UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA THE EMPIRE. THE following series of Letters appeared, with two exceptions, in The Daily News, (1862, 1863). My best thanks are due to the Editor of that journal for the readiness with which he admitted them into his columns. He always lends a generous protection to independent thought, the salt without which all our liberties would lose their savour. I did not intend, when the letters were written, to reprint them in that form; but when I tried to put the matter of them into a more regular shape, I found that the discussion which ran through the series had followed the main lines of thought, and that in attempting to be more methodical I only became less clear. Most of the letters, however, have been revised; some have been amplified, partly by taking up into them defences of their arguments which originally appeared in short supplementary letters; to some, more appropriate titles have been given. The order of subjects has been substituted for the order of dates, but the dates have been retained, because in some cases they point to the occasions on which the letters were written. The first of the series, with the article of The Times appended, stands as it was. The Times' article is most valuable, because it gives the reader, on the best possible authority, the dominant view of the question, and the arguments by which that view is supported. We may be sure that we have in it the reasons which mainly govern official men in maintaining the present system. It is rather personal in its language, but I dare say its personality will not shock the reader any more than it hurts me. Vituperation, indeed, when used in controversy, sometimes helps us to a judgment: it is the surest proof that on the side on which it is used the arguments are exhausted and the case is complete. The first letter was occasioned by the affair of the "Trent," which revealed the danger of the present connexion between Canada and England. The shadow of that danger still falls upon these pages. But it is hoped that no argument will be found in them which can fairly be ascribed to panic, or which reason would, on that account, refuse to consider in the calmest hour. To rea son, of course, all arguments must be addressed. It would be vain to address them to tyrannical and insensate pride. It would have been vain to argue with a Roman or a Spanish despot about the expediency of cutting off a part of his overgrown dominions, though to the eyes of any man in his senses that expediency might have been most clear. I am not careful to defend myself against the charge of being wanting in patriotism if I suggest that the strength and wealth of England might be increased by resigning useless dependencies. No Englishman, whose interest lies wholly in England, ought to be very careful to defend himself against the charge of seeking, in the discussion of public questions, any object but the happiness and greatness of his country. I am as little careful to defend myself against the charge of being sordid if I argue against the needless expenditure of public money. Public money is spent by ambitious politicians; it is mainly made by peasants and artisans, who have no share in the pleasures of ambition. Nor are a cheap policy and a great policy opposed to each other. A truly great policy is generally cheap, because it has the moral forces on its side. Economy follows it unsought, just as in individual men loftiness of aim, though not studious of parsimony, is generally attended by simplicity of life. The expense of aimless bluster is enormous, and so is the expense of making littleness pass for greatness. The term Empire is here taken in a wide sense, as including all that the nation holds beyond its own shores and waters by arms or in the way of dominion, as opposed to that natural influence which a great power, though confining itself to its own territories, always exercises in the world. In the case of our Empire this definition will embrace a motley mass of British Colonies, conquered Colonies of other European nations, conquered territories in India, military and maritime stations, and protectorates, including our practical protectorate of Turkey, as well as our legal protectorate of the Ionian Islands. These various dependencies stand in the most various relations to the Imperial country, some, such as India, being under our absolute dominion; while others, such as Canada, are in truth free nations dependent upon us only in name. The reasons, or alleged reasons, for retaining them are also of the most various kinds. In some cases they are political, in some military, in some commercial, in some diplomatic. Frequently these various reasons are blended together, but in different proportions. The pride of Empire, however, runs |