THE BRITISH WAY WITH IMPERIALISM

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28896, 16 May 1959, Page 3

THE BRITISH WAY WITH IMPERIALISM

[Reviewed by J. H. E.]

The Imperial Idea And Its Enemies. A study in British Power by A. P. Thornton, 360 PPFor Professor Thornton Imperialism is, in Lord Rosebery’s description of 1899 “that greater pride in Empire which is called Imperialism and is a larger patriotism,” and the purpose of this book, as declared in the Preface is to set out and account for those changes in the British Empire which have been adopted by men in power, by men out of it, and by public opinion in general during the last hundred years, and to assess the impact these various attitudes have made at different times on the role played by Great Britain in world affairs. This is a formidable task, and one which Professor Thornton performs with a wealth of learning and vigour in this relatively short and very concentrated book. Imperialism, he says, was “a faith and an emotion long before it became a political programme.” Going back to Palmerston, he shows us how the imperial idea emerged during the nineteenth century and increased in momentum as new forces grew in Europe and elsewhere and new opportunities of expansion were offered so that Disraeli saw that if British power was to be maintained Great Britain must act accordingly. In the years between 1890 and 1902 the imperial idea was in its zenith (and Professor Thornton gives us some light relief in his assessment of the influence of G. A. Henty), but after 1902 the South African War and its aftermath had robbed it of much of its moral content—and also of the tacit European support on which its effectiveness largely depended. Nevertheless the Empire survived the 1914 war, from which it derived much strength in the Middle East and, in Mr Amory’s words, continuity of territory or of control between Egypt and India was secured. <&&&& After 1918, self-determination was fashionable, and the rise of nationalism, hostile to the imperial idea, was bound to have a great effect on the attitude to Empire. Later in the book Professor Thornton quotes Cromer’s dictum: ‘The Englishman as imperialist is always striving to maintain two ideals which are apt to be mutually destructive—the ideal of good government which connotes the continuance of his supremacy, and the ideal of self-government which connotes the whole or partial abdication of his supreme position.’ A great deal of what this book records and discusses is a commentary on this statement. What was to be done about Indian nationalism? Ramsay Macdonald quoted Macaulay: ‘lf men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed

wait for ever,’ but the imperialist view was that if we handed over India to the Indians, only a few Indians would benefit by our departure. How could we reconcile the maintenance of our interests in the Middle East with the effective recognition of Egypt as the sovereign state which we had proclaimed her to be? The growth of the national idea in Canada—legislatively independent but by no means so politically—posed a problem of a different kind, but when war came in 1939 the imperial link was strong enough to stand the strain.

There were other problems between the two wars. The growth of democracy and the Labour attitude *° Empire, the need for British power to maintain British interests and the reconciliation of those interests with the ideas of the League of Nations, the pacifism which distrusted militarism, the drift of the critical intelligentsia from patriotism, the fact that ‘no-one led the democracy because no-one knew where the democracy wanted to go”—all these made it difficult for the imperial idea to assert itself, but the war against Hitler led to a revival (and to American and Russian suspicion of British motives). Since then, of course, the idea of Empire has been replaced by that of Commonwealth, but some of the problems remained. Was Indian independence when it finally came an abdication of power, or the fulfilment of the British mission in India? Public opinion now inclined to the latter view, believing that self-govern-ment was better than good government. Nor, we may add, has it apparently altered since as we have witnessed the offer of independence to other parts of the British Empire, which have eagerly accepted it. In England, says Professor Thornton, both parties have come to see the British Commonwealth as a moral and political necessity. There has been a different attitude towards the Middle East, and what many people have come to call “The Suez adventure” in 1956 “contained all the emotional elements imperialism had ever had.” The conclusion is that one of the original imperial ideas is still powerful—that of moral leadership. The very existence of the Commonwealth preserves certain bonds which have to be reckoned with politically. It is relevant to add that imperialism in its best days, of its best type, as Professor Thornton says earlier in his book, was alway quoted with service, and not only Great Britain but the older Dominions also have much to give both culturally and technically to the newly independent member of the Commonwealth family. This is an interesting and stimulating book for those who wish to understand the historical and ideological background to the modern responsibilities of the Commonwealth.