« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
portions of territory scarcely populated, or at the most sparsely occupied, by an indolent and unintelligent race of men, it is impossible and you yourselves find it impossible to resist the tendency to expansion: and expansion in that sense is not injurious to England, for it contributes to the wealth of this country (let us say this in a whisper, lest it cross the Atlantic) more than it diminishes the power of the United States."
It was under a Government of which Disraeli was a leading member that in 1852 a constitution was framed for New Zealand, and in the summer of 1858 the colony of British Columbia established. It was not more than a few months afterwards that disturbances arose, and it is characteristic of the ' 'Times' newspaper that its review of the year 1859 finds in these developments only the incubus of ubiquitous colonies and commerce.
In this regard the name of the then Sir E. Bulwer Lytton should assuredly be commemorated. He treated colonial questions during his brief period of secretaryship with firmness, insight, and adroitness. Nor should it be forgotten that between him and Disraeli was a link of kindred imagination, as well as long-standing friendship. Years before they had together contributed to 'The New Monthly Magazine.' Both were men of striking originality, unmitigated by a public school education; and it is amusing to note that the fantastic strain, which was censured (and often when he was quoting from our classics) as "un-English" in the one, was only criticised as extravagant in the other. Both
were students of Bolingbroke. They had each the faculty of regarding history as a whole, and of not perverting their vision of progress by the petty rancours-political or ecclesiastical of the moment. Such an instinct is invaluable in attaching new settlements to the nest of their nurture. But it was in 1872, in his great speech on Conservative principles at the Crystal Palace, that Disraeli first definitely propounded a colonial policy which the present Government would do well to ponder :
"Gentlemen," said Mr Disraeli, "there is another and second great object of the Tory party. If the first
is to maintain the institutions of the country, the second is, in my opinion, to uphold the empire of England. If you look to the history of this country since the advent of Liberalism-forty
years ago-you will find that there has been no effort so continuous, so subtle, supported by so much energy, and carried on with so much ability and acumen, as the attempts of of the empire of England. And of Liberalism to effect the disintegration
all its efforts, this is the one which has been the nearest to Statesmen of the highest character, writers of the most distinguished ability, the most organised and efficient means, have been employed in this endeavour. It has been proved to all of us that we have lost money by our Colonies. It has been shown monstration, that there never was a with precise, with mathematical, dejewel in the crown of England that was so truly costly as the possession How often has it been of India. suggested that we should at once cubus! Well, that result was nearly emancipate ourselves from this inaccomplished when these subtle views were adopted by the country, under the plausible plea of granting selfgovernment to the Colonies. I confess that I myself thought that the tie was broken. Not that I, for one,
object to self-government. I cannot conceive how our distant Colonies can have their affairs administered
except by self-government. But selfgovernment, in my opinion, when it was conceded, ought to have been conceded as part of a great policy of imperial consolidation. It ought to have been accompanied by an imperial tariff, by securities for the people of England for the enjoyment of the unappropriated lands which belonged to the sovereign as their trustee, and by a military code which should have precisely defined the means and the responsibilities by which the Colonies should be defended, and by which, if necessary, this country should call for aid from the Colonies themselves. It ought further to have been accompanied by the institution of some representative council in the metropolis, which would have brought the Colonies into constant and continuous relations with the Home Government. All this, however, was omitted because those who advised that policy -and I believe their convictions were sincere-looked upon the Colonies of England, looked even upon our connection with India, as a burden upon this country, viewing everything in a financial aspect, and totally passing by those moral and political
considerations which make nations great, and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from animals."
Here we have a definite, a far - seeing, and a foreseeing policy. There is not one point of the scheme which will not shortly have to be seriously considered by the councils of the nation. It is, moreover, a Conservative policy. Long before, Bolingbroke, whom Disraeli had so minutely studied, -that Bolingbroke who first among English statesmen had pointed to the significance of Gibraltar, and had foretold
England's mission as a "Mediterranean Power," had described the then scanty Colonies
"so many home farms." With what courage and sagacity did Disraeli receive and hand on the torch! None can now doubt the sagacity, and if any doubt the courage they have only to peruse the vaticinations of that financial Cassandra, the late Mr John Bright, who, during the manufactured reaction against "imperialism” of 1879, unconsciously justified Lord Beaconsfield's predictions After of seven years before. cataloguing, like an auctioneer, the "annexations of Lord Beaconsfield's Administration, he thus proceeded :—
"All this adds to your burdens. Just listen to this: they add to the burdens, not of the empire, but of 33,000,000 of people who inhabit Great Britain and Ireland. We take
the burden and pay the charge. This policy may lend a seeming glory to the Crown, and may give scope for patronage and promotion, and pay a pension to a limited and favoured
But to you, the people, it brings expenditure of blood and of treasure, increased debts and taxes, and adds risk of war in every part of the globe."
1 This point is admirably urged by Mr Ewald in his 'Life and Times of Lord Beaconsfield.'
Mr Gladstone appealed to the nation, Mr Bright to a class. Mr Gladstone appealed to the institutions and customs which he assailed; Mr Bright attacked without sympathy. Mr Gladstone was a Girondist, Mr Bright a Jacobin. Mr Gladstone's practical fervour and "connection" popularised the doggedness and narrowness of Mr Bright's theoretic doctrine. It might be said that the whilom author of the essay on 'Church and State' led the "Nonconformist Conscience" to the altar, and that Mr Bright gave her away. But the elderly Benedick could not quite forget the love he had foregone. It will be remarked that Mr Gladstone still occasionally employed the word "empire,' as Lord John Russell had done in 1855-a word born with Queen Elizabeth, and familiar throughout the reign of Queen Anne; whereas, if we mistake not, Mr Bright never so far demeaned himself as to employ or condone it. Mr Gladstone came into power. The policy of "scuttle" ensued-from what motives we will not here stop to inquire. We abandoned Candahar; we abandoned the Transvaal. It was the policy of panic and disunion, of personal "magnanimity" but of public disgrace, and not the policy of wise consolidation and expansion, and of definite and respected boundaries, that has eventually conducted to "expenditure of blood and treasure ; and if to-day we are
painfully retracing our steps, it is due to this retail creed of Mr Bright, and not to the wholesale propaganda of Lord Beaconsfield.
In perusing Disraeli's speeches throughout his career as a whole, we are struck by their harmony. They were based on matured principles. Even the phrases "Peace with honour" and "Light and leading" (itself a quotation from Burke) occur long before their application to crises rendered them household words. From first to last, as Lord Salisbury so aptly observed of him, "Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life." Had he survived, we doubt not that colonial federation would have been the crown of his achievements. And it is just because this is being forgotten, because our leaders rarely advert to the mantle which they too often without the inspiration, that, at this juncture, we desire to impress the condensed considerations which we have submitted. Some scheme of imperial confederation must shortly be formulated; some recognition of colonial co-operation must speedily be made. The tariff will demand anxious consideration. When the time comes for the new Amphictyonic Council, let the plan be devised in the spirit of Lord Beaconsfield, and not in the sense of Mr Bright or the frenzies of Mr Gladstone.
MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD.
THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO HER PEOPLE OF LONDON-A PEACEFUL CONQUEROR -THE MOB OF PARIS AND THE CROWD OF LONDON
TION OF THE THÉÂTRE FRANÇAIS : A EUROPEAN DISASTER-
THE Queen's visit to her people of London will be an imperishable memory for those who witnessed it. The wise thought and the words which express it alike suggest those patriarchal times when constitutions were not, and kings were in truth the fathers of their country. The Queen will visit her people of London! No comment can better the simple dignity of that pronouncement; and the sacrifice of the lady, who faced the biting wind of March, found its best reward in the joyous patriotism of her people. As her carriage emerged from the Park into Pall Mall, the roar of enthusiasm could be heard at a distance of a quarter-mile, until the wonderful old lady herself approached, and then a wave of emotion checked the utterance even of an applausive shout. To explain this emotion is difficult, to deny it were absurd: one can only say that the presence of the greatest monarch in the world makes an instant silence imperative. Shouts greeted her coming, they followed her when she passed, yet for the moment that she was there the crowd was silent. And it is the more remarkable
this mixture of loud enthusiasm and silent respect, because the sentiment from which it springs is rather national than personal. To the most of us the Queen is a splendid symbol of empire: we admire the dignity of her life, the tact of her speech, the triumph of her reign. But when we see her, sitting in her carriage, bowing to her people with a pleased affability, nothing save a sort of mysticism can explain our emotion. She is a symbol of empire-that is the mystery; and of such an empire as no other human being has ever boasted. No king that ever put the world beneath his conquering heel has enjoyed so great a triumph as our Queen. Neither Alexander nor Cæsar subdued by the sword so many lieges as she has attached by the more peaceful method of conciliation. She reigns over a wider territory than was ever controlled by human hand; and yet she has never been able to sigh with the Emathian conqueror that there are no more realms to conquer, since even in this year she will add two republics to her empire. Louis XIV. made the world of courtiers tremble, yet his majesté effrayante had
ginning of the war she made plain her anxiety, and yet kept an unwavering courage until our success made courage easy. So that if, when we saw her on her journey through London, she appealed to us as a symbol, reflection shows her a queen, with the right instinct of a woman, and the wisdom of a statesman.
not the sanction which invests the appearance of our Queen Victoria with a sort of mystery. Nor let it be supposed that her reign has been a reign of peace. Though she did not gain her empire by the sword, she has protected it by the sword, and she has declared more wars than ever were dreamed in the bellicose brain of Alexander or Cæsar. Moreover, she has The demeanour of the crowd known all the distinguished was no less remarkable. It men of the last sixty years; was at once purposed and from all whom she has known she has compelled respect; and now, after sixty years of empire, she is still minded to visit her people of London, that she may share and approve the universal patriotism. So it is that she appears to us as a symbol of empire, as a token of a well-spent, grandiose career.
But she is something far higher than a symbol: she is also a woman, whose keen sympathy with her country has not been rusted by the passing years. If England has shown an equal mind in a disastrous crisis, the Queen has set a glorious example. She has not fallen below the great occasion even in the style of her brief letters and speeches, which have all been touched by a simple intimacy as well as by an august dignity. Above all, she has displayed a matchless tact, the greatest gift of kings. By making St Patrick's Day a national fête, she did honour to the courage of Ireland, and laid the foundation of a unanimity upon which her approaching visit to Ireland will raise a stately edifice. From the be
All the world all the world knew why it shouted. Now, it has often been said that England differs from France in that it has no mob, and never has this truth been more clearly demonstrated than in the last few weeks. Only, to prove the truth of this assertion, we must find a proper definition. A mob, then, may be defined as a collection of persons which runs after the wildest chimera, and which does, says, and thinks collectively what it would never do, say, or think individually. Its danger is manifest and deplorable. A thousand sane men may meet in the street, and compel a policy which each one of that thousand would regret separately. When the Russian admiral visited Paris some years since, the Parisians in their own homes preserved a serene demeanour: no sooner were they in the street than they wept, laughed, and shouted they knew not why. Sane elderly men spent hours in the gutter that they might see pass a handful of officers who