History of the British Empire

Charles Payne

• Publisher: Ozymandias Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781531286675
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

Twice since the Norman Conquest has the little country of England been the center of an empire: once when Henry II of England was at the same time master of half France; and now again when the Union Jack or the red ensign flies over cities and continents of which Henry Plantagenet never dreamed. Yet to use the same word to describe both of these empires seems unfortunate. Indeed, the use of the word "empire" is questionable in either case, only to be sanctioned because we seem to have no other word that will quite answer the purpose. For "empire" is a Roman word. Its use seems to imply in some way absolute power, the centralization which was so fundamentally characteristic of Rome. Yet the feudal empire of Henry II, so far from being centralized, was a mere bundle of separate lordships, thrown together by the accidents of conquest, marriage, and divorce. It was dashed to pieces in the reign of John, built again by Edward III, torn apart once more in the latter years of the fourteenth century, put together in a structure of surpassing glory by Henry V, and finally destroyed in the reign of his son. Through it all, for these three hundred years, England's own well-being and growth were something entirely apart from her connection with these other possessions of her king; the bond that united them had no root in national life.

THE EFFECTS OF THE GREAT WAR UPON THE EMPIRE

These homes, this valley spread below me here,

The rooks, the tilted stacks, the beasts in pen,

Have been the heartfelt things, past speaking dear

To unknown generations of dead men,

Who, century after century, held these farms

And, looking out to watch the changing sky,

Heard, as we hear, the rumors and alarms

Of war at hand and danger pressing nigh.

And knew, as we know, that the message meant

The breaking off of ties, the loss of friends,

Death, like a miser getting in his rent,

And no new stones laid where the pathway ends.

The harvest not yet won, the empty bin,

The friendly horses taken from the stalls,

The fallow from the hill not yet brought in,

The cracks unplastered in the leaking walls.

Yet heard the news, and went discouraged home,

And brooded by the fire with heavy mind,

With such dumb loving of the Berkshire loam

As breaks the dumb hearts of the English kind,

Then sadly rose and left the well loved Downs,

And so by ship to sea, and knew no more

The fields of home, the byres, the market towns,

Nor the dear outline of the English shore,

But knew the misery of the soaking trench,

The freezing in the rigging, the despair

In the revolting second of the wrench

When the blind soul is flung upon the air,

And died (uncouthly, most) in foreign lands

For some idea but dimly understood

Of an English city never built by hands,

Which love of England prompted and made good.

JOHN MASEFIELD.

This poem, August, 1914, by John Masefield, appears in Mr. Masefield Philip the King and Other Poems, copyright, 1914, by the Macmillan Company. It appears here by permission of the publishers.

On his visit to Harvard University shortly before the Great War began, Rudolf Eucken, the leading German philosopher, made the statement that the British Empire was rotten to the core, that at the first touch India, Ireland and South Africa would rise in rebellion and the whole edifice fall like a pack of cards! These conclusions, he said, were based on the evidence of paid German agents who kept the Imperial German government informed as to the exact conditions existing in various parts of the world. The events of the past four years form an interesting commentary on the German power to estimate spiritual values and on the efficiency of a system of espionage, for to-day the British Empire, firm, united and grimly determined, seems likely to be a chief factor in the defeat of German autocracy. And never has there been a more splendid and dramatic justification of a generous, just government than is shown in the enthusiasm and eagerness with which almost every part of the Empire has rallied to the Imperial cause.

This response has been prompted partly by gratitude and affection, but even more by the justice of the cause, for Britain entered the war chiefly on moral grounds. Doubtless commercial jealousy, fear of German naval power and imperial rivalry influenced some of the people, but they were few in number. Britainen masse, especially organized labor, could not have been carried wholeheartedly into the war, had it not been for the invasion of Belgium, which violated the traditional British love of justice and fair play.

In the midst of the conflict, it is not the part of the historian to pass final judgments. All that can be done is to draw conclusions from the evidence at hand, with the thought ever in mind that new documents and the perspective of time may later modify, if not displace, them. While the larger part of the world believes that Germany has run amuck and become a menace to civilization, the Germans regard themselves as an essentially peaceloving people upon whom war has been forced by jealous, intriguing, decadent neighbors. From their point of view they are a chosen race, whose superior civilization (Kultur) entitles them to leadership and territorial expansion, but France and Russia hem them in, while Britain prevents their colonial development. They are convinced that an autocratic state, with a huge standing army, is necessary for protection and a great navy to assure them “a place in the sun.” Their point of view was expressed by Emperor William in a speech to his army soon after the war began:

“Remember you are the chosen people. The spirit of the Lord has descended upon me because I am the Emperor of the Germans. I am the instrument of the Almighty; I am his sword, his agent. Woe and death to all those who shall oppose my will. Woe and death to those who do not believe in my mission. Let them perish. God demands their destruction.” The Kaiser’s favorite book, it may be added, is Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

Though the Germans insist that the war was forced upon them, nevertheless it is a significant fact that Germany and Austria have never published the correspondence that passed between them previous to the invasion of Servia. Moreover, a close study of the official statements issued by all the Powers involved has convinced the vast majority of American and neutral scholars that no diplomat could have struggled harder than did Sir Edward Grey to avert the conflict. All through the momentous days preceding August 4, 1914, he constantly impressed upon the Powers involved the necessity for more negotiation and still more negotiation, the need for modifying ultimatums and of postponing mobilization.

The latest (April, 1918) and most convincing proof of German and Austrian guilt is the memorandum of Prince Lichnowsky, German ambassador to England in 1914. In this he declares positively that England had showed the “greatest good-will” in commercial matters, that she never would have gone to war over German naval development, that Sir Edward Grey was friendly to German colonial expansion, and that England consistently followed a peace policy while Germany consistently followed a war policy. “My London mission,” concludes the document, “was wrecked not by the perfidy of the British but by the perfidy of our policy.”

Having made a peaceful settlement by negotiation impossible, Germany declared the treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality (to which she was herself a party) to be a “mere scrap of paper” and struck through that unhappy country in order to take the French on their unprotected frontier. The unexpected and heroic resistance of Belgium probably saved the allied cause, for the ten days’ delay enabled France and England to make some degree of preparation to meet the oncoming tide of invasion. Fighting against desperate odds, short of ammunition and equipment, the defenders were slowly forced back to the Marne. There the brilliant strategy of Field Marshal Joffre and General Foch turned the tide and Paris was saved.

Thus almost before she knew it Britain found herself engaged in a war with an empire the exact antithesis of herself in organization, policy and ideals. Save from a naval point of view she was utterly unprepared, has consequently had to “muddle through” as best she could, and has paid the price in costly mistakes. But her persistence and dogged determination have atoned in large measure for her blunders, and once under way her financial, industrial and military contributions have been a vital factor in “carrying on” the allied cause. The old individualistic, unprepared Britain has suddenly become a highly efficient, unified state. This transformation has been due first to the energy and resourcefulness of three men, David Lloyd-George, Earl Kitchener and Lord Northcliffe, and then to the splendid coöperation of the women of England, to the leadership of her university and public school men, and to the self-sacrifice and intelligence of British labor.

Perhaps the most important of these factors has been the personality and ability of Mr. Lloyd-George. Unlike most British statesmen, he has sprung from the masses and is not a university man. Born in a Welsh village and brought up by an uncle – the village cobbler – amidst poverty and hardship, he has never lost touch with and sympathy for the “inarticulate classes.” Through the sacrifice of his uncle he was able to secure a legal education, went into politics, and was soon returned to Parliament. He himself says that he has been greatly influenced by Milton and Lincoln, and the similarity of his life and interests to those of Lincoln strikes the American reader at once. In Parliament his qualities soon asserted themselves and he quickly sprang into prominence as an opponent of the Boer War. His Celtic imagination made him a fiery orator, and his wit and repartee a dangerous opponent in debate. Add to these qualities resourcefulness, marvelous powers of organization, a remarkable grasp of finance and a penchant for social reform, together with dash and persistence in the carrying out of his plans, and you have the most commanding figure in England. As Chancellor of the Exchequer under Mr. Asquith in 1909 he brought forth his famous budget, which placed the burden of taxation “on the broadest backs” and won for him the favor of the masses and the hatred of the classes. This was followed by the Old Age Pensions and State Insurance Acts which have done so much to alleviate the social misery of Britain and to establish the reputation of their author as a great administrator.

The daring innovator was just preparing to attack the land question when the war burst upon Europe and social legislation had to be abandoned in the death grapple that followed. Lloyd-George was soon made Minister of Munitions, and, having been granted wide powers by Parliament, he secured the coöperation of capital and labor by the following provisions: 1) compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes; 2) the keeping of skilled laborers out of the army; 3) the suspension of Trade Union regulations when they hampered production; 4) the elimination of excessive profits to employers. The results were almost immediate, and by 1917 nineteen times as much ammunition for light guns and two hundred and twenty times as much for heavy guns was produced as at the beginning of the war. Industrial organization was fully developed along all lines, and to-day Great Britain is supplying herself and the Allies in quantities sufficient to meet the demands of the situation.

Owing to a widespread conviction that unity of action could not be secured under a party government, a coalition ministry was formed with Mr. Asquith as premier, Lloyd- George Minister of Munitions and Kitchener Secretary of War. Late in 1916, however, serious differences arose between Lloyd-George and Mr. Asquith over the conduct of the war. The Northcliffe press, including the powerful Times, was scathing in its criticism of Mr. Asquith and loud in its demand for Lloyd-George as prime minister. It was evident that the public was of the same opinion and in December, 1916, Mr. Lloyd-George became prime minister, with Arthur J. Balfour as Secretary of State and Bonar Law Chancellor of the Exchequer. The conduct of Mr. Asquith, the deposed leader, has been admirable. He has consistently refused to hamper the new ministry and has given it his loyal support. To secure greater unity and rapidity of action an inner War Cabinet of five members was established, consisting of Lloyd-George, Bonar Law, Earl Curzon, Lord Milner and Arthur Henderson, leader of the labor party. Earl Curzon and Lord Milner have had wide administrative experience, the former as Viceroy of India and the latter in Egypt and South Africa. The cabinet as thus constituted was chiefly made up of Conservatives and with a few changes is still (April, 1918) in power.

At the outbreak of the war Lord Kitchener was universally regarded as the foremost military figure in the Empire. His splendid services in India, Egypt and South Africa, where he had revealed rare talents for organization, had won him the unbounded confidence of the people. Simple, silent, and determined, devoted heart and soul to his profession, he had impressed the public imagination, and his name was one to conjure with. Made Secretary of War August 5, 1914, he saw the magnitude and character of the coming struggle more clearly than any other, and immediately began to organize the country for a long and exhausting war. His calls for volunteers met with a magnificent response until by the close of 1915 over five million men had been raised. “Kitchener’s Mob” was rapidly transformed into an effective fighting machine which has sustained the splendid record of the original Expeditionary Force of 140,000 men sent to France within twelve days after the declaration of war.

In the meantime the Northcliffe press had been carrying on a vigorous campaign for universal military service. The public and the ministry were finally converted to the policy as more effective and more democratic than the volunteer system, splendid as had been its results. At the present time all men between 18 and 41, in some cases 50, are liable to service. One important feature of conscription is that it permits the government to conserve its supply of skilled laborers and to mobilize and distribute the manpower of the kingdom in the most effective and economical way.

In bringing about rapid changes in public opinion and therefore in public policy Lord Northcliffe, owner of the Times and some forty other papers, has been by long odds the greatest single force. His rise to the leadership of the British press has been sensational and dramatic, and these same qualities characterize his journalistic methods. Quick in decision, fearless in attack, careless of consistency and unhampered by convention or professional ethics, he has upset all the traditions of conservative British journalism. He makes and unmakes ministers and even ministries almost at will, and altogether exercises a power dangerously close to despotism. Whether on the whole he has wielded his power more to the advantage or the disadvantage of the country, it is yet too soon to determine, but on at least two questions, high explosives and conscription, events have long since justified his position.

But personalities however forceful must have support, so let us turn to the part played by the various classes of the nation. Most striking, of course, has been that of the women; their magnanimity, loyalty, sacrifice and adaptability deserve special praise. Under the resourceful leadership of Mrs. Pankhurst they had been carrying on for several years a militant campaign for the removal of their legal and political inequalities. They had resorted to destructive and revolutionary tactics, such as picketing Parliament and destroying historic buildings. There was developing a hopeless chasm between them and the government, supported by an irritated public. With the declaration of war, however, all agitation was dropped, and Mrs. Pankhurst and her organization placed themselves at the service of the government, and have been among its most effective agents in mobilizing the nation and its resources.

Not only the “militants” but women of all classes and ranks have come to the front and shouldered responsibilities and duties hitherto undreamed of. Thousands of women who had led sheltered lives are now acting as clerks, nurses, tram and bus conductors, engine cleaners, agricultural workers, motor drivers and in many other occupations. In November, 1917, 1,302,000 women were employed on government works of all kinds. They have done sixty to seventy per cent. of the machine work on munitions and have contributed over 1400 trained mechanics for the Royal Flying Corps. The women of England have shown a loyalty and devotion never surpassed, and it is gratifying to note that the nation has recognized the fact and shown its appreciation in the Franchise Act of 1918 which gives the ballot to over six million women. The age of eligibility is fixed at 30, and the franchise is limited to certain classes, but it is a great step forward and is doubtless but the beginning of legislation which will eventually bring entire equality.

If the record of the women of Britain has been highly creditable, that of British labor has been equally so. As soon as the government had provided against excessive war profits on the part of capital, labor cheerfully waived for the duration of the war all Trade Union regulations which interfered with maximum production. Men have worked overtime, relinquished holidays, and have displayed an intelligence and self-sacrifice that are inspiring to all believers in democracy.

While organized labor and the women have perhaps played the most striking part in the mobilization of Britain, it is proof of the soundness of her body politic that no class or section has failed to respond to her need with equal enthusiasm. The nobility has more than lived up to its traditions in the army and navy, and has set an example to the nation in self-sacrifice, service and leadership of all kinds. Large estates, palaces and country homes have been turned over to the government for use as hospitals, factories, and barracks, while large and generous gifts have been made to the various relief funds. The same is true of the universities, technical and public schools. The liberal character of English higher education, developing self-reliance and a sense of responsibility, has proved an excellent training for leadership in such a crisis. To-day Oxford and Cambridge are practically deserted. Their sons are officering the army and navy and serving in hospitals, laboratories and relief work. The public schools, like Eton and Rugby, and the technical institutions have been no whit behind them either in enthusiasm or service. College buildings are everywhere being largely devoted to government purposes, while the faculties have devoted themselves to experimentation in government laboratorie...