The British Empire, then, is so called, not because of the title of its sovereign, but because of its political structure-because it is composed of a dominant or ruling state and of various other subordinate states.

"The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities: One as the local legislature of this island The other,

.

nobler capacity, is what I call her imperial character; in which she superintends all the several inferior legislatures" (a).

The British Empire, therefore, is the aggregation of subject territories ruled over by the United Kingdom. But if that be true, then, as is pointed out in No. 1 of The Kingdom Papers, Canada cannot be part of the British Empire. We continue to use the phrase, but, so far as Canada is concerned, it has been emptied of its meaning by our success in acquiring the undisputed right to rule ourselves. It was to this fact that Lord Milner (the chief of British imperialists) referred, in the sentences quoted in that Paper (p 12):

"The word empire has, in some respects, an unfortunate effect. It, no doubt, fairly describes the position as between the United Kingdom and subject countries such as India or our Central African possessions. But for the relations existing between the United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies, it is a misnomer, and with the idea of ascendancy, of domination, inevitably associated with it, a very unfortunate misnomer.”

We ought, therefore, to discard such phrases as "Canada is a nation within the Empire;" "Canada is an integral part of the Empire," for such is not the fact. The assertion that "Canada is loyal to the Empire" is, indeed, the precise contrary of the fact. From earliest times, Canada's constant struggle was to be free from imperial control; and now she rejoices that she has practically ceased to be a colony ruled over by anybody outside herself—has practically ceased to be a part of the "colonial empire" of the United Kingdom.

In No. 1 of the Kingdom papers, I said that the meaning of the word empire was better understood in England than here. Many Canadians will, for example, disagree with the language which I have been employing, while, for defence, I beg to quote from an article in The Saturday Review of 25th July, 1908:—

"As an empire how does the British nation throughout the world now stand? Wolfe would have been amazed indeed could he have foreseen the present position. This 'empire,' which he made possible, has no imperial army; there is

(a) Burke's speech on American taxation: Works I, 174.

no military defensive force drawn from every part of the 'empire,' and to which every part of the 'empire' must contribute either in men or money. There is no imperial navy in the only true sense of the word, that the whole empire helps to keep it up. There is no imperial citizenship, for the King's subjects born in one part of the empire may be, and are, forbidden entry into other parts of the 'empire,' not by decision of any authority representing the whole 'empire' but by a local authority. To be a British subject does not carry with it even elementary rights against an authority that does not profess to represent the British empire. In this 'empire' there is nothing to distinguish the commercial treatment of some parts of the 'empire' by other parts, from their treatment of a foreign country. In other words, these parts are to each other, from a commercial point of view, just foreign nations. Any part of the 'empire' may constitutionally give better treatment to a foreign country than to another part of the empire. This empire has no imperial government. There is no authority which represents the empire as a whole, no authority which has power to enforce its decisions in every part of the empire alike.

Where, then, Wolfe might well ask, does the empire come in? If we were honest, we should have to answer that it does not come in at all. The plain truth is that there is no British empire. In the strict sense, it obviously is not an empire; neither, as it seems to us, is it an empire in any real sense at all. And we shall get no further until we recognize this without blinking. This must be the starting-point for future development. We shall lose nothing by looking facts in the face; by admitting the truth."

The writer referred to the Boer war as evidence "that there is a British imperial soul," but he added that it also

"showed the difficulty it had to express itself. There was general and enthus iastic support from the English peoples against the Dutch Republics and the Dutch seceders But the military authorities could not know beforehand what colonial force could be counted on; there was no authority anywhere that could claim colonial assistance as a right. More serious still, the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, one of the Cape Dutch but not a rebel, defined his policy as ‘keeping the colony neutral.' Sir Wilfrid Laurier, too, laid down as a principle that Canada would not send troops unless the government approved of the object of the war. These two statements of policy are the flat negation not only of empire, but of national unity at all. They are particularism, or regionalism, pure and simple."

IMPERIALISM: Having now, it is hoped, a clear idea of the meaning of the word empire, we may consider its derivative imperialism. Imperialism may relate either (1) to the title of the sovereign; (2) to the character of his rule; or, (3) to the relation of one state to another. Before proceeding to discuss these meanings, let me, with the help of a little table, resume what has been said, and indicate more clearly the suggested classification:

An empire is either:

1. A government in which the sovereign has the title of emperor; or

2. An aggregate of subject territories ruled over by a sovereign state.

Canada is not ruled over by an emperor; and, she is not a subject territory ruled over by any sovereign state. Canada is, therefore, not an empire, or a part of an empire.

Imperialism relates to:

1. The title of the sovereign

-titular-imperialism;

2. The character of the jurisdiction exercised by the sovereign over his own state- -personal-imperialism; or,

3. The inter-relation of states; which, in turn, may relate to;
(1) The extent of the subordinate territory-territorial-
imperialism:

(a) The acquisition of new subject territory; or,

(b) The retention of subject territory already acquired. (2) The character of the jurisdiction exercised by the dominant state over the subordinate-state-imperialism.

The word empire connoting, as we have seen subordination we may readily accept the following language of Mr. Herbert Spencer with reference to imperialism:

"Not the derivation of the word only, but all its uses and associations, imply the thought of predominance-imply a correlative subordination. Actual or potential coercion of others, individuals or communities, is necessarily involved in the conception" (a).

1. TITULAR IMPERIALISM: Imperialism, in its relation to the title of the sovereign, need not detain us. The assumption by Queen Victoria of the title Empress of India is a good example of it. Brazil proclaimed an emperor in 1822, and Hayti in 1804. Gibbon tells us that:

"The barbarian conquerors of the west were pleased to decorate their chiefs with the title of emperor" (b).

2. PERSONAL IMPERIALISM: Quotation from Mr. Jas. Bryce exhibits imperialism of the second kind.

"The comparison of the old Roman Empire, with its Germanic representative raises a question which has been a good deal canvassed of late years. That wonderful system which Julius Cæsar and his subtle nephew erected upon the ruins of the republican constitution of Rome has been made the type of a certain form of government and of a certain set of social as well as political arrangements, to which, or rather to the theory whereof they are a part, there has been given the name of imperialism. The sacrifice of the individual to the mass, the concen

(a) Facts and Comments, p. 157.

(b) Decline and Fall, V. 68.

tration of all legislative and judicial powers in the person of the sovereign, the centralization of the administrative system, the maintenance of order by a large military force, the substitution of the influence of public opinion for the control of representative assemblies, are commonly taken, whether rightly or wrongly, to characterize that theory" (a).

In this sense, the word imperialism is used rather metaphorically than with primary signification: as, between states, imperialism means the exercise of controlling powers, so, in connection with the relation between sovereigns and subjects, a tendency to despotism may be spoken of as imperialism. One is state-imperialism, and the other personal-imperialism. References to the imperialism of the Kaiser are understood to relate to his idea of his divine right to govern the people committed by God to his care-not to the government by Germany of her colonies (state-imperialism) but to government by the sovereign of his subjects (personal-imperialism). For purposes of illustration or historical connection only, shall I in this Paper, refer to personal-imperialism.

3. TERRITORIAL IMPERIALISM: Imperialism, as manifested in the inter-relation of states, has two phases, and, in the first of them, it relates to the extent of the subordinate territory-to the desire either for the acquisition of new subject-territory, or for the retention of that already acquired. It is with this meaning that imperialism has formed the subject of so much debate in the United States (b). Although not now dealing with such imperialism, it cannot be passed over without calling attention (as usual) to the glory of the expansion of the British Empire, and the corresponding infamy of the selfish aggressions of other nations. Our audiences never fail to acclaim the refrain:

Wider still and wider

May thy bounds be set;

God who made thee mighty

Make thee mightier yet.

Such aspirations we hold to be not only quite legitimate, but perfectly commendable, and highly patriotic. At the same time, we feel perfectly sure that, if sung in Russia, the language ought to be regarded as most reprehensible incitement to predatory encroachment upon the territory of other people. Were it indulged by a single American, it would be denounced, by some people in Canada, as an impudent bit of swaggering menace, and as an amply sufficient reason for limiting our trade relations with his country

men.

(a) The Holy Roman Empire, p. 378.

(b) See Goldwin Smith's Commonwealth or Empire.

State-Imperialism.—It is of imperialism referred to in the last item of the analysis that I wish to treat in the present paper-imperialism in its relation to the character of the jurisdiction exercised by one dominant state over a subordinate state; the only sort of imperialism that we have ever had in Canada.

IMPERIALISM VS. NATIONALISM.

State-imperialism and nationalism are, of course, irreconcilable enemies. As personal-imperialism (within a state) is the foe of popular government, so state-imperialism (the assertion by one state of a right to rule another) is in its very nature antagonistic to the nationalism of the subject-state. In other words it is impossible for a community to be a self-governing nation, and, at the same time, to be a part of the empire of another nation. It cannot be free and subject, sovereign and subordinate, at the same time.

Roman Imperialism.-The nationalism of Europe, for example, was won from the imperialism of the Roman (or rather Teutonic) Emperors. Mr. James Bryce has said:

"As despotic monarchs, claiming the world for their realm, the Teutonic Emperors strove from the first against three principles, over all of which their forerunners of the elder Rome had triumphed—those of Nationality, Aristocracy and Popular Freedom. Their early struggles were against the first of these, and ended with its victory, in the emancipation, one after another, of England, France, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Burgundy and Italy" (a).

Napoleonic Imperialism.-Napoleon essayed the suppression of nationalism in Europe and the re-creation of imperialistic power. But nationalism was too strong for him. As he himself said "I came too late.” His partial successes were obliterated by the Vienna Congress.

Later European Imperialism.—More recently the revolt of nationalism may be seen in the separation of Holland and Belgium, and the liberation of Greece from Turkey. The strength of national feeling has been exhibited also in the unification of Italy and the federation of Germany. There are still some examples of state-imperialism in Europe; and Prussia, with its strong tendency towards the exercise of authority over her smaller sister-states, may shortly furnish us with a further instance.

(a) The Holy Roman Empire, p. 391. It is not generally known that British Kings for nearly a hundred years (1714-1806), had the right to vote at the elections of Roman Emperors.