ENGLISH SELFISHNESS.
IF there is one charge which is more frequently levelled against Great Britain than another, it is that of un- bounded selfishness in her foreign relations. Among our neighbours across the Channel, this has passed into a proverb ; and though other nations are less outspoken in their expressibn of this feeling, they hold to the same opinion none the less. If this country annexes a new strip of bar- barian territory, or opens for herself a new market, if she protects a native Sovereign in one corner of the globe, or succours oppressed nations in another, the critics of Europe have one favourite explanation,—the undisguised selfish- ness of a perfidious race. They are fond of dilating on the profound hypocrisy wherewith Great Britain sometimes cloaks her efforts at aggression ; and even the missionary, Bible in hand, who acts as pioneer to British soldiers, is pilloried for the edification of posterity as he was pilloried in the pages of Heine. Such an idea as disinterestedness on our part is laughed to scorn, and our progress becomes for them only the more hateful from the plea we too often set up, that it is for the good of the native population.
Perhaps the best answer to such charges is to admit frankly a considerable proportion of truth in them, showing at the same time that they are, after all, capable of considerable justification. A cosmopolitan, in the immortal words of Lord Beaconsfield, is a man who loves every country save his own ; and altruism never has been and never can be the guiding force in international relations. So long as we recognise that one nation differs profoundly from another (and many publicists would wish this difference obliterated), so long will selfishness, sometimes enlightened, generally short- sighted, be the influence that rules the Foreign policy of a country. The difference in language and character that marks off one people from another will of necessity extend to their external affairs ; their interests cannot coincide with those of their neighbours, or if they do coincide, it will only be for a short space, and the tendency to diverge will be ever present. The mere fact of geographical separation will make two countries look at the same object with totally different eyes. And this necessity for selfishness is so old a factor in politics that it is strange that it can still be used as an ever-ready weapon with which to attack this country. It is, of course, obvious that there are certain things inherent in the position of England which render such an attack peculiarly easy. In the first place, she possesses a certain isolation enjoyed by no other European Power. She is untrammelled by questions of frontier and boundary ; she is not called on to be for ever conciliating this country, or opposing that. France, Germany, or Austria, each with its enormous line of i frontier, every league of which has to be in a state of defence, cannot help being jealous of an Island Power which can by no virtue of its own proceed on its way unhampered by these annoyances and perils. Her unique position puts England, now as always, outside the European concert, and marks her off from the other European Powers. But the main reason why England is regarded with eyes so hostile by her neighbours, is without doubt her unrivalled success in creating an Empire. She entered into the race for Colonial supremacy very late, and she ended by outstrip- ping all her rivals. In the seventeenth century, we find Holland spoken of as the typically selfish Power. In spite of her militant Protestantism, she was for long an object of suspicion and hatred to England, and Dryden can find no words strong enough to stigmatise her rapacity. The reason is easy to discover. Holland at the time possessed a flourishing Colonial Empire, and bade fair to beat all other European nations in the race for commercial supremacy. Without attempting to institute a his- torical parallel between England and Holland (which could not be other than misleading), we are forced to recognise this element of similarity in the vast Colonial Empire possessed by England at the present day. France can never easily forget the fact that she was at one time within a little of possessing India, Canada, and Australia, and though Germany has made great strides of late years, her possessions are yet far behind those of England, whether in extent or value. Thus it is impossible alto- gether not to sympathise with foreign nations when they maintain that England has enough already and should not be for ever attempting to gain more land. Her position makes of England a target obvious and tempting to the Chauvinists of other lands. And if Germany perpetually urges the rebuke of selfishness, she should at least remember several occasions when but for English assistance she would have been at the mercy of France ; moreover, it is still an open ques- tion whether England could not have done better by pursuing her Colonial schemes unhindered, and leaving France and Germany to fight out their own quarrels by themselves.
But rating the selfishness of England in her struggles for expansion at its very highest, it is difficult to deny to that selfishness the quality of enlightenment. Wherever she has implanted her rule, it has been on the whole for the good of the governed. Without claiming perfection for the English law and English administrators, it must yet be admitted that they approach as near to abstract justice in their relations to subject peoples as is possible in this very imperfect world. Trade privileges are thrown open to all her subjects, their efforts to better themselves are unhindered or even encouraged by their rulers. Moreover, this country early inculcated the principle of even-handed justice between man and man ; and from this principle she has never varied. The same law for both Englishman and native is the unchanging rule, and as a result the subject populations live in security and good order. It is yet an undecided question how far it suits the personal idiosyncrasies of Mussulman and Hindoo that they can no longer bribe Judges to their side, or take their own by the strong hand when bribery has failed. But if we are to accept the definition of the well- ordered state, which obtains in the Western world, and believe that country to be happy where Courts are incorruptible, and life and property secure, then it must be admitted that India has profited by English rule. Nor would it be hard to demonstrate the exis- tence of similar dealings by England with other subject races. If the all but universal testimony of South African politicians and publicists be accepted, then we have an excellent case in point when we contrast our own relations to the Zulus with those of our Dutch neighbours in the Transvaal. For oppression is the method employed by the one, and fair dealing by the other. Indeed, we believe it would be hard to point to a single instance of flagrant injustice or oppression at the hands of English rulers,— at least, in recent times. It is of course open to our foreign critics to question our motives, and maintain that such a policy is the very acme of selfishness, in that it renders the government of these subject races easier and less liable to be overturned. But it is rather late in the day to introduce the vexed question of motives. If the results be good, we have not much reason to cavil at the means ; and if both means and ends are satisfactory, it would be idle to deny that the motives for such a policy are prompted by some higher qualities than force and greed. Least of all have the French and their par- tisans in Egypt any just ground for abusing our occupation of that mismanaged land. In this instance, again, government by Englishmen has produced a marked improvement all round. Egyptian finances are being straightened, and there exists an orderly gnov ernment and an upright justiciary,—things unknown gIpt since the fall of the Roman Empire. In this work France had chance of participating. She was in the field sooner g than England, and she joined that Power sent to Arabi Pasha, previous to the bombardment of Alexandria. It was of her own free will that she afterwards withdrew and washed her hands of the affairs of Egypt. To abuse England now for having carried out her share of h is, we must say, puerile a bargain that France repudiated, rile in the extreme. If to these eccentricities she add wholesale intrigue against England amongst Egyptian officials, she must really cease to arrogate for England the exclusive title of " perfidious."
While thus defending in the main the action of England in her career of expansion, we would not for a moment deny the existence of a certain amount of smug self-righteousness which is quite peculiar to this country. There exists undoubtedly a species of cheap complacency in our utterances with regard to our foreign and Colonial policy which give our foreign critics good right to jibe. Let us recognise by all means our right to expand our possessions and influence wherever necessary, and let us be proud of the good order which is the invariable attendant of such expansion. But do not let us say that we do these things solely in the interests of humanity and of religion, for these outpourings from Exeter Hall are neither expedient nor honest.
Previous page
