THE CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE - Part 5

Lastly, we come to the vast regions inhabited wholly or mainly by backward or primitive peoples. Most of these are territories of comparatively recent acquisition. And it is here, and practically here alone, that the British Empire comes into comparison with the recently created empires of other European states, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium; none of which possess any self-governing colonies, or any extensive lands of ancient civilisation like India, unless the French colonies of Algeria and Annam are to be regarded as falling within the latter category. The establishment of European control over most of the backward regions of the world has been, for the most part, a very recent and a very rapid development. The rush for extra-European territory which has taken place since 1878 is frequently regarded as a merely sordid exhibition of greed and of the lust for power; and indeed, some features of it deserve condemnation. But it ought to be recognised that this huge movement was, in the main, both necessary and beneficial. It was necessary because modern scientific industry needed the raw materials produced in these lands, and the primitive savagery of their occupants could not permanently stand in the way of the triumphant march of material progress. And it was (or was capable of being made) highly advantageous, not only to the industrial world, but to the backward peoples themselves, who, apart from it, might never have emerged from the unchanging barbarism in which they have mostly rested since the beginning of time. Whether that was to be so or not, depended, of course, upon the spirit in which the task was undertaken. We have seen some hideous examples of depraved cruelty in the treatment of backward peoples, as in Leopold of Saxe-Coburg's administration of the Congo (which improved beyond recognition as soon as it was taken over by the Belgian Parliament), or as in the ruthless German slaughter of the Hereros in South-West Africa. But on the whole, and with exceptions, the establishment of European control has been as beneficial to its primitive subjects as it has been advantageous to the development of modern industry. In spite of the vast extent of her Empire in other regions, Britain has taken a far larger share of this work than any other single power; perhaps, all things considered, she has taken as great a share as all the rest put together. What are the reasons for this? The first reason is that Britain had begun long before any of the other powers. Both in Africa and in the islands of the Pacific, the work of exploration was mainly done by British travellers; British traders had almost alone been known to the native populations; and British missionaries, who were extraordinarily active during the nineteenth century, had planted themselves everywhere, and played an immensely important part in civilising their simple flocks. Wherever the missionary went, he undertook the defence of the primitive peoples to whom he preached, against the sometimes unscrupulous exploitation of the trader. It was the constant cry of the missionaries that the British Government ought to assume control, in order to keep the traders in order. They, and the powerful religious bodies at home which supported them, did much to establish the principle that it was the duty of government to protect the rights of native races, while at the same time putting an end to such barbarous usages as cannibalism, slavery, and human sacrifice, where they survived. Often, too, native chieftains begged to be taken under British protection; while the better type of traders were anxious to see civilised administration set up, because it is only under civilised administration that trade can permanently thrive. Thus the British Government was under continual pressure from all sides, while the governments of other European countries as yet took no interest in colonial questions. The British Government was extremely loth to assume additional responsibilities, and did its best to avoid them. But some annexations it could not avoid. Thus before the great European rush for colonies began, Britain, and Britain alone, had acquired a very wide experience in the government of backward peoples, and had worked out fairly clearly defined principles for the government of such peoples. What is more, in all the regions of this type which she controlled—indeed, throughout her whole Empire, everywhere save in the self-governing Colonies—it had become the practice of Britain to throw open all her ports and markets to the trade of all nations on exactly the same terms as to her own merchants. She is, in fact, the only great colonising Power which has adopted this principle. If a British merchant goes to the Philippines, or to Madagascar, or to Togoland, he finds that he has to compete with his American, French, or German rival on unequal terms, because a tariff discriminates between the citizen of the ruling people and the foreign trader. But if an American, French, or German merchant goes to India, or to any British Crown Colony or protectorate, he is admitted on exactly the same terms as the Briton. That distinction had already been established before 1878, though it has been accentuated since that date. The British method of administering backward regions as worked out before 1878 was therefore based upon two principles, first the protection of native rights, and secondly the open door to all trading nations; and Britain may fairly be said to have learnt to regard herself as being, in these regions, a trustee—a trustee on behalf of her subjects, and on behalf of the civilised world. Is it not true that if these principles had been universally adopted, half the bitterness which has been due to the rivalry of the European Powers for colonial possessions would have been obviated? To-day these principles are being advocated by many earnest men as representing the only mode by which the supremacy of western civilisation throughout the world can be reconciled with the avoidance of bitter rivalry and war between the civilised states; and they are preached as if they were a new doctrine of salvation. Yet they have been consistently practised by Britain during the greater part of the nineteenth century, and they are still practised by her to-day. When the great rush began, the main object of the European states which took part in it was to obtain a monopoly-control of the regions which they annexed. But in all the available regions of the world, British trade had hitherto been preponderant. British traders saw before them the prospect of being absolutely excluded from lines of traffic which had hitherto been mainly in their hands, and they were naturally urgent that the only means of protection available should be taken, and that the areas in which they had been most active should be brought under British administration. If the new colonising Powers had been prepared to follow the policy of the open door, to which Britain had so long adhered, there would have been no reason to fear their annexations; rather there would have been every reason to rejoice that other nations were taking their share in the work of giving civilised government to these regions. But since their object was monopoly and exclusion, it was inevitable that Britain should undertake great new responsibilities. Her doing so was, indeed, the only practicable way of preserving the trading rights, not merely of her own subjects, but also of all the other trading Powers which had not themselves joined in the rush, or had only a small part in it. Yet even now the British Government was extremely unwilling to take action, or to expand still further the already vast domains for whose good governance it was responsible. It had to be forced into action, mainly through the activity of trading companies. In the vast new acquisitions of the period since 1878 (which were mainly in Africa), as in the earlier acquisitions, the old principles long pursued by Britain in the government of these backward regions were still maintained—protection of native rights and the open door. And thus it has come about that to-day these British realms present almost the only undeveloped fields to which all nations may resort on equal terms and in whose development all may take a share. The Germans have made a very large use of these opportunities. Another point ought to be made. Immense as these regions are, and recently as they have been turned from barbarism, order and peace are maintained within them by extraordinarily small military forces: only the absolute necessary minimum. Yet they have been on the whole extraordinarily free from unrest or rebellion, such as has repeatedly disturbed the German colonies in Africa. There has been in their history no episode like the ruthless slaughter of the whole Herero race in German South-West Africa, after long, desperate, dragging campaigns. And while it would be absurd to claim that no abuses of the power of the white man over his coloured subjects have been known in them, at least there have been no outstanding or notorious atrocities. Their subjects are loyal, and are reconciled to peace, because they recognise that they are justly treated. That, it may fairly be claimed, is what the British Empire has meant in the backward regions of the earth. And if it be true that the institution of civilised government in these regions was necessary in the interests at once of modern industry and of the backward peoples themselves, it is equally true that there are no other backward regions in which the interests of the native subjects have been more solicitously considered, and none in which the interests of all the industrial nations, and not merely of a single dominant race, have been so steadily held in view, as in these regions of the British Empire.