so important a part in European politics anddiplomacy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, has now beengreatly weakened, even if it has not disappeared altogether. It has beensupplanted almost everywhere by the bond of nationality. No practicalpolitician would now argue that, if the Protestants of Holland or Swedenhad any special causes for complaint, a direct responsibility rested ontheir co-religionists in Germany or England to see that those grievanceswere redressed. No Roman Catholic nation would now advance a claim tointerfere in the affairs of Ireland on the ground that the majority ofthe population of that country are Roman Catholics. 

This transformation of political thought and action has not yet takenplace in the East. It may be, as some competent observers are disposedto think, that the principle of nationality is gaining ground in Easterncountries, but it has certainly not as yet taken firm root. The bondwhich holds Moslem societies together is still religious rather thanpatriotic. Its binding strength has been greatly enhanced by twocircumstances. One is that Mecca is to the Moslem far more thanJerusalem is to the Christian or to the Jew. From Delhi to Zanzibar, from Constantinople to Java, every devout Moslem turns when he prays towhat Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole aptly calls the "cradle of his creed. " Theother circumstance is that, although, as Mr. Hughes has said, "we havenot seen a single work of authority, nor met with a single man oflearning who has ever attempted to prove that the Sultans of Turkey arerightful Caliphs, " at the same time the spiritual authority usurped bySelim I. Is generally recognised throughout Islam, with the result notonly that unity of thought has been engendered amongst Moslems, but alsothat religion has to a great extent been incorporated into politics, andidentified with the maintenance of a special form of government in aportion of the Moslem world. 

The growth of the principle of nationality in those eastern countrieswhich are under western dominion might not inconceivably raise politicalissues of considerable magnitude, but in the discussions which have fromtime to time taken place on this subject the inconveniences and evendanger caused by the universality of a non-national bond based oncommunity of religion have perhaps been somewhat unduly neglected. Theseinconveniences have, however, always existed. That the policy which ledto the Crimean War and generally the prolonged tension which existedbetween England and Russia were due to the British connection with Indiais universally recognised. It would be difficult to differentiate thecauses of that tension, and to say how far it was, on the one hand, dueto purely strategical considerations, or, on the other hand, to a desireto meet the wishes and satisfy the aspirations of the many millions ofMoslems who are British subjects. Since, however, the general diplomaticrelations between England and Russia have, fortunately for bothcountries, been placed on a footing of more assured confidence andfriendship than any which have existed for a long time past, strategicalconsiderations have greatly diminished in importance. The natural resulthas been that the alternative plea for regarding Near Eastern affairsfrom the point of view of Indian interests has acquired greaterprominence. Those who have been closely in touch with the affairs ofthe Near East, and have watched the gradual decay of Turkey, have forsome while past foreseen that the time was inevitably approaching whenBritish statesmen and the British nation would be forced by thenecessities of the situation to give a definite answer to the questionhow far their diplomatic action in Europe would have to be governed bythe alleged obligation to conciliate Moslem opinion in India. Thatquestion received, to a certain limited extent, a practical answer whenBulgaria declared war on Turkey and when not a voice was raised in thiscountry to urge that the policy which dictated the Crimean War should berehabilitated. 

The answer, however, is not yet complete. England is now apparentlyexpected by many Moslems to separate herself from the Concert of Europe, and not impossibly to imperil the peace of the world, in order that theTurks should continue in occupation of Adrianople. The secretary of thePunjab Moslem League has informed us through the medium of the pressthat unless this is done the efforts of the extreme Indian Nationaliststo secure the sympathies of Mohammedans in India "will meet with growingsuccess. "

It was in reality to this challenge that Sir Edward Grey replied. Hisanswer was decisive, and left no manner of doubt as to the policy whichthe British Government intends to pursue. It will almost certainly meetwith well-nigh universal approval in this country. After explaining thatthe racial sentiments and religious feelings of Moslem subjects of theCrown would be respected and have full scope, that British policy wouldnever be one of intolerance or wanton and unprovoked aggression againsta Mohammedan Power, and that the British Government would never join inany outrage on Mohammedan feelings and sentiments in any part of theworld, Sir Edward Grey added, "We cannot undertake the duty ofprotecting Mohammedan Powers outside the British dominions from theconsequences of their own action. .. . To suppose that we can undertakethe protection of and are bound to regulate our European policy so as toside with a Mussulman Power when that Mussulman Power rejects the advicegiven to it, that is not a claim we can admit. "

These are wise words, and it is greatly to be hoped that not only theMoslems of Turkey, but also those inhabiting other countries, will read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. Notably, the Moslems of Indiashould recognise that, with the collapse of Turkish power in Europe, anew order of things has arisen, that the change which the attitude ofEngland towards Turkey has undergone is the necessary consequence ofthat collapse, and that it does not in the smallest degree connoteunfriendliness to Islam. In fact, they must now endeavour to separateIslamism from politics. With the single exception of the occupation ofCyprus, which, as Lord Goschen very truly said at the time, "preventedBritish Ambassadors from showing 'clean hands' to the Sultan in proof ofthe unselfishness of British action, " the policy of England in the NearEast has been actuated, ever since the close of the Napoleonic wars, bya sincere and wholly disinterested desire to save Turkish statesmen fromthe consequences of their own folly. In this cause no effort has beenspared, even to the shedding of the best blood of England. All has beenin vain. History does not relate a more striking instance of the truthof the old Latin saying that self-deception is the first step on theroad to ruin. Advice tendered in the best interests of the OttomanEmpire has been persistently rejected. The Turks, who have always beenstrangers in Europe, have shown conspicuous inability to comply with theelementary requirements of European civilisation, and have at lastfailed to maintain that military efficiency which has, from the dayswhen they crossed the Bosphorus, been the sole mainstay of their powerand position. It is, as Sir Edward Grey pointed out, unreasonable toexpect that we should now save them from the consequences of their ownaction. Whether Moslems all over the world will or should still continueto regard the Sultan of Turkey as their spiritual head is a matter onwhich it would be presumptuous for a Christian to offer any opinion, buthowever this may be, Indian Moslems would do well to recognise the factthat circumstances, and not the hostility of Great Britain or of anyother foreign Power, have materially altered the position of the Sultanin so far as the world of politics and diplomacy is concerned. Whetherthe statesman in whose hands the destinies of Turkey now lie at onceabandon Adrianople, or whether they continue to remain there for a timewith the certainty that they will be sowing the seeds of furtherbloodshed in the near future, one thing is certain. It is that the daysof Turkey as an European Power are numbered. Asia must henceforth be hersphere of action. 

That these truths should be unpalatable to Indian Moslems is butnatural; neither is it possible to withhold some sympathy from them inthe distress which they must now feel at the partial wreck of the mostimportant Moslem State which the world has yet seen. But facts, howeverdistasteful, have to be faced, and it would be truly deplorable if thenon-recognition of those facts should lead our Moslem fellow-subjectsin India to resent the action of the British Government and to adopt aline of conduct from which they have nothing to gain and everything tolose. But whatever that line of conduct may be, the duty of the BritishGovernment and nation is clear. Their European policy, whilst allowingall due weight to Indian interests and sentiment, must in the main beguided by general considerations based on the necessities of civilisedprogress throughout the world, and on the interests and welfare of theBritish Empire as a whole. The idea that that policy should be divertedfrom its course in order to subserve the cause of a single Moslem Powerwhich has rejected British advice is, as Sir Edward Grey very rightlyremarked, wholly inadmissible. 

XXVI

SOME INDIAN PROBLEMS[106]

_"The Spectator, " August 30, 1913_

In spite of the optimism at times displayed in dealing with Indianaffairs, which may be justified on grounds which are often, to say theleast, plausible, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the generalcondition of India gives cause for serious reflection, if not for graveanxiety. We are told on all sides that the East is rapidly awakeningfrom its torpid slumbers--even to the extent of forgetting thatcharacteristically Oriental habit of thought embodied in the Arabicproverb, "Slowness is from God, hurry from the Devil. " If this be so, wemust expect that, year by year, problems of ever-increasing complexitywill arise which will tax to the utmost the statesmanship of thoseWestern nations who are most brought in contact with Eastern peoples. In these circumstances, it is specially desirable that the differentpoints of view from which Indian questions may be regarded should belaid before the British public by representatives of various schools ofthought. But a short time ago a very able Socialist member of Parliament(Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) gave to the world the impressions he had derivedwhilst he was "careering over the plains of Rajputana, " and payinghurried visits to other parts of India. His views, although manifestlyin some degree the result of preconceived opinions, and somewhat taintedwith the dogmatism which is characteristic of the political school ofthought to which he belongs, exhibit at the same time habits of acuteobservation and powers of rapid--sometimes unduly rapid--generalisation. Neither are they, on the whole, so prejudiced as might have beenexpected from the antecedents and political connections of the author. More recently we have had in a work written by Mr. Mallik, which waslately reviewed in these columns, a striking specimen of one of thosepernicious by-products which are the natural and unavoidable outcome ofEastern and Western contact. We have now to deal with a work of a verydifferent type. Many of the very difficult problems which Mr. Mitradiscusses in his interesting series of _Anglo-Indian Studies_ open up awide field for differences of opinion, but whatever views may beentertained about them, all must recognise not only that no kind ofexception can be taken to the general spirit in which Mr. Mitraapproaches Indian subjects, but also that his observations are theresult of deep reflection, and of an honest endeavour to improve ratherthan exacerbate racial relations. His remarks are, therefore, wellworthy of consideration. 

Mr. Mitra shows a perfectly legitimate pride in the past history of hiscountry. He tells us how Hindu international lawyers anticipated Grotiusby some thirty centuries, how the Mahabharata embodies many of theprinciples adopted by the Hague Conference, how India preceded Europe inher knowledge of all the arts and sciences, even including that ofmedicine, and how "Hindu drama was in its heyday before the theatres ofEngland, France, or Spain could be said to exist. " But Mr. Mitra'sardent patriotism does not blind him to the realities of the presentsituation. A very intelligent Frenchman, M. Paul Boell, who visitedIndia a few years ago, came to the conclusion that the real Indianquestion was not whether the English were justified in staying in thecountry, but whether they could find any moral justification forwithdrawing from it. Mr. Mitra arrives at much the same conclusion as M. Boell. "If the English were to withdraw from India to-morrow, " he says, "I fear that, notwithstanding all the peace precepts of our Mahabharata, and in spite of the stupendous philosophy and so-called fatalism of theHindus, our Maharajahs would speedily be at each other's throats, asthey were before the _pax Britannica_ was established there. " Moreover, he asserts a principle of vital importance, which is but too oftenignored by his countrymen, and even at times by those who sympathisewith them in England. "Education and knowledge, " he says, "can be pumpedinto the student, but there is no royal road for instruction in'capacity of management. ' A Clive, with inferior education, may be abetter manager of men or of an industrial concern than the most learnedstudent. " In other words, character rather than intellect is thefoundation not only of national but also of individual greatness--aprofound truth which is brought home every day to those who are engagedin the actual management of public affairs, especially in the East. Mr. Mitra, moreover, makes various praiseworthy efforts to dispel certainillusions frequently nourished by some of his countrymen, and todiminish the width of the religious gulf which separates the rulers fromthe ruled. He quotes with approval Sir Rajendra Mookerjee's complete, albeit facile, exposure of the fallacy, dear to the hearts of manyIndian press writers and platform speakers, that Indian interests sufferby the introduction of British capital into India. "It is wise, " SirRajendra said, "to allow British capitalists to interest themselves inour industries and thus take an active part in their development. " Heprefers to dwell on the points of similarity which unite rather than onthe differences which separate Hinduism and Christianity. "The tworeligions, " he says, "have so much in common when one gets down toessentials that it seems to me this ought to furnish a great bond ofsympathy between the two peoples, " and he urges that "every attemptshould be made to utilise the Hindu University to remove the spirit ofsegregation which unquestionably exists between the Christian Governmentin India and its Hindu subjects, and thus pave the way to harmoniousco-operation between the Aryan rulers and the ruled in India. "

It will be as well, however, to turn from these points to what Mr. Mitraconsiders the shortcomings of the British Government. He is not sparingin his criticisms. He freely admits that British statesmen have devotedtheir energies to improving the conditions of the masses, but he adds, and it must be sorrowfully admitted that he is justified in adding, "Material advantages set forth in dry statistics have never made anation enthusiastically loyal to the Government. " He urges that, especially in dealing with a population the vast majority of which isilliterate, "it is the _human element_ that counts most in Imperialism, far more than the dry bones of political economy. " In an interestingchapter of his book entitled _British Statesmanship and IndianPsychology_, he asks the very pertinent question, "What does loyaltymean to the Indian, whether Moslem or Hindu?" The answer which he givesto this question is that when the idea of loyalty is brought before thenative of India, "it comes in most cases with a jerk, and quicklydisappears. " The reason for its disappearance is that no bond offellowship has been established between the rulers and the ruled, thatthe native of India is not made to feel that "he has any real part inEngland's greatness, " that the influence and high position of the nativePrinces receive inadequate recognition, and that no scope is offered tothe military ambition of the citizens of the Indian Empire. "Under theCrescent, the Hindu has been Commander of a Brigade; under the UnionJack, even after a century, he sees no likelihood of rising as high as alittle subaltern. "

There is, of course, nothing very new in all this. It has been pointedout over and over again by all who have considered Indian or Egyptianproblems seriously that the creation of some sort of rather spuriouspatriotism when all the elements out of which patriotism naturally growsare wanting, is rather like searching for the philosopher's stone. Atthe same time, when so sympathetic a critic as Mr. Mitra bids us studythe "psychological traits" of Indian character, it is certainly worthwhile to inquire whether all that is possible has been done in the wayof evoking sentiments of loyalty based on considerations which lieoutside the domain of material advantage. The most imaginative Britishstatesman of recent years has been Lord Beaconsfield. Himself aquasi-Oriental, he grasped the idea that it would be possible to appealto the imagination of other Orientals. The laughter which was to someextent provoked when, at his suggestion, Queen Victoria assumed thetitle of Empress of India has now died away, and it is generallyrecognised, even by those who are not on other grounds disposed toindulge in any exaggerated worship of the primrose, that in this respectLord Beaconsfield performed an act dictated by true statesmanship. Heappealed to those personal and monarchical sentiments which, to a fargreater extent than democratic ideas, dominate the minds of Easterns. The somewhat lavish expenditure incurred in connection with the King'srecent visit to India may be justified on similar grounds. Followinggenerally the same order of ideas, Mr. Mitra has some furthersuggestions to make. The question of opening some field to the verynatural aspirations of the martial races and classes of India presents, indeed, very great practical difficulties which it would be impossibleto discuss adequately on the present occasion. All that can be said isthat, although the well-intentioned efforts so far made to solve thisthorny problem do not appear to have met with all the success theydeserve, it is one which should earnestly engage the attention of theGovernment in the hope that some practical and unobjectionable solutionmay eventually be found. Mr. Mitra, however, draws attention to othercognate points which would certainly appear to merit attention. "Thefirst thing, " he says, "necessary to rouse Indian sentiment is to giveIndia a flag of her own. " He points out that Canada, Australia, SouthAfrica, and some of the West Indian islands have flags of their own, andhe asks why, without in any way serving as a symbol of separation, Indiashould not be similarly treated? Then, again, he remarks--and it wouldbe well if some of our Parliamentarians took careful note of theobservation--that "British statesmen, in their zeal for introducingtheir democratic system of government into India, forget that India ispre-eminently an aristocratic land. " This appreciation of the Indiansituation formed the basis of the political system favoured by no lessan authority than Sir Henry Lawrence, and stood in marked contrast tothat advocated by his no less distinguished brother, Lord Lawrence. Mr. Mitra, therefore, suggests that a certain number of ruling princes ortheir heirs-apparent should be allowed to sit in a reformed House ofLords. "Canada, " Lord Meath said some years ago, "is already representedin the House of Lords, " and he pertinently asked, "Why should not Indiaalso have her peers in that assembly?" The particular proposal made byMr. Mitra in this connection may possibly be open to some objections, but the general principle which he advocates, as also the suggestionthat a special flag should be devised for India, would certainly appearto be well worthy of consideration. 

It is interesting to turn to the view entertained by Mr. Mitra on therecent transfer of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Delhi. Hemanifestly does not regard that transfer with any degree of favour. Moreover, he thinks that from the point of view of the stability ofBritish rule, a great mistake has been made. Delhi, he says, has "forcenturies symbolised Moslem-Hindu collective sentiment. " He assumes thatit is the object of British statesmanship to prevent any union betweenMoslems and Hindus, and that the recent transfer will go far to cementthat union. "In transferring the capital to the old centre of IndianImperialism, England has, in a flash, aroused memories to a degree thatthousands of demagogues and agitators would not have done in a century. "He holds, therefore, that the action of British statesmen in thisrespect may not improbably "produce the reverse of the result theyintended. " The question of whether it was or was not wise to transferthe seat of Government to Delhi is one on which differences of opinionmay well exist, but Mr. Mitra is in error in supposing that either theBritish nation collectively or British statesmen individually have everproceeded so far on the _divide et impera_ principle as to endeavour intheir own interests to foster and perpetuate racial and religiousanimosities. On the contrary, although they have accepted as a fact thatthose animosities exist, and although they have at times been obliged tointerfere with a view to preventing one race or religion infringing therights and liberties of others, they have persistently done their bestto allay discord and sectarian strife. In spite of Mr. Mitra's obviousand honourable attempts to preserve an attitude of judicialimpartiality, it is conceivable that in this instance he may, as aHindu, have allowed himself to be unconsciously influenced by fearthat, in transferring the capital to a Moslem centre, the BritishGovernment has, in his own words, "placed itself more within the sway ofMoslem influence than the authorities would care to admit. "

Mr. Mitra alludes to several important points of detail, such, forinstance, as the proposal to establish a port at Cochin, which he fears"may be allowed to perish in the coils of official routine, " and thesuggestion made by Sir Rajendra Mookerjee that by a reduction of railwayfreights from the mines in the Central Provinces to the port the tradein manganese might be encouraged. It is to be hoped that these and someother similar points will receive due attention from the Indianauthorities. Sufficient has been said to justify the opinion that Mr. Mitra's thoughtful work is a valuable contribution to Indian literature, and will well repay perusal by all who are interested in the solution ofexisting Indian problems. 

[Footnote 106: _Anglo-Indian Studies_. By S. M. Mitra. London: Longmansand Co. 10s. 6d. ]

XXVII

THE NAPOLEON OF TAINE[107]

_"The Spectator" September 13, 1913_

It has happened to most of the great actors on the world's stage thattheir posthumous fame has undergone many vicissitudes. _Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis. _ They have at times been eulogised or depreciated bypartisan historians who have searched eagerly the records of the pastwith a view to eliciting facts and arguments to support the politicalviews they have severally entertained as regards the present. Even whenno such incentive has existed, the temptation to adopt a novel view ofsome celebrated man or woman whose character and career have floateddown the tide of history cast in a conventional mould has occasionallyproved highly attractive from a mere literary point of view. The processof whitewashing the bad characters of history may almost be said tohave established itself as a fashion. 

A similar fate has attended the historians who have recorded the deedsof the world's principal actors. A few cases, of which perhaps Ranke isthe most conspicuous, may indeed be cited of historical writers whosereputations are built on foundations so solid and so impervious toattack as to defy criticism. But it has more usually happened, as in thecase of Macaulay, that eminent historians have passed through variousphases of repute. The accuracy of their facts, the justice of theirconclusions, their powers of correct generalisation, and the merits ordemerits of their literary style have all been brought into court, withthe result that attention has often been to a great extent diverted fromhistory to the personality of the historians, and that the verdictpronounced has varied according to the special qualities the display ofwhich were for the time being uppermost in the public mind. 

No recent writer of history has experienced these vicissitudes to agreater extent than the illustrious author of _Les Origines de la Francecontemporaine_. That Taine should evoke the enthusiasm of any particularschool of politicians, and still less the partisans of any particularrégime in France, was from the very outset obviously impossible. Whenwe read his account of the _ancien régime_ we think we are listening tothe voice of a calm but convinced republican or constitutionalist. Whenwe note his scathing exposure of the criminal folly and ineptitude ofthe Jacobins we remain momentarily under the impression that we arebeing guided by a writer imbued with strong conservative or evenmonarchical sympathies. The iconoclast both of the revolutionary and ofthe Napoleonic legends chills alike the heart of the worshippers ateither shrine. A writer who announces in the preface of his work thatthe only conclusion at which he is able to arrive, after a profoundstudy of the most interesting and stormy period of modern history, isthat the government of human beings is an extremely difficult task, willlook in vain for sympathy from all who have adopted any special theoryas to the best way in which that task should be accomplished. Yet, inspite of Taine's political nihilism, it would be a grave error tosuppose that he has no general principle to enounce, or no plan ofgovernment to propound. Such is far from being the case. Though nopolitician, he was a profoundly analytical psychologist. M. Le Bon, inhis brilliant treatise on the psychological laws which govern nationaldevelopment, says, "Dans toutes manifestations de la vie d'une nation, nous retrouvons toujours l'âme immuable de la race tissant son propredestin. " The commonplace method of stating the same proposition is tosay that every nation gets the government it deserves. This, in fact, isthe gospel which Taine had to preach. He thought, in LadyBlennerhassett's words, that it was "the underlying characteristics of apeople; and not their franchise, which determines their Constitution. "

After having enjoyed for long a high reputation amongst non-partisanstudents of revolutionary history, Taine's claim to rank as an historianof the first order has of late been vigorously assailed by a school ofwriters, of whom M. Aulard is probably the best known and the mostdistinguished. They impugn his authority, and even go so far as tomaintain that his historical testimony is of little or no value. How faris this view justified? The question is one of real interest to thehistorical student, whatsoever may be his nationality, and it is, perhaps, for more than one reason, of special interest to Englishmen. Inthe first place, Taine's method of writing history is eminentlycalculated to commend itself to English readers. His mind was eminentlyobjective. He avoided those brilliant and often somewhat specious _apriori_ generalisations in which even the best French authors are attimes prone to indulge. His process of reasoning was strictlyinductive. He only drew conclusions when he had laid an elaboratefoundation of facts on which they could be based. The spirit in which hewrote was more Teutonic than Latin. Again, in the absence of any reallycomplete English history of the French Revolution--for Carlyle'srhapsody, in spite of its unquestionable merits, can scarcely be held tosupply the want--most Englishmen have been accustomed to think that, with De Tocqueville and Taine as their guides, they would be able tosecure an adequate grasp both of the history of the revolutionary periodand of the main political lessons which that history tends to inculcate. 

In a very interesting essay published in Lady Blennerhassett's recentwork, entitled _Sidelights_, which has been admirably translated intoEnglish by Mrs. Gülcher, she deals with the subject now underdiscussion. No one could be more fitted to cope with the task. LadyBlennerhassett's previous contributions to literature, her encyclopaedicknowledge of historical facts, and her thorough grasp of the mainpolitical, religious, and economic considerations which moved the heartsand influenced the actions of men during the revolutionary convulsiongive her a claim, which none will dare to dispute, to speak withauthority on this subject. Those who have heretofore looked forguidance to Taine will, therefore, rejoice to note that she is able tovindicate his reputation as an historian. "The six volumes of the_Origines_, " she says, "are, like other human works, not free fromerrors and exaggerations, but in all essentials their author has provedhimself right, and his singular merit remains. "

As the most suitable illustration of Taine's historical methods LadyBlennerhassett selects his study of Napoleon. That, she thinks, is "theseverest test of the author's skill. " Taine did not, like Fournier andothers, attempt to write a history of Napoleonic facts. The strategicaland tactical genius which enabled Napoleon to sweep across Europe and tocrush Austria and Prussia on the fields of Austerlitz and Jena had noattraction for him. He wrote a history of ideas. True to his ownpsychological habit of thought, he endeavoured to "reconstruct thefigure of Napoleon on psychological and physiological lines. " Thejustification of this method is to be found in the fact, the truth ofwhich cannot be gainsaid, that a right estimate of the character ofNapoleon affords one of the principal keys to the true comprehension ofEuropean history for a period of some twenty stirring years. History, Lord Acton said, "is often made by energetic men steadfastly followingideas, mostly wrong, that determine events. " Napoleon is a case inpoint. "The man in Napoleon explains his work. " But what were the ideasof this remarkable man, and were those ideas "mostly wrong"?

His main idea was certainly to satisfy his personal ambition. "Mamaîtresse, " he said, "c'est le pouvoir, " and in 1811, when, although heknew it not, his star was about to wane, he said to the Bavarian GeneralWrede, "In three years I shall be master of the universe. " He was notdeterred by any love of country, for it should never be forgotten that, as Lady Blennerhassett says, "this French Caesar was not a Frenchman. "Whatever patriotic feelings moved in his breast were not French butCorsican. He never even thoroughly mastered the French language, and hismother spoke not only bad French, but bad Italian. Her natural language, Masson tells us, was the Corsican _patois_. In order to gratify hisambition, all considerations based on morality were cast to the winds. "I am not like any other man, " he told Madame de Rémusat; "the laws ofmorality and decorum do not apply to me. " Acting on this principle hedid not hesitate to plunge the world into a series of wars. _Saevit totoMars impius orbe. _

The other fundamental idea which dominated the whole of Napoleon'sconduct was based on Voltaire's cynical dictum, "Quand les hommess'attroupent, leurs oreilles s'allongent. " He was a total disbeliever inthe wisdom or intelligence of corporate bodies. Therefore, as he toldSir Henry Keating at St. Helena, "It is necessary always to talk ofliberty, equality, justice, and disinterestedness, and never to grantany liberty whatever. " Low as was his opinion of human intelligence, hisestimate of human honesty was still lower. Mr. Lecky, speaking ofNapoleon's relations with Madame de Staël, says: "A perfectly honest manwas the only kind of man he could never understand. Such a man perplexedand baffled his calculations, acting on them as the sign of the crossacts on the machinations of a demon. " In his callow youth he hadcoquetted with ultra-Liberal ideas. He had even written an essay inwhich he expressed warm admiration for Algernon Sidney as an "enemy tomonarchies, princes, and nobles, " and added that "there are few kingswho have not deserved to be dethroned. " These ideas soon vanished. Hebecame the incarnation of ruthless but highly intelligent despotism. Thereputation acquired at Marengo gave him the authority which wasnecessary as a preliminary to decisive action, and albeit, if allaccounts are true, he lost his head at the most important crisis of hiscareer and owed success to the firmness of that Sieyès whom hescornfully called an "idéologue" and a "faiseur de constitutions, "nevertheless on the 18th Brumaire he was able to make captive a tirednation which pined for peace, and little recked that it was handing overits destinies to the most ardent devotee of the god of war that theworld has ever known. 

Once seated firmly in his saddle Napoleon proceeded to centralise thewhole French administration, and to establish a régime as despotic asthat of any of the hereditary monarchs who had preceded him. But it wasa despotism of a very different type from theirs. Theirs was stupid, andexcited the jealousy and hatred of almost every class. His wasintelligent and appealed both to the imagination and to the materialinterests of every individual Frenchman. Theirs was based on privilege;his on absolute equality. "About Napoleon's throne, " Lady Blennerhassettsays, "were gathered Girondists and Jacobins, Royalists andThermidorians, Plebeians and the one-time Knights of the Holy Ghost, Roman Catholics and Voltaireans. Kitchen lads became marshals; Drouet, the postmaster of Varennes, became Under-Secretary of State; Fouché, thetorturer and wholesale murderer, a duke; the Suabian candidate for theLutheran Ministry, Reinhard, was appointed an Imperial Ambassador;Murat, son of an innkeeper, a king. "

Death, it has been truly said, is the real measure of greatness. Whatnow remains of the stupendous fabric erected by Napoleon? "Of the workof the Conqueror, " Lady Blennerhassett says, "not one stone remains uponanother. " As regards the internal reconstruction of France, the case isvery different. All inquirers are agreed that Napoleon's work endures. Taine said that "the machinery of the year VIII. " still remains. Mr. Fisher, in his work on _Napoleonic Statesmanship_, says that Napoleon"created a bureaucracy more competent, active, and enlightened than anywhich Europe had seen. " Mr. Bodley bears similar testimony. "The wholecentralised administration of France, which, in its stability, hassurvived every political crisis, was the creation of Napoleon and thekeystone of his fabric. "

Napoleon's administrative creations may, indeed, be criticised from manypoints of view. Notably, it may be said that, if he did not initiate, hestimulated that excessive "fonctionnarisme" which is often regarded asthe main defect of the French system. But his creations were adapted tothe special character and genius of the nation over which he ruled. Hismain title-deed to enduring fame is that, for good or evil, heconstructed an edifice which, in its main features, has lasted to thisday, which shows no signs of decay, and which has exercised apredominant influence on the administration and judicial systems ofneighbouring countries. Neither the system itself nor the history of itscreation can be thoroughly understood without a correct appreciation ofthe character and political creed of its founder. It is thisconsideration which affords an ample justification of the special methodadopted by Taine in dealing with the history of the Napoleonic period. 

Nothing illustrates Napoleon's character more clearly than the numerous_ana_ which may be culled from the pages of Madame de Rémusat, Masson, Beugnot, Rœderer, and others. Of these, some are reproduced by LadyBlennerhassett. The writer of the present article was informed on goodauthority of the following Napoleonic anecdote. It is related thatNapoleon ordered from Bréguet, the famous Paris watchmaker, a watch forhis brother Joseph, who was at the time King of Spain. The back was ofblue enamel decorated with the letter J in diamonds. In 1813 Napoleonwas present at a military parade when a messenger arrived bearing abrief despatch, in which it was stated that the French army had beencompletely defeated at Vittoria. It was manifest that Spain was lost. Always severely practical, all that Napoleon did, after glancing at thedespatch, was to turn to his secretary and say, "Write to Bréguet andtell him that I shall not want that watch. " It is believed that thewatch was eventually bought by the Duke of Wellington. [108]

[Footnote 107: _Sidelights_. By Lady Blennerhassett. Translated by EdithGülcher. London: Constable & Co. 7s. 6d. ]

[Footnote 108: My informant in this matter was the late General SirArthur Ellis. Since the above was written, the Duke of Wellington hasinformed me that there is at Apsley House a watch, not made by Bréguetbut by another Paris watchmaker, on which is inscribed, "Ordered byNapoleon for his brother Joseph. " The cover is ornamented not with adiamond J, but with a map of the Peninsula. Inside is the portrait of alady. I do not doubt that this is the watch to which Sir Arthur Ellisalluded. ]

XXVIII

SONGS, PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL

_"The Spectator, " September 13, 1913_

All historians are agreed that contemporary ballads and broadsheetsconstitute a priceless storehouse from which to draw a picture of thesociety existing at the period whose history they seek to relate. Someof those which have survived to become generally known to later agesshow such poverty of imagination and such total absence of literarymerit as to evoke the surprise of posterity at the ephemeral successwhich they unquestionably achieved. An instance in point is thecelebrated poem "Lillibullero, " or, as it is sometimes written, "LilliBurlero. " Here is the final stanza of the pitiful doggerel with whichWharton boasted that he had "sung a king out of three kingdoms":

 There was an old prophecy found in a bog: Ireland shall be ruled by an ass and a dog; And now this prophecy is come to pass, For Talbot's the dog, and James is the ass. Lillibullero, Bullen-a-la. 

Doggerel as this was, it survived the special occasion for which it waswritten. When Queen Anne's reign was well advanced balladmongers weresinging:

 So God bless the Queen and the House of Hanover, And never may Pope or Pretender come over. Lillibullero, Bullen-a-la. 

If the song is still remembered by other than historical students, it isprobably more because Uncle Toby, when he was hard pressed in argument, "had accustomed himself, in such attacks, to whistle Lillibullero, " thanfor any other reason. 

But whether it be doggerel or dignified verse, popular poetry almostinvariably possesses one great merit. When we read the outpourings ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth century poets to the innumerable Julias, Sacharissas, and Celias whom they celebrated in verse, we cannot butfeel that we are often in contact with a display of spurious passionwhich is the outcome of the head rather than of the heart. Thus Johnsontells us that Prior's Chloe "was probably sometimes ideal, but the womanwith whom he cohabited was a despicable drab of the lowest species. " Thecase of popular and patriotic poetry is very different. It is whollydevoid of affectation. Whatever be its literary merits or demerits, italways represents some genuine and usually deep-rooted conviction. Itenables us to gauge the national aspirations of the day, and toestimate the character of the nation whose yearnings found expression insong. The following lines--written by Bishop Still, the reputed authorof "Gammer Gurton's Needle"--very faithfully represent the feelingsexcited in England at the time of the Spanish Armada:

 We will not change our Credo For Pope, nor boke, nor bell; And yf the Devil come himself We'll hounde him back to hell. 

The fiery Protestant spirit which is breathed forth in these lines foundits counterpart in Germany. Luther, at a somewhat earlier period, wrote:

 Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, Und steur des Papsts und Türken Mord. 

Take again the case of French Revolutionary poetry. The noble, as alsothe ignoble, sides of that vast upheaval were alike represented in thecurrent popular poetry of the day. Posterity has no difficulty inunderstanding why the whole French nation was thrilled by Rouget deLisle's famous song, to whose lofty strains the young conscripts rushedto the frontier in order to hurl back the invaders of their country. Onthe other hand, the ferocity of the period found expression in suchlines as:

 Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira! Les aristocrates à la lanterne, which was composed by one Ladré, a street singer, or in the savage"Carmagnole, " a name originally applied to a peasant costume worn in thePiedmontese town of Carmagnola, and afterwards adopted by the Maenadsand Bacchanals, who sang and danced in frenzied joy over the judicialmurder of poor "Monsieur et Madame Véto. "

The light-hearted and characteristically Latin buoyancy of the Frenchnation, which they have inherited from the days of that fifth-centuryGaulish bishop (Salvianus) who said that the Roman world was laughingwhen it died ("moritur et ridet"), and which has stood them in goodstead in many an arduous trial, is also fully represented in theirnational poetry. No other people, after such a crushing defeat as thatincurred at Pavia, would have been convulsed with laughter over theinnumerable stanzas which have immortalised their slain commander, M. Dela Palisse:

 Il mourut le vendredi, Le dernier jour de son âge; S'il fut mort le samedi, Il eût vécu davantage. 

The inchoate national aspirations, as also the grave and resolutepatriotism of the Germans, found interpreters of genius in the personsof Arndt and Körner, the latter of whom laid down his life for thepeople whom he loved so well. During the Napoleonic period all theircompositions, many of which will live so long as the German languagelasts, strike the same note--the determination of Germans to be free:

 Lasst klingen, was nur klingen kann, Die Trommeln und die Flöten! Wir wollen heute Mann für Mann Mit Blut das Eisen röten. Mit Henkerblut, Französenblut-- O süsser Tag der Rache! Das klinget allen Deutschen gut, Das ist die grosse Sache. 

Some six decades later, when Arndt's famous question "Was ist dasdeutsche Vaterland?" was about to receive a practical answer, the Germansoldier marched to the frontier to the inspiriting strains of "Die Wachtam Rhein. "

No more characteristic national poetry was ever written than that evokedby the civil war which raged in America some fifty years ago. Those who, like the present writer, were witnesses on the spot of some portion ofthat great struggle, are never likely to forget the differentimpressions left on their minds by the poetry respectively of the Northand of the South. The pathetic song of the Southerners, "Maryland, myMaryland, " which was composed by Mr. T. R. Randall, appeared, evenwhilst the contest was still undecided, to embody the plaintive wail ofa doomed cause, and stood in strong contrast to the aggressive andalmost rollicking vigour of "John Brown's Body" and "The Union for ever, Hurrah, boys, Hurrah!"

Even a nation so little distinguished in literature as the Ottoman Turksis able, under the stress of genuine patriotism, to embody its hopes andaspirations in stirring verse. The following, which was written duringthe last Russo-Turkish war, suffers in translation. Its rhythm andheroic, albeit savage, vigour may perhaps even be appreciated by thosewho are not familiar with the language in which it is written:

 Achalum sanjaklari! Ghechelim Balkanlari! Allah! Allah! deyerek, Dushman kanin' ichelim! Padishahmiz chok yasha! Ghazi Osman chok yasha![109]

Let us now turn to Italy and Greece, the nations from which modernEurope inherits most of its ideas, and which have furnished the greaterpart of the models in which those ideas are expressed, whether in proseor in verse. 

Although lines from Virgil, who may almost be said to have created RomanImperialism, have been found scribbled on the walls of Pompeii, it isprobable that in his day no popular poetry, in the sense in which weshould understand the word, existed. But there is something extremelypathetic--more especially in the days when the Empire was hastening toits ruin--in the feeling, little short of adoration, which the Latinpoets showed to the city of Rome, and in the overweening confidencewhich they evinced in the stability of Roman rule. This feeling runsthrough the whole of Latin literature from the days of Ovid and Virgilto the fifth-century Rutilius, who was the last of the classic poets. Virgil speaks of Rome as "the mistress of the world" (maxima rerumRoma). Claudian deified Rome, "O numen amicum et legum genetrix, " andRutilius wrote:

 Exaudi, regina tui pulcherrima mundi, Inter sidereos Roma recepta polos, Exaudi, genetrix hominum, genetrixque deorum, Non procul a caelo per tua templa sumus. 

Modern Italians have made ample amends for any lack of purely popularpoetry which may have prevailed in the days of their ancestors. Itwould, indeed, have been strange if the enthusiasm for liberty whicharose in the ranks of a highly gifted and emotional nation such as theItalians had not found expression in song. When the proper time came, Giusti, Carducci, Mameli, Gordigiani, and scores of others voiced thepatriotic sentiments of their countrymen. They all dwelt on the themeembodied in the stirring Garibaldian hymn:

 Va fuori d'Italia! Va fuori, o stranier!

It will suffice to quote, as an example of the rest, one stanza from an"Inno di Guerra" chosen at random from a collection of popular poetrypublished at Turin in 1863:

 Coraggio . .. All' armi, all' armi, O fanti e cavalieri, Snudiamo ardenti e fieri, Snudiam l'invitto acciar! Dall' Umbria mesto e oppresso Ci chiama il pio fratello, Rispondasi all' appello, Corriamo a guerreggiar!

The cramping isolation of the city-states of ancient Greece arrested thegrowth of Hellenic nationalism, and therefore precluded the birth of anygenuinely nationalist poetry. But it only required the occasion to arisein order to give birth to patriotic song. Such an occasion was furnishedwhen, under the pressing danger of Asiatic invasion, some degree ofHellenic unity and cohesion was temporarily achieved. Then the tunefulSimonides recorded the raising of an altar to "Zeus, the free man's god, a fair token of freedom for Hellas. "

In more modern times the long struggle for Greek independence produced acrop of poets who, if they could not emulate the dignity and linguisticelegance of their predecessors, were none the less able to express theirnational aspirations in rugged but withal very tuneful verse which wentstraight to the hearts of their countrymen. The Klephtic ballads playeda very important part in rousing the Greek spirit during theGraeco-Turkish war at the beginning of the last century. The fine ode ofthe Zantiote Solomos has been adopted as the national anthem, whilst thepoetry of another Ionian, Aristotle Valaorites, and of numerous othersglows with genuine and perfervid patriotism. But perhaps the greatestnationalist poet that modern Greece has produced was Rhigas Pheraios, who, as proto-martyr in the Greek cause, was executed by the Turks in1798, with the prophecy on his dying lips that he had "sown a rich seed, and that the hour was coming when his country would reap its gloriousfruits. " His Greek Marseillaise (Δεύτε παῖδες τῶν Ἑλλήνων) is known toEnglishmen through Byron's translation, "Sons of the Greeks, arise, etc. " But the glorious lilt and swing of his _Polemisterion_, thoughprobably familiar to every child in Greece, is less known in thiscountry. The lines, καλλίτερα μιᾶς ὥρας ἐλευθέρη ζωή, παρὰ σαράντα χρόνων σκλαβιὰ καὶ φυλακή, recall to the mind Tennyson's

 Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay. 

[Footnote 109:

 Let us unfurl the standards! Let us cross the Balkans! Shouting "Allah! Allah!" Let us drink the blood of the foe! Long live our Padishah! Long live Ghazi Osman!]

XXIX

SONGS, NAVAL AND MILITARY

_"The Spectator, " September 20, 1913_

A British Aeschylus, were such a person conceivable, might very fitlytell his countrymen, in the words addressed to Prometheus sometwenty-three centuries ago, that they would find no friend more staunchthan Oceanus:

 οὐ γὰρ ποτ' ἐρεῖς ὡς Ὠκεανοῦ φίλος ἐστὶ βεβαιότερός σοι. 

In truth, the whole national life of England is summed up in the finelines of Swinburne:

 All our past comes wailing in the wind, And all our future thunders in the sea. 

The natural instincts of a maritime nation are brought out in strongrelief throughout the whole of English literature, from its very birthdown to the present day. The author of "The Lay of Beowulf, " whoever hemay have been, rivalled Homer in the awe-stricken epithets he applied tothe "immense stream of ocean murmuring with foam" (_Il. _ xviii. 402). "Then, " he wrote, "most like a bird, the foamy-necked floater wentwind-driven over the sea-wave; . .. The sea-timber thundered; the windover the billows did not hinder the wave-floater in her course; thesea-goer put forth; forth over the flood floated she, foamy-necked, overthe sea-streams, with wreathed prow until they could make out the cliffsof the Goths. "

Although the claim of Alfred the Great to be the founder of the Britishnavy is now generally rejected by historians, it is certain that fromthe very earliest times the need of dominating the sea was present inthe minds of Englishmen, and that this feeling gained in strength as thecenturies rolled on and the value of sea-power became more and moreapparent. In a poem entitled "The Libel of English Policy, " which isbelieved to have been written about the year 1436, the following linesoccur:

 Kepe then the see abought in specialle, Whiche of England is the rounde walle; As thoughe England were lykened to a cité. And the walle enviroun were the see. Kepe then the see, that is the walle of England, And then is England kepte by Goddes sonde. 

A long succession of poets dwelt on the same theme. Waller--presumablyduring a Royalist phase of his chequered career--addressed the King inlines which forestalled the very modern political idea that a powerfulBritish navy is not only necessary for the security of England, but alsoaffords a guarantee for the peace of all the world:

 Where'er thy navy spreads her canvas wings Homage to thee, and peace to all, she brings. 

Thomson's "Rule, Britannia, " was not composed till 1740, but before thattime the heroism displayed both by the navy collectively and byindividual sailors was frequently celebrated in popular verse. The deathof Admiral Benbow, who continued to give orders after his leg had beencarried off by a chain-shot at the battle of Carthagena in 1702, isrecorded in the lines:

 While the surgeon dressed his wounds Thus he said, thus he said, While the surgeon dressed his wounds thus he said: "Let my cradle now in haste On the quarter-deck be placed, That my enemies I may face Till I'm dead, till I'm dead. "

But it was more especially the long struggle with Napoleon that led toan outburst of naval poetry. It is to the national feelings currentduring this period that we owe such songs as "The Bay of Biscay, O, " byAndrew Cherry; "Hearts of Oak, " by David Garrick[110]; "The SaucyArethusa, " by Prince Hoare; "A Wet Sheet and a Flowing Sea, " by AllanCunningham; "Ye Mariners of England, " by Thomas Campbell, and a host ofothers. Amongst this nautical choir, Charles Dibdin, who was born in1745, stands pre-eminent. Sir Cyprian Bridge, in his introduction to Mr. Stone's collection of _Sea Songs_, tells us that it is doubtful whetherDibdin's songs "were ever very popular on the forecastle. " The reallypopular songs, he thinks, were of a much more simple type, and weretermed "Fore-bitters, " from the fact that the man who sang them took hisplace on the fore-bitts, "a stout construction of timber near theforemast, through which many of the principal ropes were led. " Howeverthis may be, there cannot be the smallest doubt that Dibdin's songsexercised a very powerful effect on landsmen, and contributed greatly tofoster national pride in the navy and popular sympathy with sailors. Itwas presumably a cordial recognition of this fact that led Pitt to granthim a pension. It would, indeed, be difficult to conceive poetry morecalculated to make the chord of national sentiment vibrate responsivelythan "Tom Bowling" or that well-known song in which Dibdin depicted atonce the high sense of duty and the rough, albeit affectionate, love-making of "Poor Jack":

 I said to our Poll, for, d'ye see, she would cry, When last we made anchor for sea, What argufies sniv'ling and piping your eye? Why, what a damn'd fool you must be! . . . . . As for me in all weathers, all times, tides and ends, Nought's a trouble from duty that springs, For my heart is my Poll's, and my rhino my friend's, And as for my life it's the King's; Even when my time comes, ne'er believe me so soft As for grief to be taken aback, For the same little cherub that sits up aloft Will look out a good berth for poor Jack!

Pride in the navy and its commanders is breathed forth in the followingeulogy of Admiral Jervis (Lord St. Vincent):

 You've heard, I s'pose, the people talk Of Benbow and Boscawen, Of Anson, Pocock, Vernon, Hawke, And many more then going; All pretty lads, and brave, and rum, That seed much noble service; But, Lord, their merit's all a hum, Compared to Admiral Jervis!

"Tom Tough" is an example of the same spirit:

 I've sailed with gallant Howe, I've sailed with noble Jervis, And in valiant Duncan's fleet I've sung yo, heave ho! Yet more ye shall be knowing, I was cox'n to Boscawen, And even with brave Hawke have I nobly faced the foe. 

Perfervid patriotism and ardent loyalty find expression in the followingswinging lines:

 Some drank our Queen, and some our land, Our glorious land of freedom; Some that our tars might never stand For heroes brave to lead 'em! That beauty in distress might find Such friends as ne'er would fail her; But the standing toast that pleased the most Was--the wind that blows, the ship that goes, And the lass that loves the sailor!

The whole-hearted Gallophobia which prevailed at the period, but whichdid not preclude generous admiration for a gallant foe, finds, ofcourse, adequate expression in most of the songs of the period. Thus anunknown author, who, it is believed, lived at the commencement ratherthan at the close of the eighteenth century, wrote:

 Stick stout to orders, messmates, We'll plunder, burn, and sink, Then, France, have at your first-rates, For Britons never shrink: We'll rummage all we fancy, We'll bring them in by scores, And Moll and Kate and Nancy Shall roll in louis-d'ors. 

It was long before this spirit died out. Twenty-two years after thebattle of Waterloo, when, on the occasion of the coronation of QueenVictoria, Marshal Soult visited England and it was suggested that theDuke of Wellington should propose the health of the French army at apublic dinner, he replied: "D---- 'em. I'll have nothing to do with thembut beat them. "

Inspiriting songs, such as "When Johnny comes marching home" and "TheBritish Grenadiers, " which, Mr. Stone informs us, "cannot be older than1678, when the Grenadier Company was formed, and not later than 1714, when hand-grenades were discontinued, " abundantly testify to the factthat the British soldier has also not lacked poets to vaunt his prowess. Many of the military songs have served as a distinct stimulus torecruiting, and possibly some of them were written with that expressobject in view. Sir Ian Hamilton, in his preface to Mr. Stone'scollection of _War Songs_, says, "The Royal Fusiliers are the heroes ofa modern but inspiriting song, 'Fighting with the 7th Royal Fusiliers. 'It was composed in the early 'nineties, and produced such anoverwhelming rush of recruits that the authorities could easily, hadthey so chosen, have raised several additional battalions. " The writerof the present article remembers in his childhood to have learnt thefollowing lines from his old nurse, who was the widow of a corporal inthe army employed in the recruiting service:

 'Twas in the merry month of May, When bees from flower to flower do hum, And soldiers through the town march gay, And villagers flock to the sound of the drum. Young Roger swore he'd leave his plough, His team and tillage all begun; Of country life he'd had enow, He'd leave it all and follow the drum. 

The British military has perhaps been somewhat less happily inspiredthan the naval muse. Nevertheless the army can boast of some goodpoetry. "Why, soldiers, why?" the authorship of which is sometimeserroneously attributed to Wolfe, is a fine song, and the following lineswritten by an unknown author after the crushing blow inflicted on LordGalway's force at Almanza, in 1707, display that absence ofdiscouragement after defeat which is perhaps one of the most severetests by which the discipline and spirit of an army can be tried:

 Let no brave soldier be dismayed For losing of a battle; We have more forces coming on Will make Jack Frenchman rattle. 

Abundant evidence might be adduced to show that the British soldier isamenable to poetic influences. Sir Adam Fergusson, writing to Sir WalterScott on August 31, 1811, said that the canto of the _Lady of the Lake_describing the stag hunt "was the favourite among the rough sons of thefighting Third Division, " and Professor Courthope in his _History ofEnglish Poetry_ quotes the following passage from Lockhart's _Life ofScott_:

 When the _Lady of the Lake_ first reached Sir Adam Fergusson, he was posted with his company on a point of ground exposed to the enemy's artillery; somewhere no doubt on the lines of Torres Vedras. The men were ordered to lie prostrate on the ground; while they kept that attitude, the Captain, kneeling at their head, read aloud the description of the battle in Canto VI. , and the listening soldiers only interrupted him by a joyous huzza whenever the French shot struck the bank close above them. 

Finally, before leaving this subject, it may be noted that amidst theverse, sometimes pathetic and sometimes rollicking, which appealed moreespecially to the naval and military temperament, there occasionallycropped up a political allusion which is very indicative of the state ofpopular feeling at the time the songs were composed. Thus the following, from a song entitled "A cruising we will go, " shows the unpopularity ofthe war waged against the United States in 1812:

 Be Britain to herself but true, To France defiance hurled; Give peace, America, with you, And war with all the world. 

The sixteenth-century Spaniards embodied a somewhat similar maxim ofState policy as applied to England in the following distich, theprinciple of which was, however, flagrantly violated by that ferventCatholic, Philip II. :

 Con todo el mundo guerra Y paz con Inglaterra. 

[Footnote 110: Since writing the above it has been pointed out to methat Garrick's song was composed during the Seven Years' War(1756-63). ]

INDEX

Abu'l'Ala, 65

Acton, Lord, and the Turks, 80, 223, 266

Acton, Lord, on the making of history, 432

Adrianople, occupation of, 411

Akbar, Emperor, 40

Alexandria, society at, 228

Alfred the Great, 450

Algeria, French in, 250-263

Alison, 216

Alliteration, 71

Almanza, song on defeat at, 456

America and Free Trade, 134, 138

America, war with, in 1812, unpopularity of, 457

Amherst, Lord, occupies Burma, 288

Anarchy, 20

Ancient Art and Ritual, 361-371

Andrade, Colonel Freire d', 380, 383, 384

Anglo-French Agreement of 1904, 162, 167

Anglo-Saxon individualism, 15

Anthology, translations from, 72

Anthropology, bases of, 364

Antigonus Gonatas, 351

Anti-Slavery Society, 373

Apollo Belvedere, 370

Aratus of Sicyon, 358

Army reform, 107-126

Arndt, national poetry, 443

Arthur, Sir George, 123

Asoka, 355

Assouan dam, 296

Athenaeus, on dancing, 370

Attwood, Mr. Charles, 196

Aulard, M. , on Taine, 430

_Aurengzebe_, 73

Australia, field of anthropology, 365

Bacchylides, 65

Bacon, 31

Barère, 299

Barth, Dr. , on Hinduism, 88

Beaconsfield, Lord, and Egypt, 203

Beaconsfield, Lord, and Empress of India, 422

Bembo, Cardinal, 56

Benbow, Admiral, death of, 451

Beowulf, on the sea, 450

Berthier, Marshal, 279

Bismarck, Prince, on statesmanship, 251

_Bleak House_, 119

Blennerhassett, Lady, 427-438

Blücher, Marshal, hallucinations of, 285

Blunt, Mr. Wilfrid, 81

Bodley, Mr. , on French administration, 436

Boell, M. Paul, 418

Bolingbroke, 182

Bossuet, definition of heretic, 307

Boufflers, Madame de, 231

Brahmanism, Sir A. Lyall on, 89

Bright, John, and Disraeli, 183

British officials and parliamentary institutions, 27

Browning, Mrs. , 60

Brunnow, Baron, and the Balkan States, 275

Bryce, Mr. , on the writing of history, 214

Budget system, 44

Buffon, on style, 184

Bugeaud, Marshal, 257

Bureaucracy, Continental, 29

Burgoyne, Sir John, 281

Burke, on fiscal symmetry, 39

Burma, 287-297

Butcher, Dr. S, on Eastern politics, 26

Cabarrus, La (Madame Tallien), 298-306

Cambronne, 298

Campbell, Lord, Disraeli on, 186

Canada and Free Trade, 131

Capitulations in Egypt, 156-174

Capo d'Istria, Count, 271

Cardwell, Lord, 109, 116, 117, 119

Carlyle, 219

"Carmagnole, " the, 442

Cavagnari, Major, murder of, 100

Cavour, 269, 272

Centralisation, 34

Chamberlain, Mr. Joseph, 244, 248

China, 141-155

Chinese labour, 147

Chinese War of 1860, 120

Chitnavis, Sir Gangadhar, 334, 335

Chremonides, 357, 358

Christianity, effect on Roman Empire, 7-19, 52, 53

Claudian on duration of Roman Empire, 1

Clinton, Mr. Fynes, 216

Cobden, Mr. , 127

Cobdenism, abuse of, 328

Coleridge, on poetry, 59

Coleridge, on prose, 55

Collier, Jeremy, on Cranmer's death, 56

Commerce and Imperialism, 11

Confucianism, 143, 153

Constantinople, foundation of, 7

Constitutions in the East, 141

Cornwallis, Lord, 36

_Corvée_ in Egypt, 396

Cory, Mr. William, 69

Cowley's translation of Claudian, 67

Creighton, 222

Crewe, Marquis of, 330

Crimean War and India, 410

Crowe, Sir Eyre, 375

Curiales, Fiscal Oppression of, 21

Curtius Rufinus, 356

Curtius, Professor, on the Greek language, 226

Curzon, Lord, on army affairs, 243

Cyprus, occupation of, 276, 413

Danton, 302, 303

Deffand, Madame du, 212

Delhi, transfer of Indian Capital to, 424

Delos, possession of, 358

Demetrius, on style, 227

Democracy and Imperialism, 23

Democritus, epigram of, 231

Demolins, M. , on Anglo-Saxons, 15, 28

Demosthenes, Professor Bury, on oratory, 57

Derby, Lord, the Rupert of debate, 184

Dibdin, 452-454

Didactic poetry, 61

Dietzel, Professor, 137, 337

Dino, Duchesse de, 59

Disraeli, 177-203

Dithyramb, meaning of word, 361

Dostoïevsky, 205, 210

Draga, Queen, 271

Dryden, on translation, 55

Duckworth, Admiral, 270

Dufferin, Lord, and Egypt, 25, 160

East India Company, policy of, 17

Education in China, 150

Egypt, recent history of, 253

Emerson, 54

Emerson, on inconsistency, 243

Empedocles, translation of, 62

Emu Man, 362

England and Islam, 407-415

English individualism, 30

Ennius, 345

Epicharmus, 82

Esquimaux tug of-war, 363

Euhemerism, 89

Exarch, Bulgarian, 268

Expropriation under Roman law, 41

Famines in India, 146

Farrer, Lord, on trade, 12

Ferry, M. Jules, and Burma, 290

Finance of Roman Empire, 36

Fisher, Mr. , on _Napoleonic Statesmanship_, 436

Flag for India, 423

"Fore-bitters, " 452

Forest Department, Burmese, 294

Fouché, 305

Free Trade, international aspects of, 127-140

Froude, 219

Gardiner, historian of the Stuart period, 221

George IV. And Napoleon, 282

German word-coining, 70

Gibbon and the sciences, 308

Gladstone, Mr. , translations, 63

Gogol, 211

Gooch, Mr. , 214

Gordon, General, and the Mahdi, 101-102

Goschen, Lord, and Disraeli, 198

Government of Subject Races, 1-53

Graham, Sir James, 192

Grant, Sir Hope, as a musician, 284

Greek adjectives, 70

Greek drama, 366

Greek joyousness, 212

Gregorovius on foreign rule, 84

Grenadiers, British, 455

Grey, Sir Edward, 168, 411, 412

Grey, Sir Edward, definition of slavery, 387, 391, 393

Grey, Sir Edward, diplomatic success of, 276

Grey, Sir Edward, on the Balkan Peninsula, 407

Griboïédof, 210

Grundy, Dr. , translations, 232

Guizot, 217

Hackländer, on European slave life, 386

Hamilton, Alexander, 138

Hamilton, Lord George, on Sir Alfred Lyall, 92

Harrison, Miss, 361-371

Havelock's love of Homer, 359

Headlam, Dr. , 68

Heliogabalus, the Emperor, 299

Helps, Sir Arthur, on inaccuracy, 373

Hermann, Professor, 311

Herrick, translation of, 68

Hieronymus, 354

History, the writing of, 214-225

Hodgkin, Dr. Thomas, 1, 7, 20, 36, 347

Homer's women, 315

Humanitarianism, 378

Hunkiar-Iskelesi, Treaty of, 271

Ilbert Bill, 94

Imperial schools of thought, 10

Imperialism, Mr. Mallik on, 321

Imperialist, profession of faith of, 1

India Council, 33

India, Customs duties in, 329

India, Fiscal Question in, 327-339

Indian Frontier policy, 47-49

Indian Problems, 416-426

Indiction, Roman, 36

_Ion_, Dr. Verrall on, 314

Ireland, Disraeli's opinion on, 193-194

Islam, influence of, 347

Italian patriotic poetry, 446

Jaray, M. , 165

Jebb, Professor, on the humanities, 308

Jervis, Admiral, 453

Judicial reform in Algeria, 258

Julian the Apostate, 353

Jute, duty on, 336

Keats, on Melancholy, 60

Kennedy, Mr. , translations, 68

Kitchener, Viscount, 114, 169, 174, 255

Klephtic ballads, 447

Labour, free, at San Thomé, 400

Lacretelle and Madame Tallien, 301

Lamartine, 218

Lamb on sanity of genius, 61

Land revenue system in India, 42-45

Land tax in Eastern countries, 40

Lanfrey, 218

Lawrence, Lord, Afghan policy, 100

Lawrence, Lord, Central Asian policy, 47

Lawrence, Lord, on Indian Taxation, 45

Lawson's Greek Folk-Lore, 368

Le Bon, M. , on national characteristics, 429

Lear, Edward, in Italy, 142

Lecky, on morals in politics, 19

Legislation in India, 39

Lermontof, 210

Lessing and Greece, 312

Lethbridge, Sir Roper, 327-339

"Lillibullero, " 439

List, Friedrich, on Free Trade, 131

Livingstone, Dr. , on Portuguese, 11

Lucian, 56

Lucretius, Dryden's translation of, 62

Luther, hymn by, 441

Lyall, Sir Alfred, 77-103

Lyall, Sir Alfred, on uniformity, 350

_Lycidas_, Professor Walker on, 60

Lycon, the philosopher, 354

Lytton, Earl of, 99

Macaulay, partiality of, 221

MacDonald, Mr. Ramsay, 417

Mahabharata, 419

Mahaffy, Professor, 229

Mahdi, the, Sir Alfred Lyall on, 101

Mahmoud II. , 270

Maine, Sir Henry, 96

Mallik, Mr. , 317-326

Manchester School, Disraeli on, 194

Manipur massacres, 91

Marie Antoinette, 242

Marquardt, 216

"Maryland, my Maryland, " 443

Masséna, Marshal, 279

Maurice, Sir Frederick, 360

McIlwraith, Sir Malcolm, 360

Meath, Earl of, 424

Mecca, importance of, 409

Melbourne, Lord, 185

Militarism, 126

Miller, Mr. , 264-276

Millet, M. Philippe, 259-262

Milner, Viscount, and Party, 237-249

Mindon, King of Burma, 289

Missionaries in China, 147

Mitford, 216

Mitra, Mr. S. M. , 416-426

Mommsen, 216

Montalembert, 218

Mookerjee, Sir Rajendra, 419, 426

Moslems in India, 407

Motley, 219

Napoleon, a bad shot, 279

Napoleon and Corsica, 433

Napoleon and Count Chaptal, 349

Napoleon and the Ottoman Empire, 264

Napoleon and the battle of Vittoria, 437

Napoleon, Roederer on, 92-93

Napoleon, Taine on, 348, 427-438

Napoleon's patent of nobility, 355

Napoleon, Joseph, 437

Newbolt, Mr. , 91

Nicholson, Professor Shield, 135

Nietzsche, on Greek simplicity, 227

Northbrook, Lord, 118

Novelists, political influence of, 208

Ottoman Empire, 264-276

Ouvrard, the Banker, 306

Pakenham, Miss (Duchess of Wellington), 283

Palisse, M de la, 442

Palmerston, Lord, and the Eastern question, 274

_Paradise Lost_ and Euripides, 66

Paris Commune, 20

Party system, 240

Pauperisation of Roman Proletariat, 19

Peacock, T. L. , on education, 310

Peasant proprietorship, 197

Peel, Sir Robert, 185, 190, 192

Peel, Sir Robert, on Free Trade, 199-202

Peel, Sir Robert, unpopularity, 202

Pericles and public works, 296

Pericles, metaphor of, 58

Philip II. , 457

Physiocrates, 16

Pitt, on British trade, 11

Plagiarism, 65

Plato, epitaph by, 235

Plevna, defence of, 272

Poe, Edgar, 60

Poetry, Aristotelian canon, 229

_Polemisterion_, 448

Polish Diet, 173

Poole, Mr. Stanley Lane-, 149

"Poor Jack, " 453

"Popkins's plan, " 186

Portuguese in Africa, 11

Portuguese slavery, 372-406

Pouchkine, 210

Principe, Island of, 398

Proté, epitaph on, 236

Prudentius, epitaph on Julian, 353

Ptolemy Keraunos, 357

Pyrrhus, 352

Rangoon, 290

Rao, Sir Dinkur, 84

Redmond, Mr. , 143

Red River campaign, 112

Reid, Mr. , 340

Rhigas Pheraios, 447

Ridgeway, Professor, 365

Ripon, Marquis of, 98, 331

Robespierre, 300, 302, 303, 305

Roebuck, Mr. Disraeli on, 186

Roman Empire, cause of downfall, 7

Rome and Municipal Government, 340-350

"Rosa Rosarum, " 234

_Round Table_, article in, 246

Rump, Herr, 152

Russian Romance, 204-213

Rutilius on power of Rome, 445

Sainte-Beuve, 217

St. Cyr, Marshal, as a musician, 284

St. Ovinus, epitaph on, 58

St. -Victor, Paul de, 57

Salisbury, Marquis of, 173

Salisbury, Marquis of, and immigrant coolies, 405

Salisbury, Marquis of, foreign policy, 101, 123

Salisbury, Marquis of, and Turkey, 265

Sappho, translation of, 67

Scott, Sir George, 291, 294, 295, 297

Scott, Sir Walter, advice to Shelley, 285

Scott, Sir Walter, Carlyle on, 219

Scott, Sir Walter, influence of his poetry on soldiers, 456

Seeley, Sir Thomas, 223

Sharaki lands in Egypt, 42

Shelburne, Lord, 182

Shelley, on translating, 59

Shelley, Lady, 277-286

Silva, Carlos de, 389, 391

Slavery, 19

Smallbones, Mr. , 386, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 403, 406

Smith, Dr. Adam, 16

Smith, Rev. Sydney, 142

Songs, Naval and Military, 449-457

Songs, Patriotic and National, 439

Soudan, campaign of 1896-98, 112

Soudan, commercial policy in, 139

Soudan, slavery in the, 379

Staël, Madame de, and Napoleon, 434

Still, Bishop, 441

Stratonice, 356

Sultans not rightful Caliphs, 409

Surgeon, the, and the soldier, 111

Swadeshi movement in India, 86

Swift, Dean, 208

Swinburne, on the sea, 449

Symmons, Dr. , on blank verse, 62

Szechuan Railway Company, 151

Taine, on Napoleon, 427

Tallien, 298-306

Tariff wars, 137

Tell, William, legend of, 217

Tenasserim and E. I. Co. Directors, 288

Tennyson and Euripides, 65, 81

Themistocles, saying of, 341

Theodosius, 84

Thibaw, King of Burma, 289

Thiers on French Conservatism, 197

Tiberius, 349

Tolstoy, 212

Toryism, middle-class, 196

Tourguenef, 211

Translation and Paraphrase, 54-73

Turgot on corporate bodies, 18

Turkish war-song, 444

_Uncle Tom's Cabin_, 208

Usury in the East, 43

Utilitarianism, 309

Vandal, M. , 142

Vasconcellos, Senhor, 383, 404

Vauvenargues, 65

Venezélos, M. , 269

Verrall, Dr. , 312-316

Viceroy of India and his Council, 33

Vogüé, M. De, 204

Voltaire, 209, 434

Waller, on the British Navy, 451

Walpole, Sir Robert, 240

War Office, 115

Wellington, Duke of, and the Ottoman Empire, 264

Wellington, Duke of, as a musician, 284

Wellington, Duke of, at Waterloo, 284

Wellington, Duke of, hatred of French, 454

Wellington, Duke of, on Cambronne, 298

Wellington, Duke of, on India, 10

Wellingtoniana, 277-286

Wensleydale, Lord, translation by, 67

Wilson, Sir Fleetwood, 332, 338

Wingfield, Mr. , 402, 404

Wolfe, General, 359

Wolseley, Viscount, 107

Wolseley, Viscount, and Sir Frederick Maurice, 360

Wrede, Generals and Napoleon, 433

Wyllie, Colonel, 392, 398, 399, 401, 405

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.