No. 1

THE ROUND TABLE IN CANADA

A CANADIAN MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC IMPERIALISM

"WHAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE REALLY STANDS FOR."

An Address Delivered by Mr. Philip Kerr

OFFICES: 84 ST. MARY ST., TORONTO.

"WHAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE REALLY STANDS FOR."

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY MR. PHILIP KERR AT THE TORONTO CLUB TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ROUND TABLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 30th, 1912.

PUBLISHED BY

THE Council FOR THE ROUND TABLE IN CANADA
OFFICES: 84 St. Mary Street, Toronto

PUBLISHED BY THE ROUND TABLE IN CANADA A CANADIAN MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC IMPERIALISM

ADDRESS

*D BY MR. PHILIP KERR AT THE TORONTO CLUB TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ROUND TABLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 30TH, 1912.

"I would like with your consent to explain to you what I believe the British Empire really stands for. I will confess frankly that when I came to this country three years ago I was not in any true sense an Imperialist: I was a sentimental Imperialist in the sense that I had been born under the British flag, and my emotions could easily be reused by an appeal to the sentiments that centre rour I that flag, but I had no understanding of what the Empire was or of what it was likely to develop into. I am now a convinced Imperialist, and I want to tell you why.

"I think that I may best deal with the subject under two heads. I believe that the British Empire stands for the highest political ideals yet put into practical effect in the world: that is the first ground for my belief in the British Empire. I believe that with the British Empire you get greater personal liberty, coupled with a more direct and individual responsibility than under any other political system which has yet been brought into existence. It has often been said that there is more freedom for the citizen, a better system of government, a more impartial justice and so forth, within the British Empire than elsewhere. I think this is true, but these are not what I regard as the highest aspects of the political merits of the British system.

"It is a very difficult thing to explain what I mean: perhaps I may explain it best by saying that the political standards of the British Empire exhibit a

"I will say nothing about the negotiations leading up to the war; I will merely express the opinion that there would have been no war if President Kruger had never lived or if Dr. Jameson had never made his raid. I think it is not less true that, if Lord Milner and Ceeil Rhodes had not lived, South Africa would not long have continued to be a part of the

British Empire. The vital fact is that, as the result of the war, you cut out the canker which was the real cause of the trouble in South Africa; you dest oyed all chance of success for the ideal of a creat independent South Africa under the Dutch flag. The terms of peace were a definite surrender by the Boers of that ideal, and there was nobody who was present at these peace negotiations who did not realize how great a sacrifice it was for men who had fought for three years for that ideal, and lost relative and most of their worldly possessions in the process, to acknowledge the triumph of the British over the Dutch South African ideal.

"The effect has been commensurate with the high standard of political liberty which prompted the experiment. The Boers have abandoned forever the reactionary methods of the Kruger regime; they have been conquered and convinced by practical experience of our political institutions and ways, and in the great reconciliation embodied in the constitution of United South Africa they agreed to inaugurate a new era on the basis that both British and Boers were equally good South Africans and equally loyal citizens of the British Empire. I venture to state that anyone who has been associated with the leaders of the Boers, with General Botha and his colleagues, as I have been, will agree with me in saying that there is not one responsible Boer to-day who, if he had the chance, by an act of his own freewill to pull down the British flag, would lift his hand to do so. I think this history is a very real demonstration of the truth and vitality of the ideals which animate the British Empire to-day.

"But the British Empire does more than afford an example of freedom and good government to the world. It is able to put its ideals and methods into practical effect over one-quarter of the globe. We hear a great deal about the force of the example of American institutions, and we hear a great deal about the force of example of British ideals and British institutions, but there is all the difference in the world between the effect of example to a people who are remote from any actual experience of it, and the effect of the practical realisation of it in their midst.

"That, I think, is the first function which the British Empire discharges in the world, that it stands for the highest ideals of political liberty that have yet been applied in practical politics; and that is the first reason why I am an Imperialist.

"The second reason why I am an Imperialist is because I believe the British Empire to be the greatest agency for assisting and promoting the development of the non-self-governing races that exists today. I propose to take as an example India; but I would explain that, broadly speaking, what I say about the forces that have brought about British rule in India is applicable to Egypt and to the host of minor dependencies of the British Crown all over the world.

to pay for them, or, if no one was prepared to pay for them, helping themselves. In consequence, the East India Company, previously protected by the Moguls, found itself compelled to fortify its settlements in order to safeguard the lives of its servants and its property from the depredations of the mercenaries and guerrilla chiefs, and in order to protect the depots, at which it did its business with Indian traders, from destruction.

proved that the only certain method of establishing the elements of peace and good government was for the British themselves to assume responsibility for the government of India.

"That is the true reason why we went to India. What have the British done there since? India is a continent about as large as Europe. There are in India some 315 millions of people. These people are even more deeply divided than the peoples of Europe. They are divided first of all by religion, for national sentiment is hardly yet alive in India and a man's dominating loyalty is still to his religion. Rather more than two-thirds are Hindus; less than one-third are Mohammedans, and there are several minor sects. Religious intolerance is a fruitful source of bitter feeling and even of murderous riots.

"Then India is divided by race. There is really less identity between the inhabitants of the north of India and the inhabitants of the south, than there is between the inhabitants of England and the inhabitants of Russia. The people of the extreme north are hardy and warlike; the people of the south are the somewhat decadent disciples of an ancient religious civilisation. In between you get every gradation. Again, there are in India some fifteen principal languages and many subordinate vernaculars. The language which is nearest to a universal language, at any rate among the educated classes, is English. I found that the notices of lodgings to poor pilgrim bathers in the sacred city of Benares were printed in English, as being the language which serves as the best medium of communication for all classes.

"In addition to being divided by race, religion and language, one-third of India is in the hands of practically independent princes, who are independent in everything except their external relations, which are supervised by the British government. In internal affairs they are entirely free up to the point when their administration becomes a scandal, when the British step in to put things straight if need be by deposing the reigning monarch and putting some one else in his place.

"That gives you some idea of the size of India and how divided it is; India indeed cannot strictly be spoken of as one country, and in so far as it is one country it is because the British have made it so.

"Now, what have the British done for India? They have given it, in the first place, unity and peace. If it were not for the fact that you have a strong British administration there would not be peace in India to-day, for the racial and religious feelings are still strong enough to produce chronic war. They have given to India an impartial system of justice; they have built railways and roads; they have built irrigation works; they have practically eliminated the worst features of famine; they have introduced a modern system of education which India never had before; and above all, they have established a complete and efficient system of government covering the whole country. As a result, the British to-day are absolutely essential to India, and a friend of mine expressed the position accurately and well when he said that for the British to leave India to-day would be the most cruel thing that they could do; for the whole machinery of government would come to a standstill and chaos and civil strife would certainly supervene.

"That is the position in India to-day. That is what British connection has meant to India hitherto.

is an elective council for each rural area elected by the leading men of the district. These councils are usually, though not always, presided over by the local magistrate who is in most cases a British official. Above these local bodies come the provincial councils, and no legislation can be brought into effect in the province which has not got the consent of the provincial legislature. The provincial councils have upon them a majority of Indian members elected by the local councils aforesaid. And above the provincial legislatures comes the great Imperial Legislative Council, which deals with the affairs of the whole vast Indian Empire. On that Council there are thirty members elected by the elected members of the provincial councils out of a total membership of sixty-eight. Above this again, one of the Viceroy's Cabinet is always an Indian, who thus controls one of the great Departments of State; and above that again two members of the Secretary of State's Council in London are Indians.

"Thus, we have already inaugurated a complete system of representation by which the people of India are associated with the government of India from top to bottom; and while to-day they have no real responsibility, they do exercise a very real influence over the conduct of public business. They are learning by degrees how to govern for themselves. The great question of the future is how rapidly and low far that process can be extended. I confess that after spending three months in India I am not very confident that the process will be rapid; the ignorance among the rural people of India is colossal, and they number more than three-fourths of the whole. They have no ideas beyond the politics of their village community, and these are mainly connected with caste or religion. There is also the greatest difficulty

in getting the rural landlord—the natural leader of the people—to serve on any elected body to-day. His interest in public affairs has never yet been stirred. It is gradually growing, but up to the present the progress has been small. The only class which takes any real interest in politics seems to be the class whom we are inclined in this country to call 'agitators.' Many of them are of the highest character and fired by noble ideals, but they belong to that order of academic, unpractical theorists which has never yet been entrusted with real power in any country without grave danger.

"It was inevitable that among this class there should be many extremists, and recently there has, as you know, been a movement among these extremists which had for its object the elimination of the British from India by the process of assassination. Naturally there was a row. But, as a result, I think a wrong impression was left upon the mass of the people outside India, because the general tone of the British press was unfriendly to Indian unrest. It was unfriendly because the word 'unrest' was used to mean the anarchistic side of the general political movement. But I think I am right in saying that British public opinion, both in India and in the United Kingdom, while hostile to anarchy, has been entirely friendly to the gradual extension of self-government throughout India.

"Thus I believe that the second great function of those who control the British Empire is to continue in the future the work that has been already begun throughout the whole extent of the dependencies of the British Empire. And the most important side of this is not the establishment of material prosperity, the building of railways, roads, irrigation works, new channels of trade, banks, and all the rest of it; but the gradual education of the politically backward peoples within the Empire, so that they may come to govern themselves, and may ultimately come to be self-governing dominions within the British Empire.

"For the two main reasons, therefore, which I have given you; for the reason that I believe the British Empire to enshrine the highest political ideals yet capable of being put into practical effect, and for the reason that, consciously or unconsciously, it has undertaken the duty of civilizing one-fifth of mankind and is now but half-way towards complete success, I believe it to be the duty of every man who dwells beneath the Union Jack to preserve and strengthen the Empire to the best of his ability.

"I believe in the British Empire, however, for another reason, and that is because I believe that there is a greater work before it in the future than in the past. A very distinguished German professor once said to me that the most interesting political experiment going on in the world to-day was that which was being tried in the British Empire. I asked him what he meant, and he said that the only attempt which was being made to reconcile the claims of nationality with the claims of mankind was being made in the British Empire. He went on to explain that he did not believe that you could build up a single world state on the lines of a national state, that the principles of national life and national aspiration had been born into the world to last for all time, but that these had existed up to the present in a form which inevitably produced active hostility between other nations, and therefore war. So far as he could see the only peoples who were trying to moderate the sentiment of nationalism so as to make it consistent with a larger union were the five nations of the British Empire. These, he said, were attempting to retain sufficient of the national spirit to enable them to act individually and yet enough common

patriotism to enable them to remain within a single political fabric.

"That is one great work which the British Empire, if it continues, may bring to a successful issue. The second is more difficult, and that is to reconcile east and west, and black and white. If we manage to create in India a self-governing, responsible dominion, and if India, wher it is responsible and self-governing, elects to remain within the British Empire, we shall have solved the greatest difficulty which presents itself to the world to-day. The coloured peoples are going to progress and the future progress of the world hinges on whether there is to be a long renewal of the world-old feud between east and west, black and white, or whether we can find a system based on mutual give-and-take which will enable them to live in peace and goodwill together. There are great difficulties ahead, I admit; but if the experiment now being made in India is successful, and the peoples of that country, when they have attained the full stature of self-government, decide not to secede from the British Empire, but to remain within it, then history will write down that it was this generation of the citizens of the Empire who have solved the most difficult problem which has perhaps ever confronted mankind.

"The third work which lies before us is a combination of the other two. The causes that threaten to make war a permanency in the world to-day are those two that I have just mentioned: an extravagant nationalism, and colour prejudice. If, by a reconstruction of the constitutional edifice of the Empire, we can reconcile the conflicting claims of the five white nations of the British Empire, and also contrive an enduring agreement between those of its peoples who are of dark colour and of white colour, we shall have proved to the world that there is some other way than war by which disputes between nations and disputes between black, yellow and white can be settled. That is to say, we shall have shown the world the road by which it can attain universal peace.

"Gentlemen, I believe that the opportunities which he before us as citizens of the Empire are perhaps greater than those which have been offered to any people since the days of imperial Rome. Rome, had she been able to introduce into her empire the political principles on which the British Empire rests to-day, might have developed into a system of government which would have embraced the whole world. Rome's experiment failed. But a new Rome has arisen animated by freer principles and possessed of more flexible institutions, yet with the same great opportunity of leading the world to peace and unity. You and I are citizens of this new Rome, and it rests with us and with our fellows to decide whether provincial selfishness and imperial pride are going to let the opportunity slip by, or whether, with high imagination and high courage, we seize it and imprint our mark upon the history of the world.

"It is of course impossible to foretell all the difficulties which beset the long road to our goal. But there are two dangers which lie immediately ahead and which as practical men we have got to avoid. The first is the danger of weakness; the danger lest some of the other nations of the world, more advanced than we are in other respects yet on a lower political plane, destroy what we have so laboriously built up, by an act of war. The most obvious danger to-day is from Germany." You have in the Germans a people who are still animated by medieval political notions, by an extravagant nationalism, by the old-fashioned idea that the greatest function of a nation is to rule other peoples in the sense of having dominion over them. Let me point out to you the contrast between the treatment accorded to the Boers and the

^*In view of the speaker's reference to Germany, it is interesting to note that this speech was made in 1912, just two years before the outbreak of war.

treatment of the Poles and of Alsace-Lorraine to illustrate what I mean.

"The second danger is the danger of internal disruption. That may spring from two causes. It may arise out of the difficulty of reconciling the national claims of the Dominions—including Great Britis —with the claims of a true Imperial government. That is a question which you gentlemen have lately been considering for yourselves. I am not going to discuss it to-day. I will simply say that I believe the solution has, in principle, been found; that a change should be made in our constitution so that a new Imperial authority comes into being representative of all parts, debarred from interfering in `e local affairs of any self-governing part, dealing o. .y with their common affairs, and to whose budget each should contribute its proportionate quota.

slowly no doubt and by degrees, but none the less surely. I am not at all sure that the influence of that robust democratic confidence which is so marked in the Dominions will not be required in Downing Street, before we concede that measure of self-government to India, when the time for it has come, that will be necessary if the British Empire is to achieve its greatest work.

"I have given you the reasons why I am an Imperialist. You may not agree with them, but I would, in conclusion, earnestly ask you to consider what the alternative to the Imperialist programme means. I say to you deliberately that I am convinced that the future of the Empire rests with the Dominions. The United Kingdom alone cannot long continue to sustain so great a fabric. Therefore, gentlemen, before you reject Imperialism, think well what your act implies. It implies far more than your severance from us at home. It implies the eventual disappearance of the Imperial system which has nurtured you into being; the creation of five new nations independent one of another and possessed of no better method of settling their disputes than war; the rise of the dependencies—of India, Egupt and the rest—into hostile powers, certainly hostile to you and us and certainly allied with our foes. It implies a new lease of life for armaments and war—a new blaze in the ancient feud between East and West, and above all the deliberate rejection and destruction of the possibility of bringing to fruition perhaps the greatest political vision which has yet dawned upon mankind."

Anyone who wishes either to join or to form a Round Table Group is invited to communicate with the Secretary, The Round Table, 84 St. Mary St., Toronto, who will furnish all necessary information.