MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1917. "EMPIRE" AND ITS MEANING.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 55, 5 March 1917, Page 4

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1917. "EMPIRE" AND ITS MEANING.

Many years ago a distinguished foreigner said that the English attached too much importance to names. Had he lived he would have noted as instances the strong prejudice some British people have against the words "Empire" and "Imperialism." We are reminded of this by a question put to the Colonial Secretary a few days ago in the House of Commons. An Irish M.P. asked Mr. Bonar Law whether he would "discourage the use of the word Empire because it implied military domination." The fact that it was an Irishman who raised the point does not really matter. Many Englishmen and colonials take the same view of the Empire. To them the word suggests purple Emperors and "prancing pro-Consuls," tyranny and tribute. It recalls the domination of Rome and the selfishness and cruelty of Spain. They do not reflect that with us "Empire" and "Imperialism" cover not only India, but the self-governing Dominions, and consequently these words no longer fit the ideas so long associated •with them. It is true that tlie word "Empire" still carries a suggestion of military domination. But the very word "government" contains a similar suggestion, for government finally rests on some kind of force. Australia, apart from this war, is a democratic federation with pacific ideals, but if one of the States decided to secede from the Federation, the central Government would take up arms to coerce it, just as the Northern States of America did in 1861. The United States is not a military or warloving nation, but it has an oversea Empire, which it has to garrison. The British Empire differs from the Empires of the past, in the degree of its military domination, the ideals that influence its government, and the fact that so much of it has powers 'of selfgovernment never before equalled. Broadly speaking, it may be said that in the past Empires were governed for the benefit of the ruling nation, but that in the British Empire the interests of the governed are the first consideration. The Romans exacted heavy tributes from their dependencies, and regarded the provinces, apart from their value as strategic frontiers, solely from the point of view of revenue. Great Britain itself finances the development of backward Crown colonies, and the Government of India raises a loan, not a tribute, to help Britain in the great war.- In his book on this subject Lord Cromer says that if a Roman Imperialist had been asked what were the main objects of the Imperial policy, he would have said that he wished above all things to hold the provinces, either because they were profitable, or because they were protection against inroads of barbarians, and that "the last thing he intended was to put into the heads of provincials that, by copying Rome and Roman customs, they would acquire a right to sever their connection with the Empire and to govern themselves." But the English Imperialist of to-day would be- puzzled to give any definite answer, "for he is in truth always striving to attain two ideals, ■which are apt to be mutually destructive—the ideal of good government, which, connotes the continuance of his own supremacy, and the ideal of selfgovernment, which connotes the whole or partial abdication of his supreme position." Lord Cromer is here considering only the oversea Empire outside the Dominions. If the -word "Empire" is not quite satisfactory, it is the Dominions that make it so, for the word embraces systems of government so fa apart as that of the protectorate of Egypt and that of South Africa, where Britain's enemies of fifteen years ago now enjoy self-government. But the word "Empire" will not be dropped. There is no substitute, and if there were, very good cause would have to be shown before the British would consent to abolish a word with such honourable traditions. "Under the protection of its laws one-quarter of the people of the earth live in peace and unity," says an English lecturer on the Empire. "It guarantees to every individual, of whatever race or colour, an equal liberty before the law. It protects them from devastation from without, and from disorders from within. It -bridges, in its laws and institutions, the gulf between East and West, between white and black, between race and race. It is even able to give full liberty to nationalism, and yet combine it with loyalty to a greater Commonwealth. To all it promises not good government only, but eventual self-government. ... It is easy to point to defects in its administration and its institutions. The room for improvement and progress is infinite. None the less it does, in its imperfect human way, meet an essential human need, and that is why it exists, and why it must continue to exist." Before one condemns "Imperialism" it is advisable to think what it means. It may include highly undesirable things, but it does include all 'hat this Englishman puts into his admirable summary. The problems of *he Empire cannot be solved by ignoring it or misunderstanding what it represents.